Last week, a friend and I were discussing the concept of modesty. Who really has the authority to determine whether something is modest or not? Is it the person who wears the clothing? Or is it the viewer of the person who is wearing the clothing in question? Or perhaps both? As we talked about this idea, I suggested that the person who wears clothing should have the authority to determine whether his or her clothing is modest. If someone is wearing something with the intent of being sexy or suggestive, then such clothing should not be considered modest.I began thinking about this conversation today, when I noticed someone post this image of Emma Watson on Facebook (see above), which includes an excerpt from this quote by Watson: "What's sexy about saying, 'I'm here with my boobs and a short skirt, have a look at everything I've got?' My idea of sexy is that less is more. The less you reveal the more people can wonder."
I've seen this image and quote before - it seems to get circulated intermittently in LDS circles. I have to admit, I think that such circulation is a little ironic. Yes, it makes sense that LDS people would want to promote Watson's idea of modesty covering up your body. But if you read the quote, Watson is still promoting sexiness and self-objectification. I don't think this constitutes modesty from an LDS perspective. In theory, Mormons promote modesty as a way to avoid provoking sexual (lustful) thoughts in others. (But perhaps the popularity of this image and quote among Mormons suggests that they actually want to be sexy, too?)
So, yes, Emma Watson does want to cover up her body. But she still wants others to think about her body. (It is actually this self-objectification that bothers me more than anything, mostly from a feminist standpoint. Argh!)
Thoughts, anyone?
Posts
19 comments:
hmm...well, we're sexual beings - the objectification will happen whether we want it to or not. and who doesn't want to be noticed or look attractive? I see what you mean from a feminist point of view - i wouldn't invite the objectification like Watson is in this ad, but it happens. at least SOMEONE in Hollywood's got some modesty!
Those are good thoughts, joolee. You're right that objectification happens, regardless of whether it is invited or not.
Do people think that there is a difference between being sexy and looking attractive? Given the context of her quote, I feel like Watson seems to be more interested in being sexy than being merely attractive (i.e. looking nice).
So glad you posted this, if only because I have also been thinking a lot about modesty lately but haven't really found a good outlet for my thoughts!
I've seen this poster once or twice before on Mormon blogs, and what bothers me about it is that it is obviously from years and years ago. As an adult, she doesn't have anything against short skirts or cleavage or other clothing that would be considered immodest by Mormon standards. (That's not a judgment against her - I think she usually looks much classier than many of her movie star peers.) But it just seems like a foolish strategy to latch onto to teach modesty - "be (Mormon) modest like this movie star...who doesn't actually know anything about (Mormon) modesty!"
I also agree that the quote is encouraging modesty for the wrong reasons. I would like for my daughter to dress modestly out of a sense of self-worth and self-respect because she knows her divine nature, not because she thinks it will attract more boys or even the 'right kind' of boys.
Here are some other articles on modesty that have gotten my brain-juices flowing this summer, in case you're interested!
http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/09/perverting-modesty/
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/06/stop-telling-the-yw-to-be-modest-for-the-ym/
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Standards-Night-Is-Substandard-Teaching-Sexuality-to-the-Young-Women?offset=0&max=1
I hadn't seen this quote--thanks for bringing it up and raising some really interesting points!
I agree that Mormons promote modesty as a way to avoid provoking sexual thoughts in others. And I think that this approach to modesty is objectifying. Billboards that declare that "modest is hottest," warnings to women not to become "walking pornography" coupled with descriptions of "modestly"-dressed women as the most beautiful around and thus able to procure worthy husbands and get married in the temple all reduce the discourse to the female body as an object of consumption. I think that modesty as a principle is about self-love and self-respect above all: our bodies are amazing and beautiful, and we should be confident in them and with them.
I see your point about sexiness, attractiveness, and feminism. I do think, though, that feeling and wanting to look sexy aren't incompatible with feminism. Women should be able to determine how they want to look and for what reasons--their bodies are their own, and not just objects for the male gaze.
