Monday, July 12, 2010

Bra Straps and Worse

buy a fucking burqa already!

I will preface this by saying that I know mentioning visible bra straps guarantees a certain amount of righteous anger, from the religious and nonreligious alike. I personally view bra straps the same way I view shorts: not appropriate for work and similar occasions, but on informal occasions, or when it's 95˚ outside (35˚ C), you're lucky I'm wearing clothes at all. Or unlucky, depending on how you feel about it. Bra straps are not, no matter what the writer I'm snarking on thinks, the equivalent of tattoos.

This message is only to those who want to find out more about being modest, and to those who are sincerely concerned about the amount of immodesty around us. If you basically do not believe that modesty is beautiful and that it goes hand in hand with dignity and protection, you need not read further. This article may not be what you are looking for. It is not addressed to those who are not concerned about modesty. It is not addressed to anyone who is not a member of the blood-bought church of our dear Lord. It is more precisely aimed at the faithful members of the Lord's church, who claim to have the truth in doctrine and in practice.

I'm not talking about you, you unfaithful person completely unconcerned about truth, you harlot, you black-hearted heathen, you! That entire disclaimer is a rather nasty diatribe against people who don't care as much about bra straps as she does. (Seriously, people who are attracted to the bra wearing among us, are they really that sexy? Really?)

The first picture she includes is from the late 1800s, early 1900s and depicts two women walking along the water's edge in full, head to toe, white dresses, including hats and parasols. Ignoring that fact that prior to Coco Chanel's famous tan, women desperately wanted the palest skin possible, thus ensuring a great degree of covering up, guess what those women weren't doing? Anything. They weren't swimming or building sand castles or running along the surf. They couldn't in those outfits. Which would entirely be the point, I'm sure.

The pictures here will show you a something about the way people dressed on the public beaches just a hundred years ago. There does not seem to be anything to blush about in these pictures, and it gives you an idea of the kind of manners that people used to have. They thought it was rude to expose nakedness or private parts of the body. Only the circus women would have been brazen enough to wear bras showing straps and tattoos. What was considered a bizarre, crude way of dressing a hundred years ago, is now paraded as normal. I feel sorry for the children growing up today, who see people looking the way only clowns looked in the past. Clowns these days have a lot to compete with, in order to be identified as clowns.

Circus women? Clowns? I'm both amused and appalled. Yeah, so clothing preferences are different according to time period and place. Clearly, the Lady Lydia* is referencing clothing preferences from Europe and America 100 years ago. In plenty of places 100 years ago, generally mild climates, little or no clothing at all was considered entirely polite. Why are the social mores of Europe from 100 years ago the best possible social mores? Who decides?

The popular summer style for women seems to be: two sets of straps showing on each shoulder (one set being the bra strap), one black and one white or green or whatever they have, tattoos in the blank spaces of the arms, back and chest, short-shorts, flip-flops, naked bellies and exposed chests. What little fabric they have on is drab and dull, and no one dares wear the the array of shades that nature has to offer.

The popular summer style for which women? I am a woman and while I do my share of two strappin' it(tm), and I certainly do wear flip flops, I do not wear short shorts, expose my "belly" or have tattoos. I still can't figure out why tattoos are immodest. There's really no explanation of this other than the fact that Lydia doesn't like them, therefore immodest.

What little fabric they have on is drab and dull, and no one dares wear the the array of shades that nature has to offer. "Dull" and "drab" colours are immodest? Since when? How long has it been since Lydia has been out of the house? Neon is so in these days. No matter how you feel about neon, it's hardly drab or dull.

This goes on for a while and then we get a picture labeled as natives of Sri Lanka (69.1% Buddhist)on the beach, dressed in what looks like t-shirts and longish skirts. Of course, we have no idea whether or not the Sri Lankans were merely walking past the beach or whether they could afford separate swimwear or even if Sri Lankans simply dress that way no matter what the occasion.

This is a contemporary photograph of poorer women in Sri Lanka. I have always insisted that modest dress is not a matter of wealth. It is a matter of politeness, belief, and personal dignity. Many women grew up much poorer than people are today, and still managed to keep their clothes on, keep their flesh covered, and be modest even in hot climates.

As far as I can tell, Lydia has done nothing but prove that Buddhists are more modest than American Christians. It could very well be a matter of wealth, btw. I have a very small budget for clothing, so much of what I buy is for work. Therefore, generally any time you see me, I am appropriately dressed for a law office. It's entirely possible that the pictured Sri Lankans do the same thing: they buy clothes appropriate for the fanciest place they need to go, and wear those clothes everywhere, including the beach. Who knows?

