To think that we don't need a London Modest Fashion week??

[Cherrysoup]

Given that we're not living in the Victorian era?

I don't see how you got that from her post personally...

She quite clearly said that it casts a judgement on the person who is wearing clothes that aren't modest..

No she did not. It only makes a judgment of you go along with the concept of there being a valid distinction between modest clothing and not modest clothing ie as Muhajaba does. There is nothing in Enormous posts to suggest she does.

Lass I agree with the dictionary definitions...but I'm sure you'll tell me I don't, since whatever I say you tell me I actually mean something different. Shame the thread became so strange and nasty but fairly unsurprising.

If you agree with the dictionary definitions why do you continue to insist on the offensive distinction between modest clothing and not modest clothing ?

You agree that immodest means this?

ɪˈmɒdɪst/
adjective
lacking humility or decorousness.
"his immodest personality"
synonyms: indecorous, improper, indecent, indelicate, indiscreet, immoral; forward, bold, brazen, impudent, unblushing, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, loose, wanton; informalfresh, cheeky, naughty, saucy
"her clothes and manner were most immodest"

And you agree that a woman in modest dress is avoiding indecency?

Definition of modest dress
(of a woman) dressing or behaving so as to avoid impropriety or indecency,especially to avoid attracting sexual attention. 'the modest women wear long-sleeved dresses and all but cover their faces'

So short sleeves are indecent? Designed to attract sexual attention?

How charming.

Yes its a gender issue, but there is some balance at least.
I was in a swimming pool once, in a very hot country. There were Muslim men in the pool wearing waist high, knee length, loose swimming trunks. Their wives (I assume) were sitting in the shade, covered head to toe in loose black robes, only their eyes and hands visible.

That doesn't strike me as very balanced. That strikes me as a harsh difference, based entirely upon the sex of the person in question.

One of the women gave my DC some sweets. I wanted to catch her eye to say thank you, but she was so covered up that I couldn't see if she'd noticed me and smiled back - I couldn't see her face at all, except her eyes. I would have approached her directly, but I was wearing a swimsuit and would have felt very awkward, even with a sarong over the top. I felt that in their eyes, I would be 'immodest'.

Like strawberry I also feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall and have nothing more to add

So no one is willing to actually say what they consider "immodest" clothing to be?

Like strawberry I also feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall and have nothing more to add

Oh you are not the only one. "Modest " has been a moveable feast of several courses in your posts.

Your current position now, is you agree those dictionary definitions are correct. Yet still can't see how offensive that is.


There are religious definitions/ rules of modest dress and then there are personal definitions of modest dress. For example, religious Jewish women cover their arms, wear high necklines, wear skirts below the knees and not tight clothing. Religiously for them, therefore, that is the definition of modest clothing. However, there is no expectation that this is a universal definition of modesty and no belief that women who are not Jewish should follow these rules.

A personal belief of what constitutes modest or immodest dress is a judgment about what for you seems to be modest or immodest. If I saw someone walking around a shopping mall in a skin tight micro mini skirt, stripper heels and the tiniest of bras I would personally consider them immodestly dressed. They themselves may not think that way, and that is their prerogative - we live in a free country. It would also not be right for me to comment on their clothes to them, it is their choice. It's disingenuous to suggest that we don;t make these value judgments every day.

The problem is only when we enforce these definitions and beliefs on others. If I say I am holding a modest clothing fashion event and then display a load of clothes that I feel is modest, then what is the problem? The only way I could see that as being offensive is if I then tried to force my views on everyone else - eg I said that my clothes are modest and women should only wear modest clothes, as per my definition of modest.

The people running this event are not forcing their views, their definitions of modesty on anyone. They are making an event targeted at a group of people who share the same views on what constitutes modesty as them. The event is not aimed at you, it is not aimed to force women to dress a certain way. It simply offers a fashion event aimed at people who share the same cultural view of modesty. It is you who are taking the line that by using the word that they have used to signal a shared set of values it must be a judgment against everyone who dresses differently. Nowhere have the advertisers suggested that.

So no one is willing to actually say what they consider "immodest" clothing to be?

I don't think clothing can be modest or immodest, so for me the question doesn't apply. Clothes are just pieces of fabric sewn together, to keep human beings comfortable, the right temperature and for reasons of hygiene.

If someone doesn't have much interest in clothes that's fine, just go for comfort. If you prefer particular shapes/colours/patterns/fabric that's also fine. For me, modesty doesn't come into it so there is no "modest" or "immodest" clothing, there are just clothes.

It's disingenuous to suggest that we don;t make these value judgments every day.

Some people don't Who is "we"?

'Modest' is creepy when applied to women's dress code. Basically, if you aren't wearing X then you are immodest/negative.

