Anyway, to start, I would like to highlight four perspectives that I think cover pretty well the narratives on this subject (though of course you could have variations on these or narratives that fall between two of these):
1. The whole idea is a symptom of sexual repression and/or of the repression of the patriarchy, controlling women by telling them what to wear.
2. Women tend to feel uncomfortable when they wear less, and it may be appropriate to teach girls to recognize what they feel comfortable wearing. Modesty may be appropriate if it help a woman feel comfortable and therefore empowered, but the pertinent factor is how she feels, others should not influence her dress.
3. Modesty is a matter of respect for self as well as others. Showing self respect and being comfortable with one's self and one's dress is important, but certain kinds of dress may show a lack of respect for those around you.
4. Modesty is required to keep men from losing control of themselves, as they cannot exert self-control.
Let me say at the outset that I subscribe to the third of these. This is likely unsurprising: Previous posts establish that I believe that sexuality is sacred and ought to be respected as such. Thus, I believe that:
1. God has commanded that we respect sexuality, including by maintaining certain standards of dress which do not expose the parts of the body involved in sex and reproduction to be exposed to scrutiny and mockery. It is a matter, first and foremost, of obedience to God and respect for the sacred.
2. Dress can influence how you feel about yourself, and modest dress, particularly in Western culture, is likely to enhance self-respect. Further, with a view to the sacredness of sexuality, even without considerations of Western culture, it may be an act of self-respect.
3. While others are responsible for their own thoughts and actions (you do not have the primary responsibility here), it is true that your actions do affect those around you, and you do have a duty to them. You are your brother's keeper.
All three of these, I believe, are important considerations with regard to modesty. I also think that I've put them in order of importance, but you may debate that if you wish, ultimately God hasn't told us. Of course, I think I may need to defend my third point, because it may sound to some like the idea that men can't control themselves. But I feel I need only say a few things in that defense.
First, that you influence others is not the same as that they do not have ultimate control and agency over themselves. Regardless of what a woman is wearing (or a man, for that matter), it is the man's (or whoever is sexually attracted to that person) duty to treat them and sexuality with respect all the same. But you can have an influence. Everything we do influences those around us, including this. No man (or woman) is an island. So I fully reject the idea that I am not an agent and not responsible for my actions and thoughts, but I accept the idea that others' actions can have an influence which makes it easier or more difficult for me to do the things that I should do.
My second point: As I said, no man is an island, and we are supposed to be our brother's keeper. In general, we have a duty to think of those around us as well as ourselves. I'm not just talking about modesty here, but it does have meaning. Given that you can influence those around you, you have a duty to them in your decisions. Is it the only consideration? Basically never, there are almost always other considerations, and my guess would be that more often than not there are more important considerations. But that doesn't mean this isn't important. As such, I reject the idea that, as long as you're personally comfortable with it, it must be okay (well, I reject that based on the idea that God has a stance on the matter as well). If a woman is comfortable walking around topless or a man is comfortable without pants, it would still be disrespectful to the men and women around her or him, so those around you should certainly influence your dress (as I believe that respect for others has value), though it is not the all-consuming determinant.
I hope it's clear how a middle ground can exist on this particular point, and whether or not you believe that respect is the appropriate understanding, I hope that you can at least respect my view on the matter. But there's one more implication from this view: how we teach this. Religious people of many faiths believe in modest dress as a value, but it is important that we teach it in the context of the actual principles associated with it. In this case, we need to teach respect and the sacredness of sexuality, and keep modesty contextualized in that respect. Though I haven't actually heard teaching position number 4 on my list (that men can't control themselves), judging by the discussion on the internet, people are either teaching that, or at the very least failing to contextualize and teach so that the idea comes across that way.
Oh, and, uh, finally, I guess that I should, for completeness, mention perspective number one on my list. I reject the idea that modest dress is merely a matter of sexual repression, that it cannot have any value as a principle, because I do think that it can be a matter of respect. Saying that it can be a matter of respect (as I believe that respect has value) is, I think, equivalent to rejecting the idea that it cannot have any value.
Let me say at the outset that I subscribe to the third of these. This is likely unsurprising: Previous posts establish that I believe that sexuality is sacred and ought to be respected as such. Thus, I believe that:
1. God has commanded that we respect sexuality, including by maintaining certain standards of dress which do not expose the parts of the body involved in sex and reproduction to be exposed to scrutiny and mockery. It is a matter, first and foremost, of obedience to God and respect for the sacred.
2. Dress can influence how you feel about yourself, and modest dress, particularly in Western culture, is likely to enhance self-respect. Further, with a view to the sacredness of sexuality, even without considerations of Western culture, it may be an act of self-respect.
3. While others are responsible for their own thoughts and actions (you do not have the primary responsibility here), it is true that your actions do affect those around you, and you do have a duty to them. You are your brother's keeper.
All three of these, I believe, are important considerations with regard to modesty. I also think that I've put them in order of importance, but you may debate that if you wish, ultimately God hasn't told us. Of course, I think I may need to defend my third point, because it may sound to some like the idea that men can't control themselves. But I feel I need only say a few things in that defense.
First, that you influence others is not the same as that they do not have ultimate control and agency over themselves. Regardless of what a woman is wearing (or a man, for that matter), it is the man's (or whoever is sexually attracted to that person) duty to treat them and sexuality with respect all the same. But you can have an influence. Everything we do influences those around us, including this. No man (or woman) is an island. So I fully reject the idea that I am not an agent and not responsible for my actions and thoughts, but I accept the idea that others' actions can have an influence which makes it easier or more difficult for me to do the things that I should do.
My second point: As I said, no man is an island, and we are supposed to be our brother's keeper. In general, we have a duty to think of those around us as well as ourselves. I'm not just talking about modesty here, but it does have meaning. Given that you can influence those around you, you have a duty to them in your decisions. Is it the only consideration? Basically never, there are almost always other considerations, and my guess would be that more often than not there are more important considerations. But that doesn't mean this isn't important. As such, I reject the idea that, as long as you're personally comfortable with it, it must be okay (well, I reject that based on the idea that God has a stance on the matter as well). If a woman is comfortable walking around topless or a man is comfortable without pants, it would still be disrespectful to the men and women around her or him, so those around you should certainly influence your dress (as I believe that respect for others has value), though it is not the all-consuming determinant.
I hope it's clear how a middle ground can exist on this particular point, and whether or not you believe that respect is the appropriate understanding, I hope that you can at least respect my view on the matter. But there's one more implication from this view: how we teach this. Religious people of many faiths believe in modest dress as a value, but it is important that we teach it in the context of the actual principles associated with it. In this case, we need to teach respect and the sacredness of sexuality, and keep modesty contextualized in that respect. Though I haven't actually heard teaching position number 4 on my list (that men can't control themselves), judging by the discussion on the internet, people are either teaching that, or at the very least failing to contextualize and teach so that the idea comes across that way.
Oh, and, uh, finally, I guess that I should, for completeness, mention perspective number one on my list. I reject the idea that modest dress is merely a matter of sexual repression, that it cannot have any value as a principle, because I do think that it can be a matter of respect. Saying that it can be a matter of respect (as I believe that respect has value) is, I think, equivalent to rejecting the idea that it cannot have any value.
