Modesty: A Discussion About Men

[brianthephysicist]

Okay, so modesty discussions on phatmass are usually about women's clothing and what is or is not modest clothing. In this thread, I'd like to keep the topic about what modesty means for a man.



Last night, I was listening to a talk on chastity, and in the speaker's Q&A she mentioned something along the lines of "pornography and masturbation are problems are struggles for men and modesty is a struggle for women." From simply glancing at our culture and from a previous thread on phatmass I knew that the first half of that statement left the unsaid reality that, even though statistically more men deal with it, it is still an issue that women have to deal with.

Since I already didn't like that statement, I questioned the second half of it. [b]Is modesty a struggle for men? If so, what does it look like?[/b]

I don't really know. The main point of this thread is to examine these questions. Sure, maybe we'll never have a perfect understanding, but I still want to know what I can do to move in the direction of modesty, but at the same time I would like to avoid scrupulosity.

I've spent some time thinking on this myself, I certainly don't have everything figured out and, heck, some of it may be flat out wrong, but here's what I've thought on this so far.



I wanted to start with the idea of modesty itself. I didn't have any resources available, so I tried my best to come up with a definition on my own. It's difficult, so I tried dealing with the antonym of immodest. In terms of women's clothing, I think of immodesty being when a woman dresses in such a way that her (lack of) clothing distracts me from her to focus on her as a sexual object. Trying to generalize this, I came up with the idea that immodesty is anything that distracts from the person to focus on them as a sexual object.

To now look at the opposite of that, feels like I'm swinging in the other extreme of repression, which is just as bad. I thought some more about what makes modesty different from repression and about examples of women dressing beautifully and modestly. When a woman dresses modestly, there is a simple elegance about her, you can see her natural God-given beauty and she's not "throwing her sexuality" at you, but it is still perfectly evident that she's a woman. I don't really have the words for this nuance, but the point I'm trying to get at is that her clothing is not something for her to hide behind, rather it helps her [u]display her womanhood[/u] without pushing for the observer to think of her sexually.

I haven't really defined anything, all I've managed to do is talk about modesty for women which isn't what this thread is supposed to be about, but it has given me a basis to think in, sort of an operational jargon.



So now we move to talk about men. We can examples of men dressed immodestly (pantaloons hanging off the buttocks), but this doesn't seem to be anything difficult to rectify. Women tend to be less visual than men, so it makes sense that clothing wouldn't be (as much of) an issue.

But what about my earlier idea that immodesty is anything that distracts from the person to focus on them as a sexual object? Are actions immodest? What about speech?

Obviously this would apply to crude language, as in constantly talking about either self (talking about penis size or previous sexual encounters) or others simply as sexual objects (telling a girl she has nice boobs). This also made me remember something I read on profanity, and how (when it is not being used for shock value) it draws attention to things of sexual nature. People don't necessarily hear the f-bomb and think about sex, but consistent use of it demands that the language or vocabulary of sexuality be kept in mind during the conversation. Constantly demanding this to be in our mind distracts us from seeing the person and instead we see a sexual object.

But once again, just as with what I said about immodesty earlier, I don't want to swing from one extreme to another that's just as bad. It is NOT okay to talk to another person as a sexual object, but I also don't think it's right to ignore true beauty, and with the general lack of positive body image, we can and should still let a girl know that she is beautiful, but in a way that captures the beauty of her entire personhood, the inside [i]and[/i] the outside. I feel like I have a good handle on this, but I would always love to hear more on this.

But as much as I understand this idea of words sharing in the personhood of another, I am lost on the matter of talking about myself to positively display my manhood. My pride wants me to (and sadly often succeeds in forcing me to) push my sexuality or some other attractive quality (not necessarily sexual in nature but more of "I am man. I am stable provider. This makes me good mate." type of silliness) into my conversations. Other times I again swing to the other extreme and display false humility. How do I talk modestly about myself?

