Food for thought: Modesty

“I think the pressure on women to expose themselves for the sake of titillating men is wrong, sexist and unfair. “Girls Gone Wild” is exploitative. Victoria’s Secret uses photoshop to mutilate models’ bodies and capitalize on the insecurities of young women, telling them that they need to look like an impossible ideal. Being against the modesty doctrine does not make me in favor of any of these things. That said, the choice between being “sexy” and being “modest” is an artificial one, designed to distract you from the fact that either way, you’re being objectified. If you accept that the purpose of your dress is either to attract men or to hide from them, you’ve accepted that your dress is not about you. It’s about the abstract male observer. “Sexy” is not the opposite of the modesty doctrine; they’re two sides of the same coin.”

Read the rest here. EDIT: The original essay has moved. You can read it here.

This entry was posted in Media and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Food for thought: Modesty

  1. valkyrie says:

    The article is gone now, but the part you posted is excellent.

Leave a Reply