Video: Modest times

Not a Speedo in sight. Before men had double standards thanks to some selfish coal miners acting like everyone wanted to see their nipples. I think you can measure civilization in how the common man dresses. Orange waxed homoerotic chests and short-shorts being on the other end of the apocalypse scale.

Only the children bare their legs because children aren’t sexualised, how nice.

Everyone wears sensible linen, much cooler than the poly crap from China now.

Put some clothes on, men!

Stop walking around in your underwear and expecting us to respect you!

You must really hate yourselves to go round looking like that.

If we treat you like dirt, you can’t really blame us. You’re indecent.

Er, that’s the historical norm, actually…

The world isn’t like America, we actually have a history.

It’s funny to watch the repressed bi guys say how pencil skirts are the instrument of Satan but get oddly wriggly when men in skinny trousers are around.

See something you like?

They wouldn’t last a month in a corset, which are easier to wear for men by far.

Well? Don’t be sloppy.

What, you think only women had to be shapely?

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.

Video: Shun fake femininity

Especially when it comes from tarts in full-face makeup who have videos about not wearing a short skirt because it isn’t modest.*


Remove branch, bitches.

You can’t preach something unless you live it.

These are original virtue signallers, fake Ks, paper Ks. Listen to what they want – control. They dictate their version of the Bible as the only one. That isn’t following the Bible, that’s following them pointing to a Bible if you dare questiion why you’re doing this.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing indeed.

A person with truth, let alone divine truth, doesn’t mind being questioned.

On another video they misunderstand male logic. They assume heterosexual men don’t sexually look at beautiful women. Really that stupid (but actually a practical excuse to shame ‘sexy’ women….to a man that could mean anything). I felt like mentioning this. They never question why even fully-clothed women are harassed, stalked and raped. Why do men keep photos of clothed women or just their faces? It has nothing to do with what you wear, the Bible says not to look with lust (ogle), it doesn’t blame the victim and say you shouldn’t be seen with lust, the first part nips that in the bud and it’s something women have no control over. How many kings are led astray because the sexes were reversed?

Fake traditional women are atheist, it’s like a shiny dress to play Good Girl like a priest outfit has the collar. They seek attention and that’s why the fucking YT channel of fake pep and perkiness (you are not girls, the word doesn’t exist in the Bible, it’s a 20th century use). This Holier than Thou No True Scotsman Bible-Pointing atheism is code for Future SJW, when they can conveniently (see how that works? never wrong) claim to have lost faith or that God abandoned them (sure, it’s God’s fault you’re weak). They will turn on you when it suits them. They believe if there’s no societal punishment, it must be good. Consider how dangerous that is, as friend or more.

What do they omit?

It’s narrow to say the Bible was the first historical source of those philosophies, however true.
Everyone who actually studies hermeneutics will know it’s ripped off various texts, including pagan ones.
The Bible says to test something to know if it’s true. If it conforms to nature and natural law (what religion shoots at) then it’ll match. Otherwise, falsehood or mistranslation, look again.
They tell you to accept blindly the hundredth version of a culturally bound book. Faith is blind, your actions shouldn’t be. This emphasizes thought process when they cannot think and what is claimed against what is done.
God’s word is tricky to define if you look to theology. Where does it stop? All gospels written? Papal gospels? Monk and nun philosophers? Saint’s proclamations? What to do in cases of conflict? They answer none of this, indicating they have thought of none of it and understand none of it.
Parrots are not people. God is watching. God knows your heart. In good faith doesn’t refer to brain, it constantly refers to heart. That’s an Egyptian and Greek concept, btw.
Even in the Bible, it says not to trust anyone who adds to it. After it.
OK, what about other books? The Bible isn’t one book, stupid Americans.
They think they can dominate the Word by saying Muh 3 types of women giggle giggle, making me sick with the fake laughter and chirp. Cackling Jezebels salivating at an opportunity to cause others to stumble. Where’s the positive advice? Hell, where do you get this three types from?
Nope, according to everything I read directly, you’re either a Christian or not. CHINOS, fake Christians, count as nothing, potentially much worse for being hypocritical and thinking they can trick God. What worse crime is there than that, it’s a form of perverting and insulting the Holy Spirit.
I’ve long since come to the conclusion that Americans cannot read. They need to be spoon fed and have everything spelled out, the novels have it – no such thing as subtle. They’ve turned rudeness and simplicity into phony virtues – bravery and minimalism. Where is bravery in that context or the 7 virtues? The opposite of minimalism is humility that you don’t know everything – Greek again, therefore you literally cannot follow all of God’s will because you will never know the full mind of God. See how quickly this exposes blasphemy? Where did they quote the Bible? Not once. How many times did they say Bible? In places it acknowledges it contradicts and takes a lax approach on things that don’t matter if, and I mean IF, your heart is true.
Does their heart seem true to you?
Back to reading, OK, you might say: tell me how.
Understanding the spirit of the time and the historical context allows you to READ the Bible. There are no conflicts in this way, only case studies.
Yes, God’s law is very literal.