Wow, rereading that last sentence just bridged the connection between the two common contexts where I hear the word modest. Hmm ... I need to think more about what that means ...



Anyway, since I kinda rambled on about speech, what about action? Personally, I have been looking at my dancing and seeing that some of it is honestly just fun, fun for me and fun to share with others, but other dancing I do is honestly immodest, drawing attention to me in a sexual manner. I don't want to dance negatively, showing off my sexuality, and I don't want to simply dance 'non-negatively', hiding my manhood, I want to dance positively, displaying my manhood. But what does that [i]mean[/i]???

And not just dancing, I'm sure there's a million other actions that I or other men can stand to improve on in this regard that nobody mentions as capable of improvement. I honestly have no idea, but I'd like to hear more about this.



If you're still reading, I apologize for my rambling and scattered thoughts. I'm not a very coherent writer and I didn't let Missy proof-read this

I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' opinions on ways that men can be modest in that positive sense of displaying true manhood, without pushing his sexuality.

[BG45]

I don't dance, so I can't really comment on that. But I completely agree in having the problem with pushing the "good provider" type stuff into conversation.

I think in terms of custody of the eyes as being an issue for men's modesty.

[Ice_nine]

lol at the pan.ts hanging thing, I don't think it's immodest, more just a style. I don't think women see saggy pantaloons are are all "beaver dam I just wanna pull those jeans ALL the way down." I don't think this is a "men are more visual thing" but more so that men showing more skin/less clothing coverage does not equal sex appeal (think speedos), and this probably has a lot to do with how we're conditioned (male nakedness is funny, female nakedness is either hawt or disgusting, like if said woman is a "cow" or some other lovely pejorative). Even seeing a decent-looking guy in a speedo is more likely to elicit laughter than lust.

If modesty is akin to humility I would say not acting like an arrogant jack ass is a good start. Most people tend to equate arrogance with confidence and that's a huge problem I think. And some people do find that attractive. Silly peoples. Acting like a big shot and gloating about your sexual prowess is immodest too I think.

And it just kinda dawned on me, whereas women are encouraged to be modest to help men, I think men really need to focus about their modesty around other men. I mean, women struggle with lust and that can't be downplayed, but I really hate when women being all "slutty" are held responsible for the sexual sins of men, so when you take the paradigm of "the opposite sex is responsible for the lust of the sinner" and apply it to men, it almost seems . . . just as ridiculous. A lot of times this discrepancy is played off by the "men are more visual thing," but until I see proof for this phenomenon (I'm all ears) I'm not buying it, and even if it were true that could be the result of our cultural conditioning etc.

I mean, afaik, women don't often brag about how often they "get laid" and such (although we're certainly not the creatures of the Victorian era). And you can either write that off as "that's just how guys act with each other," or say hmm that's a flooped up way to act even tho there are no women present. I GET that men act differently around other men than with women (with all their toilet jokes and physical competition and revelry in stupid boy things ) but I think to be a Christian this MUST not include boasting about sexual conquests, talking about women like objects, and especially ENCOURAGING others to do so. I know this might be hard to do if you're in a group of your average 21st century American men who aren't religious to not lol at how they totally banged two different chicks in the same day but, that's the cross you gotta bear bro.

[arfink]

I think Ice-Nine hit the nail on the head. Modesty for men will be a serious cross.

I hate to sound like a feminist here, but for as far back in American history as I can recall, men have almost never been held to a strict account for their objectifying of women and of themselves, whereas women have been traditionally more likely to be punished if they play into those roles. I think this plays a huge part in what we think about modesty for men, as it's almost like the tradition doesn't exist in American culture.

Things that I as a man have been trying to watch out for, that I would lump under modesty:

1- Bragging. As guys we do actually have somewhat of a feel for what women want. Just look at books like 50 Shades of Grey (actually, do NOT do that, I'm speaking rhetorically) to see what sort of image you should portray to a woman who is looking for sex: power, money, prestige, strength, worship.

