Modest fashion

@NeverDropYourMooncup
Apologies - you weren’t the one wittering about the origins of various Muslim dress. But the rest of my post stands.

For all your wittering about the origins of Muslim dress, you’ve massively misunderstood my point of view.

I think you and all women should be absolutely free to cover up as much or as little as they like.

My only issue is with the term ‘modest’. That is all.

Well yes, but not in the way you appear to interpret it as being. Women have the right to wear clothes with greater coverage without being attacked, criticised or patronised for doing so.

I went to Brighton Pride with friends one year. It was hot. I wore opaque tights underneath shorts, a high neck & longsleeved top and a scarf covering my scalp. I had multiple people thinking they were being kind in stopping me and telling me that I shouldn't be embarrassed by my body and I should feel proud/confident and get it all out. I was wearing that outfit because I was covered from head to toe in burning, stinging Psoriasis. I couldn't tolerate sunblock on it, I certainly didn't want to add sunburn on top and keeping it covered was more comfortable physically, practically and yes, emotionally. Instead of just being able to enjoy my day, I was therefore constantly reminded that I stood out, didn't look 'normal' and, just for good measure, I was clearly being told that I was fat and must be ashamed of myself because I wasn't letting everybody else see my body (and the hundreds of raw, sore and bleeding plaques).

If I choose to wear a swimsuit that covers everything from collarbone to knee, that should be my choice. Why do I owe other people the right to see my inner thighs, my varicose veins, my body hair? I just want to swim. I don't want my tits floating out of the top, I don't want to be arseing around with spaghetti straps, fishing high leg cuts out of my bumcrack, or feeling my section overhang pop out the top once I'm in the water. I want to be comfortable, which includes feeling covered - and I don't want somebody else to complain they haven't been able to see more of my body and I must be criticising them because they're sat happily in a tiny bikini or in a pair of budgie smugglers/shorts where they deliberately cut out the mesh so their genitals are visible as they swim or float in the pool with their legs open (plausible deniability for some men there) and I'm not.

You criticise me for something that's got fuck all to do with you and I'm more likely to keep on doing it. I have the privilege from being white. But I still feel repelled by demands to expose more of my body than I wish to do and more likely to cover up because you're making me feel more vulnerable and pissed off with the expectation that more of my body - mine - should be available for observation when I don't want it to be.

I want to be comfortable and covered, not out for observation and judgement.

Having a go at women for wearing the clothes that they wish to is not empowerment. It's intrinsically antifeminist, frequently racist, xenophobic, Antisemitic, Islamophobic and always none of your beeswax.

That’s very interesting, but I’m not sure of your position on the use of the term ‘modest’ in this context. If it’s the fault of the West, does that make it more or less acceptable?

Whatever the origins of various sorts of ‘modest’ clothing for women, what is patently clear is that it’s a feminist issue.

Until 2021 Islamic modesty meant something extremely different. Thin almost transparent abaya / niquabs were worn across the Arab world as that was their tradition (while women further east only really wore hijabs). Burkha was an ancient Hindu practice only practised in Afghanistan (a leftover from when it was Gandhar) and considered backwards. Wahabbism as practiced in Saudi was considered extreme and also backwards.

Then 2021 happened, women were being targetted for wearing hijab, young Muslim women saw their culture being attacked and started to take an interest. As most Islamic schools were funded by Saudi at the time they began to wear Afghan / Saudi dress. Often against their parents wishes. I know many Pakistani families who fractured because of this ‘extremeism’ - my best friend at the time of the attacks was kicked out because she brought home a Muslim husband of a different race- something perfectly okay in Wahabbi Islam but that went against Pakistani culture.

So really the west has nobody to blame but themselves if they don’t like Islamic dressing. It only exists as a market because of racism activising muslim women.

It's a sliding scale. Like cheddar.
Existence of extra mature cheddar doesn't mean all other cheddar is mild or bad.

Mature cheddar hasn't spent thousands of years being (the only category of cheddar which is) judged or valued on its purity and its appearance. The word 'modesty' may have changed its meaning somewhat, but certainly not universally and, relatively speaking, not since very long ago. Women (especially those in the public eye) are still judged all the time on their appearance and what it says about their character, in a way that men very rarely are.

Hmmm a couple of you may have convinced me. change it to " conservative"?

Language evolves. Modest doesn't mean immoral etc in this sense. Same like staycation don't mean actual staycation anymore and include now stays within own country (anything to make not going abroad sound like not a proper holiday🙄).

I find this very disingenuous. Yes, language evolves, but it’s not some inexplicable, natural phenomenon that’s separate from people and their culture and beliefs. Language evolves in accordance with social change. So in your staycation example, the widening of that term was heavily influenced by covid restrictions.

Can you not see that the creeping pervasiveness of the term ‘modest’ has some much more sinister associations than a word for a holiday? Women’s rights are being rolled back in various ways around the world, and meanwhile ‘modest’ slips silently into the online shopping lexicon. Women in Afghanistan can literally be arrested for perceived immodesty of dress, but you can’t see any problem with casually introducing that concept into western mainstream clothing retail?

