Modesty

Lamkins

Woodpecker
Woman
@Lamkins - Will have to check out White Cottage Company! Honestly, with lockdowns being what they are, sometimes it's nice to have someone talking in the background who is similar in mind. Slightly dystopian if that's what passes as sort-of-human-interraction at this point but I'm excited to see more. I've followed DC off and on for a while. Time to check in again!

This is why I love this forum. It's just so great to be able to chat and learn from other women (and men) who are of similar heart and mind. I wish there was a heart react! @Roosh - Can we get a heart emoticon ? :)

I know just what you mean regarding hearing a voice with similar values. It’s comforting to see a fellow believer or even just a fellow human going about their life normally. I tend to catastrophize, so it brings me back to earth. And we really do need a heart emoticon!!
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Modesty tends to fall into the conversation of cloths, but glad to hear your second prompt about social media "influencers" and modest behaviour.

Online tutorials are different because valuable information is shared. Video political commentary should be left to the men no matter how informed a woman is on politics.

Why do married women perform [life] streams, just talking about her life experiences for over an hour, for money?
What valuable information is she contributing? Talking about motherhood and marriage is best left to written publications to process the information.

Is it wrong to believe a married woman should not be online streaming for money out of respect for her husband, and family?
Does it not send the wrong message about modesty as a wife?
To quote Marshall McLuhan: The medium is the message.

Audio- and video-based media lends itself to immodesty. As a woman, you are drawing viewers/listeners based on your attractiveness (whether this is your intention or not).

Writing is really the only medium that doesn't lend itself to this kind of vanity and immodesty. I have no problem with women writing books, even on topics generally considered "masculine."
 

Gracie

Pigeon
Woman
Audio- and video-based media lends itself to immodesty. As a woman, you are drawing viewers/listeners based on your attractiveness (whether this is your intention or not).
Hi Rob,

I'm curious if your perception is different if the viewership is women? I personally have a different perspective. If all efforts are made to indicate a channel is for women, I think that women can communicate with other women verbally or visually without it immediately being immodest but that it certainly could be the case depending on content. Further, I fear that making a claim that a woman is being immodest based on using audio as a vector for sharing is dangerous. Could that mean that even spending time speaking with a female friend could be considered immodest just by virtue of the fact that my voice (or her voice) could be considered attractive (even if not sexually, but aesthetically)? If so, I think this might be a slippery-slope towards women just not being allowed to speak in public for the same reasons... I am sure this is likely a stretch though but I wonder where the limit is for you. It sounds like the female allure would be a concern for a male audience but if it's an all female audience, I wonder if the aesthetic of beauty (if she's dressed modestly, does this avoid the problem?) or of voice (if she speaks plainly, does this avoid the problem?) is actually problematic enough for a woman to not be able to use a medium like audio or video.

Thanks for commenting. You gave my fiancé and I a fun discussion. :)
 

Kitty Tantrum

Woodpecker
Woman
Audio- and video-based media lends itself to immodesty. As a woman, you are drawing viewers/listeners based on your attractiveness (whether this is your intention or not).
I'd like this a hundred times, if I could.

Audio/Video media in this context is the innate selling of yourself - even if it is in addition to something that you made. As someone who does eventually intend to pull it together enough to take a stab at helping other women, I understand the draw of the "vlog" or "podcast" format. All of the modern internet is built for that, basically -- but that's how you know it's probably not the best idea.

Your brand should be something you hide behind, to a great extent -- if modesty is the goal. If your "brand" (or any part of it) is your own face and body -- OR even your personality -- that is not modest. If your fame scales with the success of your product, that's not modest.

In terms of overall modesty of appearance, I think most women would be better off without mirrors of any substantial size, let alone cameras.
 
to me dressing modestly means dressing in a feminine, simple way. So a skirt but not a tight, short skirt but a longer, flowy one. No cleavage, tight or revealing clothes. Very light make up. Nothing tempting, really, or showing off / drawing attention to me. I'm not a man nor a lesbian but I believe that as a woman you more or less know yourself, what is tempting to a man. I don't cover my hair anymore. I do not follow any influencers online I must say, so I have no reply to your second question.

I second the comment of Hermetic Seal, the women at the gym dressed like that, just looking for attention. They are usually the ones I don't see doing any workout, just chatting, walking around, checking their phones and also wearing heavy make up. Whereas I'm there with my head all red and sweaty looking absolutely unattractive but I don't care haha.

Try going bare-faced next time. Save some time and money in the process.
 

Feyoder

Kingfisher
If all efforts are made to indicate a channel is for women, I think that women can communicate with other women verbally or visually without it immediately being immodest but that it certainly could be the case depending on content.

