Here it is, folks… the new blog I love to hate: Modestly Yours.
I’m kind of a masochist with it. It’s like a train wreck; I know I should look away, but I just can’t. As my 12th grade English teacher used to say: “fascination with the abomination.”
Then again, I do like to expose myself to, and try to understand, viewpoints that are radically different from my own (as I’ve mentioned before).
So what the dilly-o? There appears to be some kind of “modesty counter-culture” going on. (Every Young Woman’s Battle is just one of the many examples I’ve encountered.) On the one hand, it makes me chuckle and shake my head. On the other hand, I ask: what the fuck?
First of all: what is modesty? Could somebody please spell out a clear, concise definition? There’s all this talk about modesty, but I have yet to see a definition. I wonder how many of the people yammering about it have stopped and given any thought to what it really means.
Of course, modesty is only ever discussed in relation to girls and women (as far as I’ve seen, anyway). I guess that’s because, as we have learned, men are merely helpless vessels attached to willful, hyperactive cocks. But I digress.
As far as I can tell from my various readings, “modesty” means adhering to a very specific definition of womanhood - one that claims to promote individualism and female empowerment, but in reality draws rigid boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable forms of self-expression. If you spend your days volunteering at a homeless shelter and knitting, you’re a woman in charge of your own life, pursuing your dreams, and you are to be commended for it! If, on the other hand, you write erotic literature or enjoy non-monogamous sex, you are a misguided soul with no self-respect, who has clearly been corrupted by the mainstream media.
Even ModestyZone itself (of which Modestly Yours is a part) doesn’t include a definition of modesty. The only thing that approaches a definition can be found on their very short About page:
Whether you’re a virgin waiting until marriage, or just against casual sex more generally, you can find a safe harbor here to share your ideals, interests, and goals for the future.
Join forces with other young women who are tired of power struggles between the sexes. Believe in the possibility of real intimacy.
First of all, I have no idea what that last paragraph means. The first one is awfully presumptuous, since it assumes that everyone (excuse me, every woman) who is “a virgin waiting until marriage” shares the same views on sex, sexuality, gender dynamics, women in society, spirituality, and so on. And what of women who are “against casual sex more generally?” It’s always a red flag for me when I see people defining themselves in terms of what they’re not or what they’re against. It’s extremely common - I’ve been guilty of it plenty of times - but it’s an easy way out, because it means you don’t have to do any real introspection or give thought to difficult issues, and thereby find out what you are, what you’re for, and why.
As to Modestly Yours itself - where to start? I’ve had a lot of trouble narrowing it down. There’s just so much there. Do I start with the post about the proposed HPV vaccine, which is filled with misinformation and baseless assumptions? Or the one about why dating is not appropriate for the “marriage-minded” individual? How about the many that contain the usual boring doublespeak about how the freedom to decide for ourselves what is right for us sexually is actually a hindrance?
Nahl. I decided to go with the post about a Glamour magazine article that really rubbed me the wrong way when I saw it in the store - and apparently, this modest chick felt the same way. What’s interesting is that we both take issue with the article, but for entirely different reasons.*
Modest Chick says:
Besides the obvious indecency of constantly talking about sex, articles such as these give people the idea that since everyone is doing it (whatever “it” may be), you can and should do it too. Never mind how degrading, demeaning, or selfish the act is: as long as statistics can show that others are doing it, it is “normal.” And while I don’t doubt the accuracy of the statistics (actually, I do, since Glamour isn’t exactly Gallup), what bothers me is that they are telling women not to feel bad about what they have done even if the best thing in some cases may be to acknowledge that a mistake was made. This seems like part of our cultural tendency to “define deviancy down.”
So many problems with that paragraph!
First of all, it took some time to recover from laughing out loud (yes, literally LOLing) at the first clause. “The obvious indecency of constantly talking about sex”? Thank you Church Lady, may I have another!
Nevertheless - let’s pick that apart. I can only assume she’s being hyperbolic in her use of “constantly.” So I take that to stand in for “openly” or “often” or “without warning.” Such talk is indecent? Why? And it’s obvious? That’s a gaping hole of assumption if I ever saw one. The burden of proof is on her, and she provides nothing.
Her description of various nebulous sex acts as “degrading, demeaning, or selfish” is also questionable at best. First, we need to know what acts she’s talking about. Oral sex? Anal? Threesomes? BDSM? What, exactly, makes a particular sex act degrading, demeaning, or selfish? Are any of these sex acts (along with the myriad of others) inherently degrading, demeaning, or selfish? If so, why? What makes them so? And who decides? She’s operating on a lot of assumptions here.
Finally, I feel compelled to point out that acknowledging a mistake and feeling bad (sic) about something are not always synonymous. Or is Modest Chick just promoting a culture of guilt?
