Adverts to promote positive view of Muslims

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

according to you.

Yes, according to me.

Presumably you disagree for a reason - other than that you don't like it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nothing self righteous about it. Please your god by dressing any way you choose but do not tell me that a particular style of dress is more modest than another style of dress, that right there is the be all and end all. It is a very simple, and not complicated at all.

It is very simple. Some styles of dress are more modest than others. If not for degree, modesty would have no meaning. I feel sorry for women who don't believe this to be true.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Yes, according to me.

Presumably you disagree for a reason - other than that you don't like it.

i wasn't aware opinions were sacred cows around here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i wasn't aware

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

if that's the best you can offer to back up your "opinion" then it's probably best we leave it at that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if that's the best you can offer to back up your "opinion" then it's probably best we leave it at that.

According to you. Oh wait, that's the summit of your "contribution" isn't it. Brilliant

[Peikko 1,575]

It is very simple. Some styles of dress are more modest than others. If not for degree, modesty would have no meaning. I feel sorry for women who don't believe this to be true.

Circling the wagons I see. No, modesty is not tied up in the degree to which a woman's body is encased in clothing and the entire premise that it might be does women everywhere a disservice and perpetuates the mythology that women who do not cover every hint that they are a woman are asking to be disrespected.

Cover as much of your body as you like and do so because you want to please your god if that is your predilection but the premise that the more of a woman's body is clothed the more modest she is and that is what pleases god is a damaging tenet and if that is central to the muslim belief system in this day and age, then that is something that should be challenged and frequently.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought modesty was as much or more about people's behaviour rather than styles of dress. It's the opposite of vanity.

[chri'stina 190]

I don't know why I am even commenting, I haven't read the first part of the thread just the last 2 or so pages.

How can modesty NOT involve what someone is wearing? Of course it does! In each culture though, there are different standards. I would not think it would be wise while visiting India to walk around in a short shorts and a tank top as a woman, unless you want to make a spectacle of yourself.

And come on, who can't see clearly while out and about that a woman with her cleavage all exposed would be considered less modest than someone without that going on. Not everyone has the same views and value system, yet over and over people try to put their value system onto others as the only right one.

Do I think a woman needs to cover every single inch of her body, and hair, to be modest? No...but I was raised in the US and not in a religion that supports that much coverage. I do however find it immodest to dress in a skanky fashion and I would never do it. In India skanky would be something different than here probably.

Edited June 10, 2010 by chri'stina

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I had an ex-girlfriend, that raised eyebrows in southern Idaho, for wearing cut-offs and a tank-top, and hair down, instead of more appropriate attire, and the requisite beehive hairdo.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think modesty *can* be reflected in modes of dress, but I think it more a lot to do with individual behaviour than with cultural expectations of dress.

Is a stripper, for example, immodest because of what they wear as part of their job - or can that same person be shy and self-effacing?

Is a person who dresses in a modest fashion actually modest if their behaviour tends towards arrogance and snobbery?

[Jenn! 918]

I'm sure my "prejudice" against strippers will be apparent here, but I don't think it's possible to be shy and self-effacing and be a stripper.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure my "prejudice" against strippers will be apparent here, but I don't think it's possible to be shy and self-effacing and be a stripper.

I don't see why it can't be - people's behaviour does change in different social situations.

A woman might not have any problem undressing in front of strangers but scared to death when it comes to going out on a date.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know why I am even commenting, I haven't read the first part of the thread just the last 2 or so pages.

How can modesty NOT involve what someone is wearing? Of course it does! In each culture though, there are different standards. I would not think it would be wise while visiting India to walk around in a short shorts and a tank top as a woman, unless you want to make a spectacle of yourself.

And come on, who can't see clearly while out and about that a woman with her cleavage all exposed would be considered less modest than someone without that going on. Not everyone has the same views and value system, yet over and over people try to put their value system onto others as the only right one.

Do I think a woman needs to cover every single inch of her body, and hair, to be modest? No...but I was raised in the US and not in a religion that supports that much coverage. I do however find it immodest to dress in a skanky fashion and I would never do it. In India skanky would be something different than here probably.

Skanky? Isn't that more of a style evaluation? Is someone who dresses 'skanky' beneath contempt? What do you know about someone who dresses in a way you consider 'skanky' apart from that fact you don't like their clothing choices?

Again, I am not asking anyone to change their clothing choices, but I am asking that people consider very carefully evaluating women as modest or immodest based on those choices. That really is the crux of the problem because historically and currently women have been believed or found deserving of their fate simply based on nothing more than what they have been wearing when sexual abuse has taken place, and to pretend that there is no societal context that perpetuates these prejudices, and worse that religious belief systems have historically furthered this charade is a nonsense.

[twowls 217]

I thought modesty was as much or more about people's behaviour rather than styles of dress. It's the opposite of vanity.

That's right. Dress is mentioned in secondary definitions. It's first "freedom from conceit."