We can actually pose ourselves in ways that are false, and when I do this and then afterwards examine my intentions, it almost always occurs to me that I did it because I wanted the woman to be attracted to me in a lustful way. Obviously I wouldn't ever treat a woman like a troll just because I didn't want to tempt her, but I know when I've crossed a line.

2- Companionship. This one falls with the first. Emotional and intellectual familiarity with women can be twisted into something immodest. When we tell too much, make allusions, etc.

3- Looking. If men are easily tempted by the things we see, we can tempt right back by the way we look. An immodestly dressed woman wants men to look at her. A man with the hungry, encouraging look on his face is definitely the opposite side of the coin.

[img]http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/hey-baby.jpg[/img]

Not the best image I could have found, but at least it doesn't have oiled abs in it. Yuck.

[Ed Normile]

Ice_9, Men are definetly more visual than women, at least normal women. I know there are immoral promiscuos types, moreso these days starting with the womens liberation movement where women had to be equal in all ways to men. Think of it this way, since early days, men being the strongest most physical were the hunters and gatherers, those who were able to confront an adversary to protect their meat and home. Women sought out this security and the ability of the man to provide, men were interested in women due to the natural urge to procreate, a pretty face and a body able to bear and nurture children is all they needed, whereas a woman wanted some security, food and maybe a place to sleep safely and be protected. Men provided this, and really thats all they needed to do. They did not need to have gorgeuos shape or face and be soft and sensual, if they could put the food on the table and keep the dangers at bay they were all the women needed. I can not think of any way a man could be seen as immodest in dress, you see his chest, big deal, you see his rear disgusting, while these attributes on a woman are attracting to males. Women know this and dress appropriately to attract as they are taught in many instances this is all they have to offer, I have noticed that those with less a sense of self are the most immodest and I think that their father must have neglected to hug them and tell them they are beautiful and special. Native indians would wrestle for the right to court a woman the stronger more accomplished male would win that right, you see the same thing in animals, rams butting heads, bears fighting, lions and monkeys too, all for the right to be the one who mates. This is how God created us afterall.

ed

[MissyP89]

Gracious, you made my head hurt with this one.

These are very basic thoughts, both because 1) I'm tired and 2) I'm not sure I have any idea what you just said. I'm going to attempt to speak of men in general while drawing on my own opinions. We can look at what this means on a more specific and personal level later.

I've never really thought it important for a man to dress modestly, as generally I don't think there are "modest clothes" and "immodest clothes" with men the way there are for women.

What a man wears won't typically tempt me, but as someone who isn't as visual I'm more likely to just admire his physique and that's where the thought ends. I'm significantly more attracted sexually to a man's face, his voice, and his smell.

So generally speaking, what he wears will not impact whether or not I lust for him.

The only exception is if he's shirtless. In that case, custody of the eyes, heart and mind would come into play the same way they would for a man. Note that [b]being shirtless is not immodest. [/b]My thoughts are more likely to wander if a man lacks a shirt, but the responsibility in that case would fall to [i]me [/i]to control my thoughts and actions in those situations.

So that's clothing. But you bring up some fascinating thoughts re: speech and actions and whether or not they're immodest. I think for men as they relate to women, those things are far more likely to stir up lust in a woman's heart.

I don't find profanity specifically [i]immodest[/i]. It's not classy and occasionally offensive, but if we're using your definition of immodest (things that make it easy to objectify a person), I don't think random swear words will do that. It will, however, potentially lower the lady's opinion of you.

Innuendo is another story, however. I can speak fairly confidently for the majority of women when I say that being sexually suggestive will stir up serious temptations if she is already interested in you. (If she's not, the reaction will be completely opposite in that she'll lose respect or be disgusted.)