One woman has written, "I am always hopeful that someone will be converted, so I take a friend to church once in awhile. They always make a comment about the blatant amount of immodesty in the worship assembly, from bare legs, to bare backs, bare chests, bare shoulders and bare midriffs. The astonishing amount of piercings and tattoos make me think that people are going back to primitive ways, rather than progressing on to the high mark of the high calling. One friend asked me, 'Shouldn't some of the older women teach those young women about modesty?' You see, they have been reading the Bible, searching for truth. They come to assemble with believers and find out that the believers do not follow the great book they claim to believe."

The Bible doesn't have as much to say about clothing as you might think. Well, there's those 2 pages in Leviticus defining exactly what a High Priest at the Temple should be wearing, right down the pomegranate embroidery at the hem of the purple robes, but other than that. . . oh right, no mixed fabrics . . . and only hookers braid their hair. It's not much to go on, really.

The astonishing amount of piercings and tattoos make me think that people are going back to primitive ways, rather than progressing on to the high mark of the high calling. For the love of . . . Lydia, just say it. Those n**gers in Africa have those big lip things and good white people shouldn't imitate them. Good white folk should know better than to do anything those n**gers do. Yeesh. I wonder if we'll be getting a rant about "jungle music" next.

Of course we then get the standard modesty admonition to stop making men think bad thoughts, as if men need my help to do that. (Really, do these people think lust just shuts down between November and March, when everyone's covered from head to toe in fleece and wool?)

In the 1960's it was popular to be on the beaches in the hot summer in the garb of the day: small pieces of cloth barely covering private areas, called "bathers." One day, a young woman wearing a blue and white gingham peasant style dress with a hat trimmed in a matching ribbon, was seen walking barefoot on the shore. Although there were many perfect figures and sun-tanned young people on that beach, all eyes were upon this woman. Her beautiful dress was a perfect compliment to the ocean and the blue sky in the background. She wore this kind of thing to the beach because she burned so easily, but she did not let it get in the way of enjoying the elements. Although people were looking at this young lady, it was not for the wrong reasons. They were not admiring her sexiness or the size of her bust. They were admiring her romantic sweetness. We have lost our sweetness and our innocence in America today. It is up to the Christian women, the members of the church, those who have been washed in the blood of the lamb by obeying the gospel, to show a good example to the next generation.

$10 says the girl was her and that this blanket admiration was purely in her own mind.

I'm sorry, allow me to explain two concepts to you: modesty and the allure of the different. First of all, dressing in a manner that draws all eyes to you is not modest. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone can see the outline of your bust, if you are dressed so differently that everyone cannot help but stare at you, you are not being modest. In fact, you are being immodest. Words, they have meanings.

Secondly, men are attracted to what is different. I wish I could find the link to a study I ran across a few years ago. They showed men lingerie in black, white, red, pink and turquoise. Men liked black best and turquoise the least. However, when the researchers showed the men pictures of women wearing the lingerie, if they showed the men 9 pictures of women in black lingerie and then 1 picture of a women in turquoise lingerie, they overwhelmingly preferred the turquoise lingerie. Why? Men crave variety. (Not that any of the men in the study complained about the 9 pictures of women in black lingerie.)

Therefore, appearing in public in a manner of dress entirely different from what everyone else is wearing is not only immodest by definition, it's immodest in that it taps into the male enjoyment of variety.

Fail, my dear Lydia. Fail.



*Are you nobility, Lydia? No? Then no more "lady" for you!

19 comments:

  1. (Seriously, people who are attracted to the bra wearing among us, are they really that sexy? Really?)

    The other day I was standing in line at the Post Office behind a rather attractive member of the female gender who was wearing a tank top that didn't exactly hide the bra straps. I had more than a few thoughts that would make Baby Jesus cry, but the bra straps did not so much factor in to the equation in any way, shape, or form.

    I still can't figure out why tattoos are immodest. There's really no explanation of this other than the fact that Lydia doesn't like them, therefore immodest.

    There's an admonition against body marking in the Jewish Bible. It probably has something to do with that.

    As for tattoos, though, it really depends on the person and the tattoos. One of the most awesome women I know has a bunch of tattoos and they add to the overall package. But I've seen other women with lots of tattoos that make me think, "Yeah, no, I'm all good."

    (Really, do these people think lust just shuts down between November and March, when everyone's covered from head to toe in fleece and wool?)

    Winter generally just means tight jeans that really accentuate the ass and sweaters that also accentuate things. And thoughts of warm blankets, fires, hot cocoa, and finding new and exciting ways to keep warm.