I would love to see some answers. Perhaps Modest Chick will see this post and explain herself. She’s made plenty of statements and proclamations; now I want to see her back them up with the whys and hows.
* Ed note: I’ll tell you my reasons later. I need to get some sleep now.
READ ME: Disclaimer
21 Responses to "Immodestly Mine"
I wonder how Modest Chick feels about gaping holes.
And while we’re giving ourselves hair-splitting headaches over the definition of “is” and what “it” “is,” I’d like to know what she means by “constant.”
I mean, I talk about sex ten, maybe twelve times day, maybe more. But, if you saw it in a pie chart, really, it would be miniscule. Nowhere near “constant”, I mean.
I guess she’s being hyperbolic (Surprise! Gotcha, bitch!) But really, is it okay to discuss going ass-to-mouth once a day, but somehow twice a day is overkill?
How about if you just think about it constantly and talk about it never? Or, imagine this: how about if you just talk around it, but never actually talk about it? Oh, wait…
Embarrassed, probably.
Of course, I can’t wait for the local god squad to pitch in here, railroading Amber for her supposed “intolerance” and “double-standards” about this kind of stupidity.
I’ll go ahead and pre-empt all their “arguments” about why this blog is even worth reading for anything besides comic relief: nothing Amber says or does would force people to do anything. Her monogamy or polygamy or love for BDSM or love for plain vanilla missionary isn’t advocating any of that for anyone else.
This chick, however, is advocating everyone change their behavior to be like her and she expects the government to this dirty work for her.
That’s the difference.
I thought that was the gay agenda… wait a minute!
Who would rape, murder, and do other horrible things like anal sex if it wasn’t for women wearing their Burkas By Target and denying them sex?
Since I’m on the outlying fringes of said ‘local God squad’ … do I need to learn any sort of handshakes? Is there a letterman’s jacket or anything?
Really should be.
No, but do you have a definition of ‘modesty’? Do you buy into the whole concept that seems to be going around? (sans a concrete definition, of course). Tell!
men are merely helpless vessels attached to willful, hyperactive cocks. But I digress.
–
I’m putting that one in my pocket. I love it!
Nice post @ a nice blog.
Update: figleaf writes about the concept of modesty from another angle (no pun intended). Worth reading.
I don’t know, I kind of like what Merav has to say — although I certainly don’t agree with every last part of it.
Definitely putting this on my blog roll; thanks for the (inadvertent?) tip!
Though, I should add that there are definitely a few things I find very distasteful, most of all advocacy of abstinence education.
But there are also some very good thoughts that she is having, the most significant one being on dating for the sake of dating v. dating with marriage as an end. I don’t sense here that she wants to impose a certain dating doctrine on anyone; she is just asking the more existential question, “What’s the point of serial dating if you have already made up your mind that you’re going to move on?” And that’s a perspective I wholeheartedly agree with, as someone who has never understood the merits of simply dating as nothing more than a recreational activity that isn’t supposed to engender anything “serious.” Life isn’t there to provide you with endless devices to have a good time; why would you share your thoughts, your emotions, your biography, your character, and your kindness with a person only to move on, methodologically? Is it worth it?
Of course it’s worth it. Sometimes a human being needs something - companionship, sex, a safe place to relax, whatever - and that need is fulfilled by casual dating or “friends with benefits” or whatever one chooses to call one’s particular arrangement. While I wasn’t always under the impression that I’d be married by the time I was 25 (in fact, quite the opposite) I was also never under the impression that all of the men I dated were candidates for Future Mister Me. Some people need or want this kind of distraction/outlet more than others, but that doesn’t make “serial dating” or being “fuck buddies” invalid states of being for the people for whom that sort of arrangement works. There is no single answer to this question — it is almost by definition a bell-curve deal with the vast majority finding one solution to work best and others finding solutions on the edges, but being on the edge doesn’t invalidate the minority’s experiences.
I don’t think “invalidate” is really what I would like to visit upon anyone’s experiences or lifestyle choices. I was just expressing a personal bewilderment that this kind of life could be satisfying for anyone.
From your response and general knowledge, I conclude that the key to sustainable noncommital dating seems to be to keep a distance — to wit, the noncommital aspect. It’s a lot easier to associate in some kind of hedonistic liaison or social partnership with someone than an emotionally invested relationship. Which is fine, but then these people turn around and expect anyone to take their liaisons seriously and afford them the same merits and attitudes bestowed upon real relationships.
If you’re looking for something greater than that, though, I really don’t understand how living according to the paradigm you described can be in the least bit satisfying or rewarding, for the reasons I already invoked above.
valeko, am I right in reading you as saying that people in liaison-relationships want people outside the relationship looking on to treat the liaison-relationship as though it were something more serious?