Note here that there is a spectrum of appropriateness when you speak to a woman who is your significant other. Flirting and joking in a lighthearted, fun way is not a big deal, but being boldly sexual with a woman (a come-on) is definitely immodest. There's lots of nuance as far as what's OK and what's not. It depends very much on word choice, tone of voice, facial expression and other body language. I won't go into any more detail than this for the sake of the younger phamily here, but I think everyone should have a good sense of the difference I'm trying to express.

I don't believe it's appropriate to joke too much with someone who isn't your girlfriend yet. I used to be OK with it, but over time I've learned that sexual humor isn't necessary to show a woman you're interested. Talking like that to attract a woman would be comparable to a woman showing lots of cleavage to get a guy. Frankly, if that's what you lead with, the relationship that grows from that won't be very grounded, anyway.

Action is another one that is extremely important. The way you touch her, hug her, and look at her are huge factors. I can't stress enough how important they are. A woman can tell immediately if a man has a lustful heart if he's not mindful of his hands.

But as with words, there's a spectrum. The way you touch a woman who is not your girlfriend and the way you touch a woman who is will be different, and that's OK. I think you understand me when I say there's a difference between an [i]intimate [/i]touch (even very intimate) and a [i]lustful [/i]one.

Again, the big picture is very important. It's not just the way or where he touches, but the way he's looking at me and what he's saying during the touch. Those other factors can make the difference between a loving, intimate touch and a lustful one.

Of course, you shouldn't be touching a girl "up there" or "down there" if you're not married to her. I would extend this by saying it is immodest to touch your girlfriend in an innocent place that you know (from her telling you) will tempt her -- ears, face, back, whatever. If she says it's a problem, then it's immodest for you to initiate that touch, even if it's just her arm. Doing something that you know will tempt her is taking advantage of her sexually.

Dancing ... oh goodness, I don't even know. I have honestly never been in a situation where there was a type of dancing going on that was [i]not [/i]grinding. But this makes me think of how Elvis was often shown on TV from the waist up because of the way he moved his hips while dancing. I think a lot of it depends, again, on what the rest of you is doing. What kind of song is it (atmosphere plays a role -- girls are sexual with all 5 senses). What kind of look are you giving her? Is your shirt on? Are you trying to get her to come close to you? These are things to consider.

I know a bunch of this has tons to do with humility, you're correct. But I'm not sure yet if speaking of yourself as a protector/good mate is inherently immodest. I don't know if bragging is immodest. I can only speak for myself when I say that those things will not cause me to objectify a man in a sexual way. Telling me how successful you are isn't gonna make me want to go to bed with you.

TL;DR summary of all this: [b]Intention is key. For men, many things are not objectively modest or immodest. What matters is the big picture: his demeanor, his looks, his tone.[/b]

[size=2]Brian, let's talk about this more on our own. We need to make sure that we're hearing each other correctly on this stuff.[/size]

Edited July 17, 2012 by MissyP89

[brianthephysicist]

Something that leapt out at me:
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1342496828' post='2456279']
And it just kinda dawned on me, whereas women are encouraged to be modest to help men, I think men really need to focus about their modesty around other men.
[/quote]
This is a new concept to me, but from what you said it makes sense. I gotta go do some more thinking.

There's tons of good stuff here. Thanks to everyone that's posted so far. Realizing I posted at a weird time, I anticipate a bunch more amazing responses today

[Maria]

What came to mind as a general definition was... presenting things in such a way that they always refer to something greater and more noble. Thus, the sexual aspects of a person (oneself or another under consideration/discussion) are not presented as standing on their own, thereby demeaning the whole person to a sexual object, but rather as part of a whole person (like what the op said about modest women definitely being women, and not hiding their femininity, but not flaunting it). Likewise, accomplishments, etc., shouldn't be hidden, but shouldn't be presented as defining the person. And the whole person should be presented in a way that refers to God, to the glory of His grace.

Something like that. The whole idea of referring probably came from having read so much St. Augustine this year for Soph. theology.