I obviously feel strongly about this issue. :)
There's another great post about modesty on Exponent. The gist is here:
"The Mormon emphasis on external, clothing-oriented modesty is just another form of sexualization. We attempt to negate the sexualization of young girls’ and women’s bodies by covering them up and locking them behind the door called Chastity. But when the female body is taboo because of its inherent sexuality (a sexuality so powerful that a woman literally turns herself into pornography for some men by dressing immodestly), and when women are celebrated almost exclusively because of their potential as breeders and nurturers of children, then we successfully sexualize the female body every bit as much as pushing heels, padded bras, plunging necklines, and miniskirts for pre-teens does. The invisibility of the female body, or of the attributes of the female body that stand for Sex, does not mean we have refused to grant the female body a sexualized status."
It doesn't directly answer the questions posed in your post, but I think it does effectively explain some of the problems inherent in the way many Mormons approach the idea of modesty.
I've enjoyed reading through everyones thoughts on this. I agree that women should dress modestly because they respect and love their bodies. I think "sexy" can be manifested in many different ways. Not just physically. Attitude, confidence, knowledge, etc all contribute to a womans attractiveness.
I think attractive and sexy can go hand in hand but many things can be attractive. An attractive room, attractive food, etc. But sexy directly refers to a physical desire for someone.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I sympathize with sentiments that modesty ought to be about loving yourself and the body you have. On the other hand, the newly-called seminary teacher in me is grateful for any message about modesty, doubting, as I do, that many YW in my ward have had much exposure to the concept.
In any case, I have some questions:
1. If choosing between a sexuality which subjects itself to the male gaze and a sexuality which subverts and controls the male gaze, is not the latter more empowering and feminist? Because that's what it seems Emma is after.
2. Is it realistic to separate any quality of sexuality from an ethic of modesty? I'm skeptical of an endeavor to isolate modesty from female sexuality, and I doubt its success. I am furthermore skeptical of conceptions of modesty which do not depend, in some way, on male interaction and opinion.
It seems that Mormon feminists are eager to adhere to modesty for reasons of self-respect and self-worth, and I sympathize 100%, yet the questions remain: "Why is wearing revealing clothing not conducive to self-respect and self-worth?" I believe men and their opinions are at the end of every trail of inquiry. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe it to be necessarily in tension with theoretical feminism.
Thanks for the comments! This post actually sparked an hour-long discussion between me and J last night, and we talked a lot about some of the ideas that people mentioned here. Jon, you'll be pleased to know that J brought up just about all of the issues that you left in your comment (before you had even posted them!). You two think alike. I agree with everything you said. I think that you have brought up some especially good points about feminism and thwarting the male gaze. This ties back to what joolee said in the first comment: objectification will happen whether it is invited or not. Perhaps it is better to focus on thwarting the male gaze...
Melanie brings up a good point about attractiveness (and what constitutes attractiveness). J and I talked about this word last night too. I think that Mormons (and women in general) want to be attractive, but it doesn't necessarily mean sexual attractiveness. In fact, Mormons are encouraged to care for their bodies (and by extension, I think this means their appearance, right?).
Jaime, those links were interesting! They tied into several of the ideas that Zillah and m.m. mentioned about how modesty is objectifying. I think that this is such a good point - by focusing on covering up the body, Mormons are still drawing attention to the body itself. What terrible irony.
I was especially interested in reading Jaime's first link, "Perverting Modesty." I think that it is a shame that modesty is such an externally-focused activity. In other words, people are always watching (and judging) to see whether others fit the "standard" of modesty. Is there any way to change this? Perhaps not. I wish that modesty (especially in LDS culture) could be a personal standard or idea, without constant dependance on an outside party. This goes back to what Jon said in his comment: Men and their opinions are at the end of every trail of enquiry. Sigh.
I really like the comments here. Just a few random and jumbled thoughts that don't do justice at all to this very complicated topic:
It's telling that this entire discussion of modesty has automatically equated modesty with women (I'm certainly guilty of this). Maybe thinking about the way that men can be modest can automatically pull us back to older usages of the term which imply restraint, not showing off, etc. Perhaps the idea is that if we are being truly modest in every aspect of our lives then the way that we perform modesty in our dress means that we aren't "showing off" our bodies.
