Bra Straps and Worse

buy a fucking burqa already!

I will preface this by saying that I know mentioning visible bra straps guarantees a certain amount of righteous anger, from the religious and nonreligious alike. I personally view bra straps the same way I view shorts: not appropriate for work and similar occasions, but on informal occasions, or when it's 95˚ outside (35˚ C), you're lucky I'm wearing clothes at all. Or unlucky, depending on how you feel about it. Bra straps are not, no matter what the writer I'm snarking on thinks, the equivalent of tattoos.

This message is only to those who want to find out more about being modest, and to those who are sincerely concerned about the amount of immodesty around us. If you basically do not believe that modesty is beautiful and that it goes hand in hand with dignity and protection, you need not read further. This article may not be what you are looking for. It is not addressed to those who are not concerned about modesty. It is not addressed to anyone who is not a member of the blood-bought church of our dear Lord. It is more precisely aimed at the faithful members of the Lord's church, who claim to have the truth in doctrine and in practice.

I'm not talking about you, you unfaithful person completely unconcerned about truth, you harlot, you black-hearted heathen, you! That entire disclaimer is a rather nasty diatribe against people who don't care as much about bra straps as she does. (Seriously, people who are attracted to the bra wearing among us, are they really that sexy? Really?)

The first picture she includes is from the late 1800s, early 1900s and depicts two women walking along the water's edge in full, head to toe, white dresses, including hats and parasols. Ignoring that fact that prior to Coco Chanel's famous tan, women desperately wanted the palest skin possible, thus ensuring a great degree of covering up, guess what those women weren't doing? Anything. They weren't swimming or building sand castles or running along the surf. They couldn't in those outfits. Which would entirely be the point, I'm sure.

The pictures here will show you a something about the way people dressed on the public beaches just a hundred years ago. There does not seem to be anything to blush about in these pictures, and it gives you an idea of the kind of manners that people used to have. They thought it was rude to expose nakedness or private parts of the body. Only the circus women would have been brazen enough to wear bras showing straps and tattoos. What was considered a bizarre, crude way of dressing a hundred years ago, is now paraded as normal. I feel sorry for the children growing up today, who see people looking the way only clowns looked in the past. Clowns these days have a lot to compete with, in order to be identified as clowns.

Circus women? Clowns? I'm both amused and appalled. Yeah, so clothing preferences are different according to time period and place. Clearly, the Lady Lydia* is referencing clothing preferences from Europe and America 100 years ago. In plenty of places 100 years ago, generally mild climates, little or no clothing at all was considered entirely polite. Why are the social mores of Europe from 100 years ago the best possible social mores? Who decides?

The popular summer style for women seems to be: two sets of straps showing on each shoulder (one set being the bra strap), one black and one white or green or whatever they have, tattoos in the blank spaces of the arms, back and chest, short-shorts, flip-flops, naked bellies and exposed chests. What little fabric they have on is drab and dull, and no one dares wear the the array of shades that nature has to offer.

The popular summer style for which women? I am a woman and while I do my share of two strappin' it(tm), and I certainly do wear flip flops, I do not wear short shorts, expose my "belly" or have tattoos. I still can't figure out why tattoos are immodest. There's really no explanation of this other than the fact that Lydia doesn't like them, therefore immodest.

What little fabric they have on is drab and dull, and no one dares wear the the array of shades that nature has to offer. "Dull" and "drab" colours are immodest? Since when? How long has it been since Lydia has been out of the house? Neon is so in these days. No matter how you feel about neon, it's hardly drab or dull.

This goes on for a while and then we get a picture labeled as natives of Sri Lanka (69.1% Buddhist)on the beach, dressed in what looks like t-shirts and longish skirts. Of course, we have no idea whether or not the Sri Lankans were merely walking past the beach or whether they could afford separate swimwear or even if Sri Lankans simply dress that way no matter what the occasion.

This is a contemporary photograph of poorer women in Sri Lanka. I have always insisted that modest dress is not a matter of wealth. It is a matter of politeness, belief, and personal dignity. Many women grew up much poorer than people are today, and still managed to keep their clothes on, keep their flesh covered, and be modest even in hot climates.