Completely agree.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Hi Rob,

I'm curious if your perception is different if the viewership is women? I personally have a different perspective. If all efforts are made to indicate a channel is for women, I think that women can communicate with other women verbally or visually without it immediately being immodest but that it certainly could be the case depending on content. Further, I fear that making a claim that a woman is being immodest based on using audio as a vector for sharing is dangerous. Could that mean that even spending time speaking with a female friend could be considered immodest just by virtue of the fact that my voice (or her voice) could be considered attractive (even if not sexually, but aesthetically)? If so, I think this might be a slippery-slope towards women just not being allowed to speak in public for the same reasons... I am sure this is likely a stretch though but I wonder where the limit is for you. It sounds like the female allure would be a concern for a male audience but if it's an all female audience, I wonder if the aesthetic of beauty (if she's dressed modestly, does this avoid the problem?) or of voice (if she speaks plainly, does this avoid the problem?) is actually problematic enough for a woman to not be able to use a medium like audio or video.

Thanks for commenting. You gave my fiancé and I a fun discussion. :)
Like I said, the medium is the message.

The "medium" being audio/video recordings and/or broadcasts, not merely your face and voice.

Modern technology (and by "modern" I mean everything post-Industrial revolution and even some pre-Industrial technologies) changes everything. It is unnatural and lends itself to ungodliness. It is not a coincidence that events such as the Protestant Reformation, the "Enlightement," Freemasonry, the American and French Revolutions, communism, and the "sexual revolution" all happened during timed of great technological advancement.

If something as relatively simple as the inventon of the printing press can cause something as monumental as the Protestant Reformation, imagine what kind of societal changes can result from widespread adoption of more advanced technologies.

So no, I don't think it's wrong for women to speak and/or show their faces in public. I do think it is wrong for them to use audio/video broadcasts and recordings.

Is it wrong for men to use audio/video media? I don't know. I think the world would be a better place if audio/video media technology (and the Interntet) did not exist. But for men, I don't think the medium lends itself to immodesty as universally as it does for women. Although men who become internet-famous tend to become prideful, which I suppose is a form of immodesty.

The difference is, as a woman, you could make a vlog and do everything right (dress modestly, speak softly, behave in a feminine manner, etc.) and men will still be drawn to your vlog based on your sexual attractiveness.

On your question of whether it is different if it were an all-female audience, I suppose it would be different. But how are you going to enforce a female-only rule if you're brosdcasting on the Internet?
 
Last edited:

messaggera

Woodpecker
Woman
The difference is, as a woman, you could make a vlog and do everything right (dress modestly, speak softly, behave in a feminine manner, etc.) and men will still be drawn to your vlog based on your sexual attractiveness.


Agree with @Gracie and @Lamkins within the area that there are a few female youtube channels that are meant to assist with "How to [insert appropriate activity or process]" and those videos tend to have substance and to have focused on the content, rather the presenter.

Would like to clarify the point of women within the same topic area as someone like Roosh and his content. Roosh is an intellect because he presents original contributions to the topics of culture, politics, and religion. An intellect's presentation requires an amount of knowledge to be acquired through past and present research-experience; and synthesising the knowledge versus not just parroting another's original contributions (promotor) to the audience.

Most online females, presenting similar content, will repackage someone else's original content, perhaps draw similar experiences to match the content and share as her own. But by presenting through video and audio (opposed to writing) there is the set up @Rob Banks points out.
Would she still be online if there was no pay, or little audience interest?

Would it be appropriate and respectful for a married woman with child(ren) to present controversial content, which could potentially be a doxxing opportunity, online?

Back to @Gracie point, which was a great point, she listens when reading is not an option because she is caring/performing duties for the home. I agree it is easier to listen to the religious radio stations (music, scripture, and bible teachings) when multitasking.

An individual who was once a controversial promoter, now married with children, is still online would suggest she likes the attention (or sponsorship pay). In the end the issue is within me and my opinion: Personally (now), as a married woman following Christ it is difficult accepting this behaviour as modest or even feminine.

Could someone provide supporting evidence to weaken this opinion?
 
Last edited:

Kitty Tantrum

Woodpecker
Woman
The time may be coming. That women would have to manufacture dresses in their own homes if there is no option to buy modest clothing.
This is part of what I'm gearing up for. I've definitely found that 90%+ of clothing available for purchase that is ALMOST modest, would still require at least some amount of alteration in order to be ACTUALLY modest. Half sleeves and ankle-length hems... with plunging necklines and slits up-to-there. :boring:

Those alterations are often impossible without buying TWO of something so you have extra fabric. And it's enough work that you might as well start from scratch!

I've also noticed that the prettiest and nicest fabrics are used to make immodest styles more appealing - while modest styles are more typically produced in the "grandma palette."

There are some treasures out there, but they're rare.

I'm getting pretty sick of layering all the time to solve my problems.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Back to @Gracie point, which was a great point, she listens when reading is not an option because she is caring/performing duties for the home. I agree it is easier to listen to the religious radio stations (music, scripture, and bible teachings) when multitasking.
Before radio, TV, and computers, there wad no "multitasking." You read books when you had time. You went about your daily life and chores without any background entertainment. And that was just fine.