Jon says: "It seems that Mormon feminists are eager to adhere to modesty for reasons of self-respect and self-worth, and I sympathize 100%, yet the questions remain: "Why is wearing revealing clothing not conducive to self-respect and self-worth?""
I've been thinking about this all day, especially in relation to some issues with the YW in my ward. I actually don't think that wearing revealing clothing is necessarily not conducive to self-respect and self-worth. I think that the key ultimately is that a person can dress for her/himself, and hopefully those choices come from a place of self-respect and love--however that manifests itself.
As a YW leader, what's most important to me is that the girls understand how wonderful and powerful their bodies are--and that they are sexual beings and they shouldn't be ashamed of that fact, along with the fact that they (the girls) have great abilities and worth that are not based on how the opposite sex responds to their physical appearance. I think it's really important to instill these ideas in them, and then to let them make their choices.
I certainly don't think that the physical standards of modesty the Church uses today in terms of sleeve length, etc., are eternal, and I suppose that I also don't think that modesty--whatever it means--is an eternal principle (along the lines of faith, hope, and charity) except as it relates to notions of pride and humility, as well as custodianship for our bodies.
Finally: I like to look attractive. And sometimes I like to look sexy. Don't tell my bishop--I also kind of like my calling.
Great thoughts, Zillah. I like what you said about how a person can dress of him/herself and how hopefully those choices come from self-respect.
I think that this goes back to how I would think a person should have the authority to define modesty. Similarly, a person should have the authority to say whether their dress choices come from a place of self-respect.
And, I agree with you: I don't think that modesty standards (in terms of sleeve length, etc.) promoted by the LDS church today are eternal principles. I think they are cultural (Western) constructs. The constructed nature of modesty standards isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it is important to be aware of that idea.
Very interesting post/comments! I wish I had gotten in on this a bit earlier, but here are my delayed thoughts:
I think the subject of modesty is culturally fascinating and entirely subjective: A Muslim woman in Yemen covers every bit of exposed flesh in public (except a wee portion of her face), but wears tight jeans and a low-cut shirt among other women or at home. American Mormons are loathe to show a shoulder. Brazilians think you're nuts if you wear a 1-piece swimming suit because what could be wrong about revealing one's belly (or a little more than that).
I agree with Zillah- I think if clothing is worn out of self-love or confidence, it is appropriate for that person. Just as Mormon standards of modesty have changed over the past 150 years, they will continue to change and adapt as time passes. They are not eternal. I wish people wouldn't be so quick to judge based on one's physical appearance (clothes, style, make-up, etc). We don't have to BE the same to worship the same God. Or any god for the matter.
All really great comment, so much has been said, but I must say something! Sorry…
I have been thinking about this very thing for the past couple of weeks and now, right before I read the blog, here at work we just had an interesting conversation about the body. Buddy, it is crazy that you would be thinking about this at the same time.
One of the girls in my primary class (I teach the 5-6 yr olds) got a new Disney Princess bag to carry her scriptures in for her birthday. During primary she started to get very squirmy (as usual) and in an attempt to get her to sit stiller (not still) I was having her name all of them for me. She named them and then promptly pointed out to me which ones were modest and which ones were not. Rapunzel and Cinderella were the only ones that made the cut.
I was shocked. Bell, in her yellow dress, immodest? The thought never occurred to me.
Then today at work, somehow our conversation turned towards art majors and figure drawing. We were talking about how a coworker’s art professor went to BYU for his undergrad, but had to go up to the U for figure drawing or else no grad program would take him. Another coworker was disgusted that would be case. Same co-worker was shocked when I told him that I take figure drawing classes at UVU. “What?” He exclaimed, “They are naked?” He asked me what the point was, why draw naked people? After blabbing a little on about classical training and watching his eyes glaze over I ended with, “The human body is beautiful and should be celebrated.”
Which is true! The human body is a wonderful, beautiful, sexual thing and all aspects of it should be celebrated.
