The double standard of false modesty

Doing something only because you’re told to is worse than not doing it at all.

And then if it’s really about a human virtue, the men would also be held to the same requirement. There’s no logical justification for acting like men are the only sex to lust. You can’t have the women being holier than the men, can you? Thus, monks and nuns wore similar attire.

Nobody cared, it was just and the system worked.
Saxon men wore leggings first, they were not considered sexy. How immoral must you be to immediately start thinking of random people in sexual terms? What is wrong with you? They even do this with children. Is it safe to bend over around you? What about naked farm animals? The kind of people who would literally skirt a table-leg. They didn’t have the word projection back in the day.

I won’t go into the sexuality confound. Maybe the impossible notion of “temptation” by the opposite sex wouldn’t be the worst thing for them? Then again, temptation has never been an excuse for anything, ever.

The Muslims pushing the niqab and hijab do not wear it themselves, so they don’t really believe it makes them better Muslims. Even if they didn’t ‘have’ to wear it, as men, they should to be on the safe side.

Let me correct a common myth in this discussion.

The change in the ‘modesty’ of European clothing was actually a textile revolution in the Middle Ages. They weren’t choosing to wear those frumpy clothes, they had no others.

In fact, if they looked at modern man and woman, man would be considered more immodest because Speedos and toplessness, chest waxing and tan make-up are expected. By quantitative measures, men show more skin yet women do not commit most of the sexual crimes. The red pill burns.

If you wanted to spot a modern “whore”, tan is the modern rouge.

Respect isn’t rooted in what a person wears (and is no longer a reliable proxy for what someone does, like in olden days) but what they do wear is more an expression of culture (or subculture) than the individual. Clothing is deeply social i.e. trends win out. I don’t care how much you love the Victorians, most people don’t wear steampunk all year round.

The Industrial Revolution up until around war-time led to fabric innovations again (in the latter to spare important fabrics for soldiers) that were warmer but thinner e.g. rayon, polyester, nylon, or styles of dress and cut of suit that were easier to walk in but required the new, advanced sewing machines (with patterns selling like hotcakes). This is quite easy to spot visually. You can see it less so with shoes.

Modern suits on men don’t hang like this, although this 1940s example is a fine half-way point from the Victorian layering to modern minimalism (both suck but at least the Victorians looked like men, modern men look like boyish female models, the androgyny is deliberate). Men also shed most of their tailored shapewear under-garments in the Edwardian era, for clothing rations. They didn’t want them back, like women with corsets, bustles, frilly under-shirts, it’s a rare man today that wears a wife-beater, a girdle (men wore them first), a waistcoat et cetera on top of his external public clothes.

Nowadays, it is rare to see a man wearing “dress shoes”, a suit or a hat – unless forced.

We need less fabric. This is historically novel. We spend less, consume less and move easier. These practical considerations win out in our time of office workers, who needn’t wear all the outer layers of a manual labourer because central heating doesn’t replicate the elements. In fact, that would be a bad idea all around. First, think of the smell.

This should be common sense, people.

Do I think modern garments are perfect? Hell to the no, but the standards of public decency dropped, tacky clothing followed. Can we blame the 60-80s? Man, what didn’t the Boomers do in their misspent youth?

How about bringing back mandatory wearing of ties, while we’re mandating necklines? You gotta pay out for spats, tie, tie pin, collar stays, all these things, whether or not you need them. For public decency. You’re free, remember. Free to buy cheap! Like the other riffraff (note: there are no common expressions for a poorly-dressed man anymore and men always dressed more formally than the women). Since clothing implies personality, anyone wearing less than haute couture can be spat on in the street, a budget is no excuse to patronize fast fashion. Why don’t you save money and make your own clothes, don’t you care? And don’t even think about being fat. Man or woman, it’s a reflection of personal vice and never anything else, like food quality or poverty. Everything must be viewed in a dogmatic, falsely religious context, because doesn’t that sound healthy? Black and white thinking for all, there is no other reason.

When we take down the buxom or bulging billboards of lingerie and boxers models, I might believe you care about the public’s innocent eyes…

Better to lose a limb than let it send you to Hell, better self-castrate, boys.
Because Bible, because Bible! I can justify anything just by saying it’s in the Bible!

The best part is that in this case, it really is and there’s no other context possible.
You can tell the Bible was written by mortal men because they have no idea how women are designed (by God) e.g. it makes more sense for women to wear less up-top because our breast fat causes us to over-heat, and ‘braids’ (or knots, or pins) are necessary to keep hair out of the way safely while working, which the Bible requires. It’s either that or cut it short, pick ONE.

I once saw a guy try to claim that a bra is immodest because it makes men look*.
…I’m sure walking is never the motivation behind shrouding sensitive flesh in the most minimal way possible (less than corset, girdle and bustier). Why don’t men wear cups habitually? Women want men to ogle them as much as men want women to know how much money they really make – as in, if they wanted it, they’d say to the individual specifically. Even a job offer is not an open invitation, everything in this social world has requirements e.g. if you’re asking someone out, you’d better be single.
The etiquette thing about doors and chairs is well-known, what of men hat-tipping in respect? To other men?
How many pretentious guys refuse to remove their beanies in a coffee shop, only to complain about rude servers?

Enforce indecent exposure laws by all means, but there’d be more male cases than female so those with a spiteful motive would disapprove, despite how God made them with more outer curves to expose.

*NOT wearing underwear would “make men look” more.
If men want female respect, dress smart, not scruffy. There is no female scruffy because our clothes are meant to drape, that’s feminine. Cheap clothing is a unisex issue, no getting out of this one.

It isn’t about modesty, it’s the moral weakness of being unable or unwilling to rein in your personal impulse control and then trying to force the rest of the world to accommodate you like a safe space. In other news, all fatties should be allowed to forcibly close every donut shop within a short drive, because tempting someone by existing is a slight on their “honour”. And the shrew wonders why they’re still unhappy, after censoring and banning anything that makes them uncomfortable. The problem isn’t that nice things exist, the problem is you. Beauty shouldn’t be covered up to hide your inner ugliness.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s