As far as I can tell, Lydia has done nothing but prove that Buddhists are more modest than American Christians. It could very well be a matter of wealth, btw. I have a very small budget for clothing, so much of what I buy is for work. Therefore, generally any time you see me, I am appropriately dressed for a law office. It's entirely possible that the pictured Sri Lankans do the same thing: they buy clothes appropriate for the fanciest place they need to go, and wear those clothes everywhere, including the beach. Who knows?

One woman has written, "I am always hopeful that someone will be converted, so I take a friend to church once in awhile. They always make a comment about the blatant amount of immodesty in the worship assembly, from bare legs, to bare backs, bare chests, bare shoulders and bare midriffs. The astonishing amount of piercings and tattoos make me think that people are going back to primitive ways, rather than progressing on to the high mark of the high calling. One friend asked me, 'Shouldn't some of the older women teach those young women about modesty?' You see, they have been reading the Bible, searching for truth. They come to assemble with believers and find out that the believers do not follow the great book they claim to believe."

The Bible doesn't have as much to say about clothing as you might think. Well, there's those 2 pages in Leviticus defining exactly what a High Priest at the Temple should be wearing, right down the pomegranate embroidery at the hem of the purple robes, but other than that. . . oh right, no mixed fabrics . . . and only hookers braid their hair. It's not much to go on, really.

The astonishing amount of piercings and tattoos make me think that people are going back to primitive ways, rather than progressing on to the high mark of the high calling. For the love of . . . Lydia, just say it. Those n**gers in Africa have those big lip things and good white people shouldn't imitate them. Good white folk should know better than to do anything those n**gers do. Yeesh. I wonder if we'll be getting a rant about "jungle music" next.

Of course we then get the standard modesty admonition to stop making men think bad thoughts, as if men need my help to do that. (Really, do these people think lust just shuts down between November and March, when everyone's covered from head to toe in fleece and wool?)

In the 1960's it was popular to be on the beaches in the hot summer in the garb of the day: small pieces of cloth barely covering private areas, called "bathers." One day, a young woman wearing a blue and white gingham peasant style dress with a hat trimmed in a matching ribbon, was seen walking barefoot on the shore. Although there were many perfect figures and sun-tanned young people on that beach, all eyes were upon this woman. Her beautiful dress was a perfect compliment to the ocean and the blue sky in the background. She wore this kind of thing to the beach because she burned so easily, but she did not let it get in the way of enjoying the elements. Although people were looking at this young lady, it was not for the wrong reasons. They were not admiring her sexiness or the size of her bust. They were admiring her romantic sweetness. We have lost our sweetness and our innocence in America today. It is up to the Christian women, the members of the church, those who have been washed in the blood of the lamb by obeying the gospel, to show a good example to the next generation.

$10 says the girl was her and that this blanket admiration was purely in her own mind.

I'm sorry, allow me to explain two concepts to you: modesty and the allure of the different. First of all, dressing in a manner that draws all eyes to you is not modest. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone can see the outline of your bust, if you are dressed so differently that everyone cannot help but stare at you, you are not being modest. In fact, you are being immodest. Words, they have meanings.

Secondly, men are attracted to what is different. I wish I could find the link to a study I ran across a few years ago. They showed men lingerie in black, white, red, pink and turquoise. Men liked black best and turquoise the least. However, when the researchers showed the men pictures of women wearing the lingerie, if they showed the men 9 pictures of women in black lingerie and then 1 picture of a women in turquoise lingerie, they overwhelmingly preferred the turquoise lingerie. Why? Men crave variety. (Not that any of the men in the study complained about the 9 pictures of women in black lingerie.)

Therefore, appearing in public in a manner of dress entirely different from what everyone else is wearing is not only immodest by definition, it's immodest in that it taps into the male enjoyment of variety.

Fail, my dear Lydia. Fail.

*Are you nobility, Lydia? No? Then no more "lady" for you!