It's a female oppression thing, it really just applies to women.

If I saw someone walking around a shopping mall in a skin tight micro mini skirt, stripper heels and the tiniest of bras I would personally consider them immodestly dressed. They themselves may not think that way, and that is their prerogative - we live in a free country. It would also not be right for me to comment on their clothes to them, it is their choice. It's disingenuous to suggest that we don;t make these value judgments every day

Speak for yourself. I have never looked at another woman and thought that.

Who are you to judge that a woman is "immodestly dressed" ? Or that other women share your questionable value judgements?

There is an admirable definition of "modest" . It means humble, not proud, not vain, not ostentatious.

I'm not seeing the slightest trace of those virtues in those of you who think they can stand in judgement on another woman for no reason other than her clothes. Quite the opposite in fact.

I see there was no take up from Muhajaba or you on why the neutral, objective and accurate term "full coverage clothing" can't be used.

Lass I almost feel like you're trolling me so I don't want to add anything else to the thread

Why can't you just answer the question muhajaba. What do you consider "immodest" clothing?

Disagreeing is not the same as trolling. You have however made your position clear.

I find your distinction between modest and not modest clothing extremely offensive.

As for deriks assertion- I'm shocked by it. I see young women out on a Friday or Saturday night in short skirts/ strappy tops and , living in Scotland, I think "blimey , they must be cold". It would never occur to me to call them immodest.

Why are you 'extremely offended' by me defining my beliefs in what is modesty in clothes? I've given you my view on what immodest is to me. In no way shape or form have I endorsed the idea that anyone else needs to conform to my idea of modesty. I have not said that anyone should be putting their views on anyone else. I am as entitled to hold my view that some modes of dress are immodest as you are to hold the view that clothes are not modest or immodest. I only see it as 'offensive' if I were to insist everyone held the same view as me and conformed to my beliefs.
And to be fair I'm not sure why you are dragging my character into question - that was personal and unpleasant. I can see why muhajaba is bowing out and not answering. I am attempting to give you my views and therefore you attack my character? How is that a debate?

Try reading the thread Derik If you can't face 17 pages ArcheryAnnie summed it up in 2 lines.

There should be no "modest" or "immodest", just clothes.

Or this only a couple of posts back.

'Modest' is creepy when applied to women's dress code. Basically, if you aren't wearing X then you are immodest/negative

It's a female oppression thing, it really just applies to women

Fashion usually means a bit creative and edgy (in fashion shows anyway).
Modest fashion suggests that women need to keep themselves covered up. It does sound like something pre 1950s.
I don't think we need descriptions like "modest" in 2017. It suggests that women are being told what is decent for them to wear.

And to be fair I'm not sure why you are dragging my character into question - that was personal and unpleasant

Definition of immodest below. You think it is in order to make unfavourable character judgements based on nothing more than what some one is wearing and assume "we" all do the same. And that isn't unpleasant?

immodest
ɪˈmɒdɪst/
adjective
lacking humility or decorousness.
"his immodest personality"
synonyms: indecorous, improper, indecent, indelicate, indiscreet, immoral; forward, bold, brazen, impudent, unblushing, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, loose, wanton; informalfresh, cheeky, naughty, saucy
"her clothes and manner were most immodest"

I've not read the whole thread - but I did notice the description of "stripper heels".
I have worn high heels on many an occasion. I don't take my clothes off for money.

Modest in a fashion context to me means 'more covered up'. I don't see how this can possibly be promoted without insinuating that those less covered up are 'immodest' a negative word, with connotations of disapproval, religious or otherwise.

Yes, the existence of modest clothing presupposes the existence of immodest clothes. The idea that clothing can be immodest leads us straight to the victim-blaming of "what did she expect, dressed like that?"

Modesty is a good thing when used in the sense of humble, self-effacing. When referring to personal appearance, the concept of modesty/immodesty is loaded and offensive.

muhajaba thank you for sticking with a not so easy debate Could I ask you something about make up and hijab?

I have seen many gorgeous Muslim girls wearing a lot of make up, even nail varnish and high heels whilst also covering their neck and head (possibly arms, not sure). I appreciate that this is the individual's choice but isn't hijab and lipstick / eye make up contradictory? Hijab is supposed to be modest and lippy and eye make up draw attention....

circleSoflife I've kind of given up and gone into lurker mode now
but to answer your question, yes, IMO it is contradictory unless very subtle, and most if not all scholars agree. We can't pray with nail polish on, unless it's the kind that water can penetrate. Lots of women just wear it when they have their period as we don't pray on those days. I think the Shia might allow nail polish anytime but not 100% sure. High heels are generally viewed by scholars as impermissible.