That post of Jenifer Fulwiler's I was on about Thursday produced an incoherent argument that is worth noting. It comes from a commenter who calls herself Melissa. Here is an example of what I mean:
Let's take then one at a time.
First of all, what is sexual modesty? If we mean a tendency to dress or otherwise present our sexual selves modestly, for example, then the statement above is ludicrous. The degree of exhibitionism among women and society's tolerance for this has fluctuated wildly over the years. But anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the history of art will know that there is nothing even remotely isolated about current standards of dress.
Contemporary Islamic society (like the society of the time of Jesus) tends to impose very rigorous standards of modesty on women and the key word here is "impose". The cultures in our world where women have the greatest freedom are also the ones where women dress in the most exhibitionist fashion. The more reasonable conclusion here is that if we define sexual modesty narrowly as to mean the degree to which one flaunts one's sexuality, then women have considerably less of it than men do.
But Melissa is also conflating two different things. She is assuming that a woman is immodest about her sexuality that also means that woman is promiscuous. If you read her comments you will notice that she is constantly having to claim she has been misunderstood in that she has not conflated desire with promiscuity. But she has done just that. The truth about Melissa put as gently as I can is that she tends to define everything that other women do that she doesn't like as promiscuity.
But sticking just with dress, let me assure Melissa and any like her out there that this is simply not true. A woman flaunting her sexuality may be promiscuous but more likely she is not (the vast majority of women are not promiscuous). As any twenty-year old man in pursuit of sex can tell you, that a woman dresses in a sexually provocative way tells you nothing at all about the likelihood of actually having sex with her. Similarly, that rather dowdy woman with the loose-fitting corduroy pants and loose-fitting shirt with a turtleneck underneath it and no make up who never smiles at a man? She could be ridiculously promiscuous. The most promiscuous woman I have ever known dressed just like that.
Melissa also makes the mistake of assuming that men want sex more than women do because they want it more often. A man's sex drive may be be more consistent than a woman's but anyone who has had the privilege of seeing a woman in full flower will know just how awe inspiring and humbling it is for a man to see full-blown female desire. One thing is certain: "modesty" is not the word that comes to mind at moments like that.
More importantly, modesty is not an even remotely desirable characteristic at moments like that. One of the commenters got booted off the NCRegister site for putting the following thought in an insulting and personal way but it is still true: pity the poor man whose wife feels that she is morally required to be modest in bed and pity the poor woman whose Neanderthal husband imposes such standards on her. I do not think such people can even truly marry in the first place for they could not say and mean their vows honestly.
Labeling sexual modesty amongst women as merely “Victorian” in nature historicizes the idea and reduces its import to just a single time period. This is not only historically incorrect, but it is a tactic that proponents of the so-called “sexual revolution” used to convince women to lower their morals and indulge their baser impulses. The fact remains that current modes of female behavior (which could largely be labeled as “promiscuous”) are far more historically isolated than the traditional modes of female behavior (which could be labeled as “modest and chaste”) are.What is going on here is a combination of historical ignorance combined with conflation of terms and both the ignorance and conflation are done somewhat willfully by Melissa to produce the results she wants. (A side note: you can always tell someone is peaking or typing faster than he or she is thinking when they trot of "so-called".)
Let's take then one at a time.
First of all, what is sexual modesty? If we mean a tendency to dress or otherwise present our sexual selves modestly, for example, then the statement above is ludicrous. The degree of exhibitionism among women and society's tolerance for this has fluctuated wildly over the years. But anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the history of art will know that there is nothing even remotely isolated about current standards of dress.
Contemporary Islamic society (like the society of the time of Jesus) tends to impose very rigorous standards of modesty on women and the key word here is "impose". The cultures in our world where women have the greatest freedom are also the ones where women dress in the most exhibitionist fashion. The more reasonable conclusion here is that if we define sexual modesty narrowly as to mean the degree to which one flaunts one's sexuality, then women have considerably less of it than men do.
But Melissa is also conflating two different things. She is assuming that a woman is immodest about her sexuality that also means that woman is promiscuous. If you read her comments you will notice that she is constantly having to claim she has been misunderstood in that she has not conflated desire with promiscuity. But she has done just that. The truth about Melissa put as gently as I can is that she tends to define everything that other women do that she doesn't like as promiscuity.
But sticking just with dress, let me assure Melissa and any like her out there that this is simply not true. A woman flaunting her sexuality may be promiscuous but more likely she is not (the vast majority of women are not promiscuous). As any twenty-year old man in pursuit of sex can tell you, that a woman dresses in a sexually provocative way tells you nothing at all about the likelihood of actually having sex with her. Similarly, that rather dowdy woman with the loose-fitting corduroy pants and loose-fitting shirt with a turtleneck underneath it and no make up who never smiles at a man? She could be ridiculously promiscuous. The most promiscuous woman I have ever known dressed just like that.
Melissa also makes the mistake of assuming that men want sex more than women do because they want it more often. A man's sex drive may be be more consistent than a woman's but anyone who has had the privilege of seeing a woman in full flower will know just how awe inspiring and humbling it is for a man to see full-blown female desire. One thing is certain: "modesty" is not the word that comes to mind at moments like that.
More importantly, modesty is not an even remotely desirable characteristic at moments like that. One of the commenters got booted off the NCRegister site for putting the following thought in an insulting and personal way but it is still true: pity the poor man whose wife feels that she is morally required to be modest in bed and pity the poor woman whose Neanderthal husband imposes such standards on her. I do not think such people can even truly marry in the first place for they could not say and mean their vows honestly.
No comments:
Post a Comment