    So, um, no.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Winter generally just means tight jeans that really accentuate the ass and sweaters that also accentuate things. And thoughts of warm blankets, fires, hot cocoa, and finding new and exciting ways to keep warm.

    So, um, no."


    Word. I find sweaters sexy as hell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Seriously, people who are attracted to the bra wearing among us, are they really that sexy? Really?)

    No, not really. Bare shoulders are quite aesthetically pleasing, but straps over them significantly disrupt the effect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i used to go to great lengths to hide bra straps - because, until 2002 or so, it was IMPOSSIBLE to find a bra that fit me that didn't have HUGELY wide straps. now that i can find "normal" straps, i don't care.

    well, except that i WILL match bra to clothes. [and i'm weird - so i'll wear a red bra with a white tank, because i'm wearing a red mini-skirt... lol]


    as for tattoos - they fall into two categories for me. tattoos that one gets because "everyone gets them" and tattoos that MEAN SOMETHING to the tattoo-having person. i have 3 - one on my left wrist ["bracelet", it's a rose vine, white, yellow, pink, red, "black" roses - and it's highly symbolic and is RELIGIOUS to me] one on my right ankle [it's a heart, with an eye in the center, and an infinity symbol in the center if the eye - "the heart sees into infinity" and it's circled by another rosevine, with a BLUE rose, blue rose stands for joy - and this is ALSO a religious tattoo]. on my back, there's a "sylph" it's basicly me, with wings and even longer hair - back view, standing on tip-toe, arms up and hands in an evocation position [clasped], and the hair swirls around the back, leaves the butt exposed, then spirals down one leg. it's VERY awesome. semi-religious, but mostly, just me. how i SEE myself [i WANT WINGS!!! i want to fly. under my own power. it's A Thing]



    some religions shun tattoos. i've never understood why. Christianity has stained glass windows in many of their churches [i.e. temples] Christianity also often says things like "the body is your temple". so doesn't my temple deserve stained glass? that's what it is to me.


    *shrug* sorry if i bored anyone... i just DON'T GET IT, about modest or tattoos or bra straps. what you wear is NOT important!!! or at least SHOULDN'T BE important!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The pitch of the Christian anti-tattoo thing is that it's basically vandalism of God's property, not decoration, since you are:

    1. Made by god (and not a biological process) and therefore are absolutely physically perfect, just the way you are, even if you're crippled, brain damaged, hideous, or anything else undesireable.

    and

    2. Not your own. Because you are a slave to Christ, hooray slavery!

    ReplyDelete
  6. denelian: I love the stained glass - temple - body analogy.

    That said tattoos have never really done anything for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jerad;

    it's cool :) i know lots of people who hate them, more than i know who love them.
    on the other hand... my mother had been scandalized for YEARS about my tattoos. until she SAW them [i'm in Ohio, she's in CA - the reason we get along at all lol]. it works for *me*. :D

    Big A - the reasons that i'm ecstatic that i was raised pagan continue to spawn more reasons. that's...
    *shudder* i would HATE to think that way :(

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyone who gets exercised about bra straps probably doesn't have much going on in their life.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Denelian - very interesting take on tattoos. I'm passing it along to someone who was asking me about the psychology of tattoos a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  10. zilch: Welcome to Christian thought.

    I used to go on missions trips in junior high and high school. There were long (long!) discussions of appropriate attire whilst on the trips. They basically boiled down to "girls can't wear tank tops or short shorts."

    As I recall, though, guys weren't allowed to, either, since the girls couldn't. Or maybe it was just that guys had to wear shirts at all times, but I'm pretty sure no one was allowed tank tops, period. So at least they avoided double standards.

    But, quite frankly, unless you're on a basketball team of some sort I don't get why a guy would wear a tank top, anyway. I hate the things. But I do like it when women wear 'em.

    To the larger question, no. They don't really have much going on in their thought lives. You're not allowed any intellectual activity outside of Bible study and your circle of friends is likely to be obsessive about appearing properly holy and making sure no one knows that they play with themselves at night. It invites a lot of thought about things that absolutely do not matter.

    And I say this as someone who was there, who had plenty of external intellectual pursuits, and who still wasted way more time (read, any) thinking about such things than was necessary. Sometimes I want to build a time machine, go back, and slap me silly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tattoos are interesting to me, not exclusively because there is a borderline addictive property to getting them. Like denelian, my tattoos all have deep meaning to me, and as someone who tends to express meaning through her body in less than healthy ways (see: eating disorder) (and I'm sure Lady Lydia has a whole loving, educated take on eating disorders /sarcasm), tattoos are a powerful way for me to connect to my body and meaning. And I usually find myself wanting just one more because they communicate to ME in a way that not much else can, body-wise.