Also, why the distinction between liaison-relationships and maritalish-relationships as “real or not”? Why would a liaison be “less real” than an ‘emotionally invested’ relationship?
Nikki said what I wanted to say, only much more eloquently than I could have managed. So, I am not going to write a response. Refer again to hers!
Basically, valeko, at some point you need to realize and admit that not everyone lives their lives according to the same goals and what-have-you as you, and that’s okay.
One quick comment though…
It always irks me how people who have never experienced such relationships always automatically assume that anything that’s not a “let’s get married as soon as we can” type relationship is devoid of emotion. Life ain’t that simple, kids.
It’s funny that you assume that all such relationships are hedonistic or that people in “friends with benefits” situations want to be considered married. The POINT is that you are not married. I had a great f/w/b relationship in college, but the purpose of it wasn’t to somehow reap a benefit of marriage. I didn’t need a full-bore relationship at that time of my life, but the guy’s companionship and the sexual benefits were good for me psychologically at that time. The guy was a great guy. He was a friend, but he wasn’t my boyfriend. For some people, this type of relationship will never be good; for others, it can be a life saver.
Why do you like it, or what in particular do you find appealing about her writing in general?
Also, I would be interested to see a definition of modesty from you, and an explanation of why you think it is important for women. (And what about men?)
Charles R wrote:
In my experience, yes, that is often the case. They seem to want to have their friends and companions vicariously experience the combinations of their emotional life as though it were a deep, profound and spiritually significant commitment, which strikes me as insincere and duplicitous. If this is just someone you’re “sleeping around” with, don’t lay down the drama when you break up - you’re not in a real relationship.
I know that’s a personal and highly esoteric claim based entirely on distinctive firsthand experience, though, so I’m not going to pursue it as though it can be brought to bear more objectively on this discussion. It probably can’t. :-)
Conferring degrees of “reality” upon relationships of varying emotional depth and sophistication is obviously more of a rhetorical move than a psychologically defensible one, but nevertheless represents my position on the issue. I will not take people’s “fuck buddy” relationships seriously; I will respect them as much as necessary to stay out of their way, but I will not even for a moment treat them with the same gravity as I will a genuine romantic partnership.
As regards “maritalish” relationships, I think both you and Amber are guilty of a straw man here, although the fault also lies with me for being less than crystal clear. I wasn’t trying to posit a strict dichotomy between liaisons on the one hand, and relationships headed directly in the trajectory of marriage on the other.
Amber, even in my own relationship with Caroline, there is no feeling of “let’s get married as soon as we can,” even though we do intend to get married someday - not anytime soon, though part of that has to do with us being just too young (19-20 and 17-18). And I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that any relationship which does not aspire to a “let’s get married as soon as we can” standard is sub-par. At any rate, this:
… is a flippant caricature of my stated position, so I’m not going to respond to it on those terms.
What I was trying to get at is that Merav seems to have the “right spirit” here about relationships; in a broad sense, I don’t see any point in proceeding through dating without the goal of finding a close, genuine, and sincere life partner, your best friend and your truest companion. Whether you want to formalise that relation to each other through marriage — and when — is a somewhat different question. But simply floating through a life consisting of serially occuring liaisons (”casual dating”) I think is immensely vapid, empty, and unfilfilling.
This, too, is unnecessarily flippant:
That strikes me as banally obvious. I was just stating a personal aesthetic, much as you often claim to do. I don’t care to universalise it, except inasmuch as to satisfy my own curiosity.
A few comments briefly on Modestly Yours, and Merav specifically:
Believe it or not, I don’t really see much efficacy in “modesty” as a rhetorical device. (Not to mention that some of her and others’ positions are very immodestly reactionary, from chaperoned dating to abstinence education.) I don’t see much merit in presenting it that way, and I certainly don’t see why it should have any gender-specific inflection. Both men and women equally, in my experience, could benefit from some of what is being packaged here as “modesty” for reasons which have nothing to do with the specificity of gender.
I like her pensive and unabrasive manner of delivery. And no, not because she’s a woman and that’s how women should be; I don’t like it when guys write with a volley of ubiquitous pretensions and unnecessarily belligerent uppityness either. And I like that she’s not afraid to deliberatively and critically advance a third-way, alternative perspective that values traditional courtship, love, marriage, and family, which is something that’s going to get ridiculed pretty much everywhere else in the social spectrum these days. On the lunatic God squad side, it’s that it’s insufficiently repressive and submissive to the bombast of divine mandate, and on the liberal side, a tired anachronism of patriarchy-guided social tradition or what have you. I don’t feel that either is true of a pragmatic, contemporary outlook that doesn’t compromise away those values.