I have enjoyed discussing this book with you so much! I hope you have enjoyed it too. Little did we know how we'd be spending our days as we moved through Lent…
{Intro is found here
Part 1 is found here
Part 2 is found here
Part 3 is found here}
A Modest Conclusion: Innocence: On p. 243 Shalit says this: “The most obvious connotation of sexual modesty is, of course, innocence. Yet I have been shying away from this aspect of it all along. I have defended modesty, essentially, in the most obscene way, but I did it because I had a hunch that this was the only way our culture would ever reconsider it. [Keep in mind that her intended audience isn't homeschooling moms but the elite academic and sophisticated urban guardians of culture or the lack thereof.] At least at first. But now that we have explored the aspects of modesty which are most counterintuitive, let's end by examining what is intuitively true about modesty.”
And that is that innocence should be reclaimed — for ourselves and for our children.
For years now I have written about modesty, innocence, purity, and chastity. I have tried to say that we have a sacred duty to do whatever it takes to protect our children. It's always stunning to me that grown adults will argue, saying that this is a lost cause, that innocence is lost.
It's as if the nature of a child has changed. But it hasn't. Children still can only know about life what we choose to expose them to. They still come with no preconceived notions and no hindsight. It's we who have changed the nature of parenting in order to rationalize our own choices and our lack of courage!
I can't find it now, but one of the writers Shalit mentions at the beginning (Katie Roiphe?) wrote a review of A Return to Modesty — I think it was in Vogue Magazine. I remember reading it in a checkout line at the grocery store! Whoever it was acknowledged the truth of what Shalit said about the loss of innocence, but concluded that “experience” was worth the cost. Of course, if she wasn't willing to repent of her life, which had been defined precisely by her abdication of modesty, what other recourse did she have? Take your stand, the world says.
But listen to Charles Péguy (I encountered this passage in John Saward's The Beauty of Holiness and the Holiness of Beauty):
They say they're full of experience; they gain from experience.
Day by day they pile up their experience.
“Some treasure!”, says God.
A treasure of emptiness and of dearth…
What you call experience, your experience, I call dissipation, diminishment, decrease, the loss of innocence…
No, it's innocence that is full and experience that is empty…
It is innocence that knows and experience that does not know…
On Modesty in Men: I knew that at the end of this discussion I would want to say something about men. The book really doesn't address this aspect of the discussion (other than in passing), but it certainly comes up when we try to extol modesty in girls — and when it does, the ensuing discussion always leaves me frustrated, because the truth is, men and women are not the same. I'm trying to put my thoughts in words here…
Men in scanty clothing are not provocative (except to other gay men). Maybe this is just me, but when women fantasize about men, they are wearing dashing uniforms or crisp tuxedos! If I am wrong, then explain the popularity among women of BBC costume dramas! And yet this fantasy is not prurient.
We worry for a woman who shows up at a party wearing what turns men on (men who don't guard their thoughts); we are generally satisfied if a man arrives at a party wearing a tux or his military dress. It seems fitting! (Unless it's a beach party, I suppose!)
Modesty in men has nothing to do with revealing or hiding the body. Or rather, men's nakedness is just not what women's nakedness is. But for men, the issue is being respectful of others in their dress. Where a woman is protecting her self with her modesty, a man is protecting others with his.
And given how much is said on women's dress or undress, I am claiming the right to say a few words about how men should dress to be respectful.
When a man wears an underwear shirt around the house, he shows disrespect for the inhabitants thereof. He feels comfortable; they must endure the implicit insult. The proof is that his wife will say, “It doesn't bother me.” Not: “I love it when he wears his underwear shirt around the house, it shows how much he cares.”
When a woman goes to church in a short skirt that reveal her shape where it should be draped a bit more, she is crying out for attention to be directed to herself. When a man goes to church in sports attire or casual wear (like a printed t-shirt and shorts), the effect is quite different. The energy doesn't go towards him, it comes from him in the form of apathy and disrespect.
A man who strips off his shirt like the cock of the walk isn't being sexually provocative, but he is trumpeting his refusal to take on a respectful attitude. It's interesting that because being shirtless isn't sexual (the way it would be with a girl), people tend to think it's fine. But it's not, for a different reason. I was much impressed with a Catholic man, a contractor and father of many, who told me that he never let his men work without a shirt. For him it was a matter of respect.