The example with the cheddar was disingenuous too, to say the least! Those descriptors (mild, mature) are very neutral, as you well know, but what if one type of cheese had been historically banned (and that’s not as mad as it sounds - plenty of religions have strict rules around food) and was known as ‘illicit’ cheddar or ‘forbidden’ cheese?! Plenty of people would happily shrug off those historic connotations as irrelevant and meaningless, but what if those religious beliefs had a renaissance (like the lovely resurgence we’re having in misogyny). Should everyone just be comfortable with hearing their choices described in terms that others find deplorable, even if you don’t share those beliefs?

Words are not just words. Would you be happy with one of the ‘non-modest’ ranges of clothes being called ‘slut-wear’?? If not, why not?

It's perfectly possible to hate that women are forced by societal or religious pressures to conform to "modest" standards and simultaneously be glad that the spa is making sure women who are feel comfortable to swim. In the same way, women can dress "modestly" themselves without wanting to force other women to. Holding two ideas in your head at the same time-who knew that was possible!

@Tartareistasty now I want a cheese sandwich 😂

@TracyBeakerSoYeah ha! Yes

The most likely reason why men's has to be searched with "men's" is down to the fact women shop clothes online way more than men and your own algorithm.
Even if I google "trousers" absolute most I get is women's trousers in results.

Let me explain this in easy British terms since even pics for illustration didn't help. 😂

It's a sliding scale. Like cheddar.
Existence of extra mature cheddar doesn't mean all other cheddar is mild or bad.
You have mild, mature (and different types within that) and extra mature.

Same with clothing.
Immodest (let's not pretend it doesn't exist), common as in standard where most people sit(and many types within that), modest.

Language evolves. Modest doesn't mean immoral etc in this sense. Same like staycation don't mean actual staycation anymore and include now stays within own country (anything to make not going abroad sound like not a proper holiday🙄).

Modest fashion is so chic...i like the term.

It isn’t remotely rare if you Google the right thing.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=men%27s+modest+clothing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

I think there's more of a problem with those who see the opposite of modest as something perjorative.

I do not dress in accordance with modest standards. But neither do I have any difficulty in owning that choice.

Women's rights are not threatened by a tiny minority who choose to wear modest clothing full coverings

Not by the women themselves, but by the moral implications of the term 'modest'.

Women's rights are not threatened by a tiny minority who choose to wear modest clothing😒

Women in Iran or Afghanistan don't have time to be debating clothing retailers selling a niche section of modest clothes either

Way too sensitive to take issue with 'modest' and see it is an insult to you, or saying that covering a girls lower half is akin to oppression of their childhood or something (forcing them)

@Tartareistasty I think you are me - another internet sleuth 😂

Seriously it's quite easy to find modest clothes for men if you use the following search terms

'men modest clothing'
'modest swimwear clothing'

loads of shops/websites come up

Beautifully put, @Catusrusty.

Similar here. This usage of 'modest' really irritates me: they mean 'fully covered', so say that!

A modest amount means a small amount.
A modest person downplays their good points.
'Modest' clothing is not small and downplays nothing.

And, yes, it DOES imply that normal 'Western' clothing is immodest, by simple deduction!

It is absolutely simple. If being covered up is modest, then being uncovered is immodest.

It's not rocket science.

It plays into the idea that women having any kind of bared flesh are immodest and therefore inviting male attention.

I've heard the same rhetoric applied to women covering their hair, that it is a sign of modesty. Clearly then uncovered hair is immodest. No other conclusion can be drawn.

An early poster said that isn't about you OP, but they are dead wrong, because the damaging idea that a woman's worth is weighed in terms of their perceived purity does in fact concern all women.

You are correct OP, and the terminology that these clothes are modest is deeply damaging , retrograde and flawed. It is the reverse of feminism. When you look at the sickening way this ideology is applied to the women of Afghanistan it is frightening.

Now you can say that's hyperbole, but look at the women of Iran. They could wear miniskirts until 1978. Look at America, the land of the free. Except women don't even have bodily autonomy.

Women's rights are hard won and so easily lost.

Clothing specifically designed to satisfy a religious requirement being described as modest, rather than religiously mandated is insidious to say the least.

I'd never wear a pair of Nike Pro hotpants myself. But I support every women's right to do so without the judgement that showing her legs makes her lesser.

Lambiriyani it depends on the pool but IME they are very strict on not letting you wear anything that could be street clothes in the pool for hygiene reasons (no board shorts for men or t shirts over swimming costumes etc). I think a modest swim suit would be fine in Italy though as long as it was obviously swim wear (e.g. lycra)...DM always wears tankinis and I've taken my DC in rash vests.

You're just going to keep pretending you don't know the meanings of the words modest and immodest no matter how many times I post it. You absolutely do care about modesty and you know exactly what it means. Another extremely dishonest one.

@Pollyputhekettleon

It's a simple word, I'm not arguing with alla that

Shorts on girls is normal and fine under skirts. Underwear/knickers for girls is not as covered as for boys/boxers so it makes sense. It's possible that something could accidentally be shown if a child is active in a dress.

Children aren't forced to wear shorts any more than they're forced to brush their teeth, or forced to wear a coat on a rainy day. It doesn't deprive their quality of life. They do not care.

If my son was wearing a shirt dress and knickers for some reason , I might consider modesty shorts for him

Your user-name made me LOL!