[Lisa]

Missy hit it right on the head with a lot of ideas, specifically about looks and intents of words and actions.

I do think it's possible being shirtless can be inherently immodest, particularly if there are women around. This might seem tacky, but when women look at a magazine like cosmo, the man is always shirtless. In our society, being going without a shirt becomes something sexy, not necessarily connected with working hard like it used to be. Although talk goes on and on about women not being visual, teen girls are being [i]trained[/i] to be visual. From the earliest teen magazines, celebrity men are pictured without shirts and usually with a "come here" look on their face.

Just like women get upset about modesty requirements sometimes, there will be men who protest really strongly about this. Yes, there are a lot of men that seeing them without a shirt wouldn't be a turn on for anyone, frankly. But I think it would be something to consider for our brothers in Christ who truly want to be godly men.

[BG45]

I assure you, me without a shirt would not fill many women with immodest thoughts. Nor would it make me happy, so I won't be wandering around without a shirt! That said, I have to concur that both men and women are bombarded with sexual imagery from a young age, as pointed out with the magazines and the shirtless men on the cover who are supposed to be the definition of "sexy".

I think Ice_Nine hit like everything square on the head, but the end of her post made me really think about my undergrad days. I had a "Catholic" RA, and I was a Baptist. He'd be bringing home different women every week to our suite, unless he was in his one committed relationship, and was kind of the walking stereotype of the guy who brags about how many women he's been with. At the time, I was exploring Catholicism, but if I hadn't been, he would have fit the mold for almost every Catholic guy I had met in my life up to that point: loud, sexually promiscuous, immodest, etc. Now don't get me wrong, he was a great friend and a bit like the wild brother I never had, but it got tiring to be told that I needed to get laid and, "C'mon Phil, you're the only one of us who hasn't had (word omitted for rules sake) in his bed in here!" The first time I came home from Adoration, I was glowing apparently and accused of having had a booty call. It can be difficult (though not impossible) when one is put into that sort of situation day after day.

[MissyP89]

Nevermind.

Edited July 17, 2012 by MissyP89

[Amppax]

I don't know if this falls into this, but something that I've noticed is how guys talk to girls. I would think that being overly flirtatious (even if there is nothing explicitly sexual about it) could be immodest. I don't know though if this would qualify as immodest, but I'd guess it would.

[BG45]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1342555542' post='2456454']
I don't know if this falls into this, but something that I've noticed is how guys talk to girls. I would think that being overly flirtatious (even if there is nothing explicitly sexual about it) could be immodest. I don't know though if this would qualify as immodest, but I'd guess it would.
[/quote]

I think it could, dependent on the context of the situation. Hearkening back to Missy's point on some things not being inherently immodest but capable of being so in the right (or wrong as it were) situation.

[Winchester]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1342493294' post='2456262']
Okay, so modesty discussions on phatmass are usually about women's clothing and what is or is not modest clothing. In this thread, I'd like to keep the topic about what modesty means for a man.



Last night, I was listening to a talk on chastity, and in the speaker's Q&A she mentioned something along the lines of "pornography and masturbation are problems are struggles for men and modesty is a struggle for women." From simply glancing at our culture and from a previous thread on phatmass I knew that the first half of that statement left the unsaid reality that, even though statistically more men deal with it, it is still an issue that women have to deal with.

Since I already didn't like that statement, I questioned the second half of it. [b]Is modesty a struggle for men? If so, what does it look like?[/b]

I don't really know. The main point of this thread is to examine these questions. Sure, maybe we'll never have a perfect understanding, but I still want to know what I can do to move in the direction of modesty, but at the same time I would like to avoid scrupulosity.

I've spent some time thinking on this myself, I certainly don't have everything figured out and, heck, some of it may be flat out wrong, but here's what I've thought on this so far.