For a man, modesty in dress is not a sexual matter (speaking here of normal relations between men and women). When a man does dress in a sexually predatory way (open shirt, tight pants), he doesn't trigger a sexual response in women so much as whatever the response is that enables narcissism.
For parents, the challenge with girls is to give them the gift of modesty, which includes protecting their bodies with clothing that is attractive and useful but not revealing. The challenge with boys is to give them enough awareness of their surroundings that they are able to choose the right clothing for the situation, so that they project responsibility and a desire to protect. This is the gift of chivalry.
So those are my (wordy) thoughts! I am so interested to know what you thought of the book overall!
bits & pieces
Some resources for being stuck in the house (the faithful are free to choose a form). Plan now for tomorrow, so that your Sunday may be sanctified!:
- You can and should baptize your baby or a person who desires baptism or is in danger of death if no priest is available and you are reasonably sure that he won't be for some time. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1256. Know the exact Trinitarian form and use it.
- U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that it's lifting restrictions on telecommunications between health professionals and patients. “We are empowering medical providers to serve patients wherever they are during this national public health emergency,” said Roger Severino, OCR Director. “We are especially concerned about reaching those most at risk, including older persons and persons with disabilities.” Auntie Leila's advice is that you should not take a child to the doctor or ER if you can possibly avoid it, like for ear infections or other issues that can be addressed over the phone. Know that the HIPAA regulations have been lifted.
- As of now, there is no evidence that ibuprofen shouldn't be used in cases of corona virus (just meaning studies haven't been done, but that's something, when the advice has been saying that it is not good — my issue is that acetaminophen — Tylenol — has detrimental effects).
- Are you baking lots of bread now? (I hope so!) This is the best method I have found for developing gluten in my dough: a certain stretch and fold that you do 30 minutes after resting your just-mixed dough, and then two more times if you can manage it, 30 minutes apart. Wet hands really helps things along. (But I do it on the counter or in a big heavy tin or bowl so I don't have to deal with that annoying little bowl he has in the video). Then bulk rise the dough as usual.
from the archives
liturgical year
follow us everywhere!
Stay abreast of the posts when they happen:
I just share pretty pictures: Auntie Leila’s Instagram.
If you want politics, rants, and takes on what is going on in the Church:
Auntie Leila’s Facebook (you can just follow — my posts are public — sometimes I share articles here that don’t make it into {bits & pieces})
The boards of the others: Rosie’s Pinterest. Sukie’s Pinterest. Deirdre’s Pinterest. Habou’s Pinterest. Bridget’s Pinterest.
And the others on IG: Rosie’s Instagram. Sukie’s Instagram. Deirdre’s Instagram. Bridget’s Instagram.Habou’s Instagram.
Hannah Q says
Dear Auntie Leila,
Thank you so much for the quote from Charles Peguy. Inspired by your post on Purity and the book Made This Way (which you featured here a little while ago!), my husband and I are working hard to protect our children’s innocence, and I suspect we’re going to encounter the “experience” argument soon—how nice to have that beautiful counter argument, that said experience is nothing to God, or worse.
Leila says
Hannah, yes! Experience is a teacher, and without it we can’t exercise prudence, but this experience he speaks of, which is deliberate wallowing in sin, is never going to be good for our souls. By the way, this paradox, that experience teaches us but bad experiences of deliberate sin are not good for us, is one of the reasons to offer children good literature. Art in literature enables the person to see truths about human nature without participating in the sinful aspects.
Em says
I find your distinction between how (partial) nakedness/the revealed body is perceived so differently in men compared to women very interesting; the immodest female body is sexualized but in men it is considered a lack of respect. I had never thought about that but I think you are right. I do think there are some women that would allow their thoughts to lead to impure places in those circumstances however, but I suspect that this is a less immediate (less instinctive?) response in women than it is in men; it is enacted on a more conscious, deliberate level? (I knew some girls like this as a teenager and it always puzzled me why they would be like this towards men.)
Now something very interesting I’d like some opinions on: if a man appears immodest in the sense you speak of, most people and women will consider it a lack of respect but gay men will see it in a sexual way. Why is this, when women do not likewise do this? What does this say about men? Or what does it say about gay culture/relationships?
Perhaps more interesting is the question of what does it say about the difference between men and women?