This all makes modesty for me is more about projection. I want people to look at my body when they look at me, because my body is me. No objectification needed. I dress to project an image. Maybe our modesty conversations with YW/YM should be more about what they want to project and not how covering up is sexy?
Should we maybe be encouraging them (and ourselves) to learn who they are and what they want to be and then to project that. After all, boys/girls are going to have bad thoughts no matter what you are wearing.
In short, show off those shoulders Bell! You are modest to me!
longest comment ever..sorry
I like what you have said, ixoj and phin. Ixoj, I actually thought about you quite a bit in relation to this topic - mostly because J and I had a recent conversation (sparked by this post) about burkas and and veils that are worn by Muslim women. It kind of ties into what you are saying, too. It's interesting how many Westerners view the burka as being oppressive. (And I should say that I can understand that reasoning in some cases.) Apparently there can be too much modesty from a Western (and perhaps LDS?) standpoint. Would you agree? I'd be interested to know if you have further thoughts on this topic.
phin,I like your thought about how "your body is you." I think that makes a lot of sense. Obviously, doesn't mean that you have to draw attention to your body in a way that would make you feel uncomfortable - but you don't need to be ashamed of hiding who you (physically) are.
As for your Primary girl, I have to admit that story made me a little sad - partially because I can relate. I wish that I was not preconditioned at a young age to judge the appearance of people. I don't like doing it. But is it possible to avoid making judgment calls, when there are specific guidelines for the "right" and "wrong" approach to modesty? It seems inevitable, and I don't like that.
Interesting post and comments... I actually hadn't read that quote from Emma before. My initial reaction to what she was saying was, "What a refreshing idea from Hollywood!"...but almost immediately, I felt the same way that you did...that though this might be a better alternative than leaving nothing to the imagination, it still is about objectification.
I've been thinking about modesty lately as well. Having kids has made me lose weight (for some odd reason) and I'm skinnier now than I've been since junior high. It's been fun to go out and buy flattering clothes...but I feel a little funny about wearing them (especially to church!). I guess I feel like I shouldn't wear anything that makes me feel "sexy" at all at church... Interesting. :)
Also, with my daughter, I feel a need to teach her about modesty and that her body is a temple...but I feel the same way as you that I don't want her to judge people. Ugh.
And here is my two cents. I obviously have thought about this topic. And I am not trying to delve too deeply into my personal reasons for thinking the following:
1) I like feeling sexy. Perhaps this goes back to feeling so homely as a child, but I love to sometimes catch a glimpse of myself (on a good day) in the mirror and think "I look HOT!"
2)I don't even think it is possible for me to dress in a revealing way. I have somewhat of a concave chest, and I also have obvious perameters for the length of my clothing, top and bottom.
3) sexiness, for me, is totally about my self-confidence in feeling attractive. It makes me walk taller (and yeah, maybe with a little swagger) and hold up my head higher.
4) perhaps its more to do with a person's subjective definition of "sexy" "attractive" and "modest." I think we would like to place objective classifications on what modesty is, because then we could package it and sell it, and there would be no room for debate (which, there obviously is).
5) I think the mormom prohibition against "sexiness" is somewhat related to our nervousness about sex in general, and acknowledging that it might have more purposes than just procreation. BEcause acknowledging that sex could also be recreational, acknowledges that sexiness can actually be completely appropriate!
Tara: Wow, you're one of the lucky (and rare!) few that actually loses weight after having kids! I can see what you mean about feeling self-conscious in regards to wearing flattering clothes at church.
Rachael: You've brought up some good points, and I agree that the definition of "sexiness" is subjective from person to person (and from body type to body type! Ha ha!).
I also think that your argument for sexy clothes (in regards to sex-as-recreation) is also interesting, too. I'll have to think about it further, though. Do you think that would that mean that sexually-active LDS people can dress in a sexy manner, but unmarried (abstinent) Mormons cannot? Unmarried Mormons can't engage in that type of recreation, which would perhaps imply that type of clothing is therefore inappropriate...
Thank you! I totally thought the same thing the first time I read it.
Post a Comment