    That being said, I only have three, two of which are very small and hidden even by most bikinis, all of which are hidden by daily clothing. I REALLY don't understand the sweeping generalization that tattoos are immodest.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are right. Tattoos and piercings are incredibly beneficial to the body and mind. You are all wisdom. No one ever suffers from a tattoo or a ring in their snout, no, never. The question I have for you is, in view of the dedication you have for these decorations, what would you do if you ended up too poor to buy them, or if there was a shortage of them?

    ReplyDelete
  13. At the risk of feeding the Anonymous and apparently mentally damaged troll...

    Um...what? A shortage of tattoos or piercings? What if there was a shortage of stuffed animals? Post-It Notes? Thumbtacks?

    And I have no tattoos or piercings, but I do know that if there are optional things that I want but can't afford, I don't buy them. It's not hard.

    Seriously, if you're going to attempt to argue, try to start with a coherent point. It's immensely helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, if you are getting a tattoo from a reputable tattoo artist, who sterilizes their equipment (generally, they have the autoclave right there), you shouldn't "suffer" from having a tattoo. Yes, it does hurt to have your skin pricked a few thousand times by a needle, but that's hardly suffering.

    As to piercings, again if you go to a reputable piercer, and take care of the piercing as directed, you shouldn't have a problem.

    I'm not sure why anon is being so nasty. I have no piercings or tattoos, but I love them and have no problem with another person choosing to get them. If somebody asked me if they should get a tattoo in a very visible place, I might attempt to dissuade them on future job hunting grounds, but if it makes you happy, who am I to judge?

    Oh, right, I'm a person with a life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If somebody asked me if they should get a tattoo in a very visible place, I might attempt to dissuade them on future job hunting grounds, but if it makes you happy, who am I to judge?

    There's one particular style of tattoo I just don't get. The one that's right across the collar bones. That's just never been attractive to me.

    But, like, upper arm tattoos and whatnot don't bother me. And I think that we're largely moving to a society where visible tattoos really aren't a big deal. Obviously that's not a 100% thing, but I don't think there's nearly as much antipathy to the tattoo as there was, say, twenty or even ten years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I will say this: the househusband and I run a recruiting business, and we had a guy show up at an interview with tattoos on his knuckles. This was for a business to business sales executive position. It sent aaaallll the wrong messages.

    ReplyDelete
  17. lots of things to respond to!

    Michael: it's a way to look at it, anyway. i admit that i am weird, but that's how i see it. *shrug* all of my sisters have tattoos, too - similar reasoning [i'm the oldest - i was "blamed" for all the rest getting them. sigh. then our parents grew up and got over it]

    C Nymph: the control of body aspect is *not* to be ignored. i didn't got the ED route, i went the "cutting" route. after years and years of OTHERS controlling my body, my crazy said to make any mark that *I* could make. i didn't get a tattoo until the crazy was under control - the first one was actually a reward for that control. :)

    visible tattoos -
    in a corporate enviroment, all my tattoos are coverable. but NO ONE *EVER* notices the one on my left wrist. i did an interview in a dress with 3.4 sleeves - and got hired, the manager being all happy that i had no visible tattoos.
    it took ALL my willpower to not shove my left wrist in his face. it's 1 1/2 inch wide, circles my entire wrist, and is quite colorful. IDGI. lol

    not a fan of piercings, m'self - but, with every tattoo, it was new needles and everything else auto-claved. wasn't gonna do it if i couldn't SEE the sterile process, ya know?

    collar-bones. um, my only anti-tattoo-on-collar-bones best is "OHHOLYFUCKTHEPAIN!!!!!!" because... yeah. if someone else can deal with it, more power to 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Re: the picture - I've thought in passing about buying a modest swimsuit for myself because I personally don't like exposing a lot of my skin (uncomfortable + I burn really easily). But the swimwear on the sites for observant Muslim women is much prettier than those horrid things. D: Of course, Lydia and co. would never buy it because OMG ISLAMIC TERRORISM SWIMSUITS.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hahaha wow if they saw my tattoo they'd freak - my whole back is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYo-xEnVWQA Immodest? Fuck yeah.

    Those swimmers bring back painful memories for me. I grew up in Aussie and my parents were super paranoid about skin cancer so I was covered head to toe in lycra.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.