Leila says
Em, I do think that porn has conditioned women into responding to the naked form in ways we otherwise wouldn’t. But I have long concluded that naked men (or male striptease or what have you) are a construct of homosexuals with female consumers as “useful idiots” — just a means to mainstream gay imagery.
Once you see it that way, a lot of things that are puzzling become clear.
In any case, I think it’s interesting that when men dress appropriately for the occasion, whatever it may be — a bit more formally than the situation strictly calls for, or just with attention to details like a real t-shirt rather than an underwear t-shirt, the tone of the situation improves.
As to the difference between men and women, I think it comes down to the gaze. The man is made to gaze upon the woman’s beauty, and she is made to be beautiful for his sake, with a lowered gaze that speaks of her interiority and its promise for their mutual future. There are many ways to pervert this reality; there are many ways to protect it.
sibyl says
Yes, I was also struck by that insight. It reminded me of being a “peer counselor” in the parish youth group (a hotbed of bad romances). One time we had gone on retreat (young men and women together of course) and there was a pool — one of the male counselors (a bit older than me) came to the pool in a Speedo, and the instant reaction of all the young women (including me) was a mental “EEEEW!” it was so embarrassing and creepy. He wasn’t a bad-looking guy or anything, but nonetheless that was our reaction. Whereas it seems if a young woman had come in a tight revealing bikini the men would have been delighted and not repulsed.
Lisa says
Yes, that’s so true about how women react to a guy wearing a speedo! I have seen this reaction in many girls/women (including myself!).
Emily says
What you write about men’s modesty is *true*! I’ve never been able to articulate it, but that is it. It’s James Bond in a crisp suit, or Mr. Darcy in his 19th century version, that attracts me. I love men in formal clothes. Yes, the underwear shirt and such is exactly what you write here–not the same as if *I* went around topless or in a tank top but just….wrong, in another sense.
Innocence–YES. I’ve often been told that I’ve been “sheltered” like this is a bad thing. I know there is evil in the world. But I also choose to believe in protecting innocence. The movie “The Village” has some interesting thoughts about this, actually. Thought-provoking. The Peguy quote is gold!
Leila says
Emily, yes… it irks me when guys just wear their undershirts, can you tell? haha
Mrs. Bee says
The men in our family (various sizes) even at the pool want to wear swim t-shirts, even though there is no practical reason to do so (no sun to keep from, nor do they keep you warm out of the water). I always found this very interesting, that even in a context where it’s socially acceptable for a man to relax the standard, they decline to do so – but until I read you this morning I never articulated the reasoning behind all this.
And my youngest (6) put on a tie the other day when we were following Mass online, and again last night for our own private Stations of the Cross. Again, it’s interesting that even young children can have an inner sense about such things.
Leila says
Mrs. Bee– I think upright men want to “do right by” the situation, where women want to adorn it! Maybe that’s the distinction. But so cute that your son put on a tie!
Jody says
I have family members who can’t take ibuprofen or aspirin. Does Acetaminophen have negative effects generally (I’m aware of those) or specifically for Coronavirus?
Thank you for your posts. I look forward to them.
Leila says
Jody, you can look up acetaminophen — it is easy to take too much or the wrong way and do damage to one’s liver. The article is not to say don’t take tylenol, but just that there isn’t research to rule out ibuprofen, as of yet (and there could be — perhaps there just has not been time yet).
Jody says
Thank you
Logan says
I want to make a distinction between innocence and naivete. I was homeschooled and found as I went off to college (state school and I wasn’t yet Catholic) I was very innocent, as in lacking, of many experiences of my peers. I, even at the time, valued my innocence, and also recognized that I wasn’t naive. I’m defining naivete as a lack of awareness of the possibilities. I attribute this knowledge to having read so widely that it gave me great insight into human nature and sin without necessarily having had to go through those experiences myself. It made me able to process the experience of my peers in a healthy way. My innocence without naivety led me to protect myself from people who I thought didn’t have my best interests at heart. I think of some gentleman that I knew who I would associate with only in public places as their character indicated they wouldn’t respect me in more private places. But I didn’t need or feel it necessary to not associate with them at all, I just kept it proper which enabled some relationship. Which is what you want as Christians, to be with others who don’t share those morals.
I think that I worry about girls who are so overprotected that they end up trusting people too much, the Christendom school scandal comes to mind. (please don’t rag on me for blaming the victim, because that’s not my point.) I’ve also known some girls to be so wary they essentially lock themselves up and I don’t think that’s what we want either. It would be good if society protected girls more as it used to, but in the interim how do we act?