I don't particularly like the idea of using political and/or spiritual content as entertainment (although I myself am guilty of using it that way).
 

Starlight

Woodpecker
Woman
Before radio, TV, and computers, there wad no "multitasking." You read books when you had time. You went about your daily life and chores without any background entertainment. And that was just fine.

I don't particularly like the idea of using political and/or spiritual content as entertainment (although I myself am guilty of using it that way).
I don’t see a problem with listening to religious media while multitasking. When I’m doing housework I usually listen to music or Ancient Faith Radio. I’ve noticed that when I’m listening to religious media, I’m more likely to pray or keep my mind centered on Holy things while going about my day. So I think, in that way, it has a benefit.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Woodpecker
Woman
Agree with @Gracie and @Lamkins within the area that there are a few female youtube channels that are meant to assist with "How to [insert appropriate activity or process]" and those videos tend to have substance and to have focused on the content, rather the presenter.
My solution for this, because much of what I'd want to teach would be more useful with visual illustration or video of the process, would be to use a point-of-view camera perspective. I don't think that showing just my HANDS doing work for instructional purposes would be immodest at all.

But as soon as you put your face/form on camera as an augmentation to what you're selling, as part of the product/brand, that's something totally different. (Beyond having a traditional/conservative portrait/"profile photo" in your bio somewhere - not saying you have to be TOTALLY anonymous or faceless to avoid immodesty.) It's like that meme of "when a guy wants to show you something" (picture of THING) - vs "when a woman wants to show you something" (and it's a SELFIE with THING in the background).

I waver a bit on the issue of audio recordings. But overall (personal preference/bias showing here), I think it would be better for women to WRITE - and then if their words are deemed worthy to be published in audio format, it should be done by one of those male narrators with the English accent who sound just androgynous enough to not really turn anyone on with their voice. I'd listen to everything in that voice if I could. I'm SICK TO DEATH of the way most women sound when they're being recorded.
Would it be appropriate and respectful for a married woman with child(ren) to present controversial content, which could potentially be a doxxing opportunity, online?
In my opinion, this is not appropriate, at least for as long as the children are minors. Beyond that I'm not sure. It would probably depend on a lot of factors. I've got plenty of controversial things to say that are my own words and observations - not just repackaged material learned or lifted from somewhere else. But I think that if I were ever to go down that path, it could only ever be with the full consent and support of my husband AND my sons; if I cannot persuade them onto the same page with me, if they do not believe in my "cause" to the degree that they would voluntarily step in to act as something of a buffer between me and the public eye - if they would rather disavow and disassociate... then I have no business pushing those ideas to anybody.

And it would never, ever, EVER be for money or fame. I will never attempt to profit from the propagation of truth OR the fight against evil. That's not really a modesty issue, I just find it tasteless. I wouldn't even be comfortable collecting or charging in order to "recoup costs." If ever I am compelled to publish, it will be at my expense and the information will be 100% free.
 
This is part of what I'm gearing up for. I've definitely found that 90%+ of clothing available for purchase that is ALMOST modest, would still require at least some amount of alteration in order to be ACTUALLY modest. Half sleeves and ankle-length hems... with plunging necklines and slits up-to-there. :boring:

Those alterations are often impossible without buying TWO of something so you have extra fabric. And it's enough work that you might as well start from scratch!

I've also noticed that the prettiest and nicest fabrics are used to make immodest styles more appealing - while modest styles are more typically produced in the "grandma palette."

There are some treasures out there, but they're rare.

I'm getting pretty sick of layering all the time to solve my problems.

Deliberate incentives against modesty.
 
A preacher I like, Paul Washer, explains in it a short manner, but in a way that's intuitive —

To dress modestly is to dress in a way that accentuates the woman's beauty.
If the clothing is used to draw attention to your face, its proper.
To dress immodestly is to dress in a way that accentuates the woman's sensuality.
If the clothing is used to draw attention to your body, then its sensual.

Here's the 5 minute clip I'm refrencing — How a Christian Woman is to Adorn Herself - Paul Washer
 

Atlas Shrugged

Pigeon
Woman
Another topic that pains me. I do dress modestly. However my blessing on the top half I view as a curse. I have had comments while wearing hoodies about how I fill out tops so yes it does bother me that I can’t wear something women with nothing on top have cause I would look like a hussy but on them they look cute. Wearing gigantic tops does get annoying. And has made me cry on several occasions. So overall this topic is upsetting to me cause unless you’re in that situation you have no idea how terrible it is. I remember how painful it was as a teen being looked at by older men when again wearing mumus on top for Pete’s sake. Can’t win. Oh well. That’s life. But I will never for the life of me understand how someone feels ok having their cleavage or butt or thighs out. I actually downvoted a bridesmaid dress to the bride to be and said I will not be in a wedding if I have to wear that cause eyes will be on me. And that makes me very uncomfortable. I swear this all goes back to how we are raised. If God was in your life as a kid some of that will stick with you. But that’s me.
 
Top