I wanted to start with the idea of modesty itself. I didn't have any resources available, so I tried my best to come up with a definition on my own. It's difficult, so I tried dealing with the antonym of immodest. In terms of women's clothing, I think of immodesty being when a woman dresses in such a way that her (lack of) clothing distracts me from her to focus on her as a sexual object. Trying to generalize this, I came up with the idea that immodesty is anything that distracts from the person to focus on them as a sexual object.

To now look at the opposite of that, feels like I'm swinging in the other extreme of repression, which is just as bad. I thought some more about what makes modesty different from repression and about examples of women dressing beautifully and modestly. When a woman dresses modestly, there is a simple elegance about her, you can see her natural God-given beauty and she's not "throwing her sexuality" at you, but it is still perfectly evident that she's a woman. I don't really have the words for this nuance, but the point I'm trying to get at is that her clothing is not something for her to hide behind, rather it helps her [u]display her womanhood[/u] without pushing for the observer to think of her sexually.

I haven't really defined anything, all I've managed to do is talk about modesty for women which isn't what this thread is supposed to be about, but it has given me a basis to think in, sort of an operational jargon.



So now we move to talk about men. We can examples of men dressed immodestly (pantaloons hanging off the buttocks), but this doesn't seem to be anything difficult to rectify. Women tend to be less visual than men, so it makes sense that clothing wouldn't be (as much of) an issue.

But what about my earlier idea that immodesty is anything that distracts from the person to focus on them as a sexual object? Are actions immodest? What about speech?

Obviously this would apply to crude language, as in constantly talking about either self (talking about penis size or previous sexual encounters) or others simply as sexual objects (telling a girl she has nice boobs). This also made me remember something I read on profanity, and how (when it is not being used for shock value) it draws attention to things of sexual nature. People don't necessarily hear the f-bomb and think about sex, but consistent use of it demands that the language or vocabulary of sexuality be kept in mind during the conversation. Constantly demanding this to be in our mind distracts us from seeing the person and instead we see a sexual object.

But once again, just as with what I said about immodesty earlier, I don't want to swing from one extreme to another that's just as bad. It is NOT okay to talk to another person as a sexual object, but I also don't think it's right to ignore true beauty, and with the general lack of positive body image, we can and should still let a girl know that she is beautiful, but in a way that captures the beauty of her entire personhood, the inside [i]and[/i] the outside. I feel like I have a good handle on this, but I would always love to hear more on this.

But as much as I understand this idea of words sharing in the personhood of another, I am lost on the matter of talking about myself to positively display my manhood. My pride wants me to (and sadly often succeeds in forcing me to) push my sexuality or some other attractive quality (not necessarily sexual in nature but more of "I am man. I am stable provider. This makes me good mate." type of silliness) into my conversations. Other times I again swing to the other extreme and display false humility. How do I talk modestly about myself?

Wow, rereading that last sentence just bridged the connection between the two common contexts where I hear the word modest. Hmm ... I need to think more about what that means ...



Anyway, since I kinda rambled on about speech, what about action? Personally, I have been looking at my dancing and seeing that some of it is honestly just fun, fun for me and fun to share with others, but other dancing I do is honestly immodest, drawing attention to me in a sexual manner. I don't want to dance negatively, showing off my sexuality, and I don't want to simply dance 'non-negatively', hiding my manhood, I want to dance positively, displaying my manhood. But what does that [i]mean[/i]???

And not just dancing, I'm sure there's a million other actions that I or other men can stand to improve on in this regard that nobody mentions as capable of improvement. I honestly have no idea, but I'd like to hear more about this.



If you're still reading, I apologize for my rambling and scattered thoughts. I'm not a very coherent writer and I didn't let Missy proof-read this

I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' opinions on ways that men can be modest in that positive sense of displaying true manhood, without pushing his sexuality.
[/quote]

[img]http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/7/11268/z11268217O.jpg[/img]

[Winchester]

Srsly, Herman Melville. Summarize.