Emily says
This is a good point. I think my parents did a good job teaching me to be smart–don’t go to parties and drink, don’t stay out late, they knew who my friends were and their parents….so that helped. I don’t think kids should be kept completely naive about the world, that there are bad people out there, that people do terrible things, but there’s that line between “be aware, be smart” and “don’t tell them anything and preserve their precious ears!”
Leila says
Logan, I am all about giving girls standards so that their innocence is protected and isn’t just naivete. They absolutely need to know that there are rules of conduct and breaking them puts them at risk. I also remember the mothers telling us, “if a guy comes at you, kick him in the balls” — sorry, don’t mean to be vulgar, but is this wisdom passed along? Or are our girls groomed to be victims? And the fathers told us to walk with our keys in between our fingers, the better to gouge eyes of predators. But they also told us not to get into a situation where we would be alone with a man! (I got both messages, alas, but like you say, the spidey sense hadn’t been drummed out of me and at least I knew enough to GET OUT while the getting was good.)
I wonder if feminism has given girls the idea that they can handle a man when they are alone, or that every situation of being alone is an opportunity to be intimate, without the possibility that they would not want to be in that situation? I see ridiculous videos of women teaching each other to say “No, stop!” as if that would do anything. Do we have the realism to understand that the strongest woman will be no match for even a weak man if he gets her alone? I feel like before feminism this was made clear to a girl. This is not being a victim, this is knowing your limits. Now, it’s all “you got this girl” but — you don’t got it. He will overpower the girl, especially if she’s been drinking! The solution is to have it clear in her mind that she should not be alone with a guy until she is sure of his character, and even then, to be prudent (for instance, in college, to see that your room has a bed in it and is not an appropriate place to entertain guests, no matter how normal it seems).
But then to encourage her to be in groups, to enjoy her friends, and to have the freedom that comes from knowing one’s own conduct is rational!
Leila says
Also, good literature is an antidote to naivete. Let’s make sure our children read good books!
Mrs. Bee says
Yes, I agree, though I find myself wondering what the next phase of good books should be, after the classics from Montgomery or Alcott – in those books everyone is so honorable, or when not honorable, more or less simply vain and empty.
People have rightly worried about good books to be given to boys at different appropriate ages, but girls have the same problem.
Leila says
All the classics and well loved books from before publishing became monetized and agenda-driven (around the late 70s I’d guess) will be helpful, because modesty is really about personal interaction. If we think of it as “conduct,” virtuous and vicious, this becomes more clear. For a great and detailed treatment of this idea, see Elizabeth Kantor’s excellent book The Jane Austen Guide to Happily Ever After.
Mrs. Bee says
Ah yes, of course Jane Austen… How much is learned about all this in Pride and Prejudice alone! It’s a recurring character in her books, the handsome man with just a little something off about him, until the full truth is known by all.
Logan says
Random aside, I think I ran into your youngest daughter at her place of work! I was dropping off some materials for admissions and we walked up to the door together. I kept glancing at her thinking I recognized her, but then saw she’s on the staff! So fun, though now I feel like a creepy internet stalker!! Hi Bridget! I’m a real person! 🙂 God willing, my daughter will be there next year!
Bridget says
Logan, hi! I remember seeing you, and thinking, “This woman is so refreshingly calm! Clearly she knows what she’s doing in teaching her children!”
I’m so happy you all are considering Trinity!
Logan says
Pshaw, you are too sweet. 🙂
We are so excited about Trinity. I couldn’t believe a school like it exists- but we kept getting recommendations for it and finally looked and it seems amazing! I’m thankful for the Lawler approved Ambleside curriculum actually getting my daughter ready for it!
Amy says
I just watched this short video today on modesty from an observant Jewish woman’s perspective, and it goes along so well with the book discussion! I thought her suggestions on setting your personal limits and then honing your intuition beyond those limits in your day to day choices was really practical advice! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu_-WOefjnU
Ashley says
Hi, Auntie Leila! I don’t have anything profound to add to the discussion, but I just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading this book with you. I had never come across this book and it helped me to better understand some of the things I’ve experienced. Thank you!
Leila says
So glad you joined! And thanks for letting me know — it means a lot!