It never ends. You don’t stop studying. This won’t diminish your understanding or enjoyment whatsoever. There’s nothing to lose. Medieval scholars didn’t limit themselves to canonical text, did they?

..How can you preach something you don’t know yet?

They want a protector, a shield. They don’t want a husband. How quickly would they divorce him, citing bad faith? In itself, that’s a loaded die of bad faith argument. Bible says to bring into the fold and leave be, not to abandon the flock.
These women are more dangerous than prostitutes for that reason, they pursue the good with evil in their hearts.

What did the Bible say about women preachers?

Oh wait.

Granted, there are passages you may interpret in favour.
Still, to be on the safe side, why isn’t your husband speaking for you?


Well… that’s the Sisterhood of feminism, in practice.
You don’t get to giggle that you’re superior then.

*Modest is culturally dictated based on the society and your position. You dress neither higher nor lower than you are. This is etiquette 101, not being fake. Makeup that makes you look a totally different person is also a no.**
It isn’t modest to cover head to toe nowadays, it’s false pride. Don’t be Pharisees.
Look up the old etiquette books, they explain you must fit your role, including apparel.

Ya gotta be authentic.

Why do they dress like clones in their society and culture, if they’re expressing something unique?


People trying to control you in the name of Cause don’t want that.

**Ancient men wore more makeup than the women because they were outdoors more often, look it up. Eyeliner at the very least. It isn’t sexual, it’s health based. Yep, Jesus probably rocked guyliner.

Remember, back then Romans sported miniskirts and went nude to fight.

Nudity isn’t sexual.

Art tropes are interpretations of, not literally the Word.

So where the Hell do they get off lecturing on modesty?

How do they think Jesus bathed in rivers? Men wore full-length clothing to protect themselves from the Sun. In the Middle East. Go to the Middle East, no SPF. Go see why this was commanded.

If you disobeyed then?

Skin cancer!

“Women used to be ladies”

The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.

TLDR; read bolded.

It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).

Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.

Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.

“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”

It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.

Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.

Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.

Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?

Especially those in other time periods.

^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.

Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.

In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.

Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.

This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?

Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.

Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.

Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.

The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.

Everything you know is wrong.

Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.

Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!

Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Casual or modest, pick ONE.

I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.

This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!

He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?

The problem is male demand.

Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.

You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.

You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?

More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.

Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?

Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…

Which fork, Forney?

They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.

Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.

The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.

This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.

These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?

Are you quite sure?

They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.

Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.

Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.

However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.

Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.

You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.

Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.

Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.

I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, you?

Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.

Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.

Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.

We mock idiots like you.

Modesty and Equality

Interesting points;

Hume is tame compared to Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, our society is evidence of the triumph of Judeo-Christian slave morality over Greco-Roman master morality. Master morality originates in the strong, and is marked by values such as nobility, pride, courage, truthfulness, and trust. Slave morality, in contrast, is merely a reaction in the weak to oppression by the strong, and is marked by such values as humility, sympathy, cowardice, and pettiness. In master morality, the good is whatever is good for the strong; in slave morality, it is whatever opposes the masters. By pretending that congenital meekness is a choice that is both moral and desirable, slave morality makes a virtue out of impotence and subjugation. Thus, pride becomes a vice or sin, humility is elevated to a virtue, and the son of God washes the feet of his disciples and lets himself be crucified like a common criminal. Slave morality is a cynical and pessimistic inverse morality that involves careful subversion of the old master morality. It seeks not to transcend master morality, but, through ‘priestly vindictiveness’, to emasculate and enslave the strong by convincing them that their strengths are evil. 

Nietzsche maintains that democracy, with its obsession with freedom and equality, is in fact the heir to Christianity, even though democrats generally prefer to trace their lineage to Ancient Athens. In our society, the old and natural Greco-Roman morality vies alongside the inverted Judeo-Christian morality. Modern man is confused because he constantly has to juggle their contradictions, while himself, on the whole, being neither Christian nor ancient.

While there is much of interest in Nietzsche’s master-slave dichotomy, he and Hume seem to confound and amalgamate humility with modesty or meekness. Both modesty and humility involve self-abnegation, but whereas modesty involves self-abnegation for the sake of others or for the sake of receiving praise or adulation, humility involves self-abnegation for the sake of truth and of a higher self.

I’ve found you can perfectly predict the Left/PC/Progressivism by asking this question: what would a weak selfish narcissist trying to appear saintly and pure do?
Celebrate the low, the lowest of the low, making oneself out to be high(er than them). False modesty and when questioned, narcissistic injury. Respect nothing, worship the self and all its basest urges.