Like EW, I reference God of Christianity as the moral backdrop to my life, so keep in mind that what I am saying comes from this worldview.

Pro-Male / Anti-Feminist Tech said the following:

So much realmannspracht is defined based on women’s choices (i.e. if a woman marries you for socons or if a woman has sex with you for guys on the other end). This like so many other definitions of a “real man” (TM) fail all objectivity since they’re dependent on women.

This is very similar to what I’ve seen on some feminist blogs when it comes to the definition of physical “femininity”. Why is femininity always coming from the stance of what masculinity likes?

Renee said this on modesty…

Honestly, I think this all goes back to society attempting to control female sexuality and how female sexuality used to be (and today still in some circles) feared and seen as evil. It was a form of control in a way.

She’s absolutely right that modesty for women is a form of control on sexuality. But she’s wrong in thinking its a bad thing. I also think she’s wrong that there is no modest code for men…there is. I’ve seen it first-hand – and I’ve seen immodest men aplenty on tv without nakedness. You can’t use victorian definitions for applying modesty to chests, so you can’t use a man without a shirt vs women and breasts as an example of victorian modesty controlling female sexuality because women’s breasts were as everyday then as a man’s bare chest was – if not more. Necklines were so low to make breastfeeding easier (pop one out via style of the ‘immodest’ extreme la leche clubs that EW loves so much – amazing the tidbits of info you garner when researching breast feeding and renaissance gowns!). But men were also held to modesty standards. Their trousers didn’t hang loosley around their hips so you could see the abdominal muscles as they trailed to the genital area like you see today in Abercrombi & Fitch adverts (and yes, that’s immodest and does make a girl stare); they were practically around their chests. For the longest time, men would only go shirtless in the company of other men or around their wives – if a lady was present, on came the shirt. It was immodest to be caught in your skivvies around a woman and to have bare leg showing (keep those stockings and garters on, men). It was also customary to show modesty in speech and behavior – you didn’t drink strong drinks or smoke cigars around a lady (brandy was reserved to after-dinner hours in the den where women were not allowed) nor was it acceptable to be vulgar, lewd, or brawly around a woman. There were standards for male modesty that controlled their sexuality just as much as women – its just that the modern day woman is not so readily willing or able to recognize the examples that history gives us of this.

(However, we also know that whorehouses were places where men could do all these things in the presence of a female without censorship)

Now my actual point – my argument against both Pro/Anti and Renee is the same – God did not create man (or woman) in a vaccuum. First, he created us for HIM. But he created us both male and female for eachother.

Its not a popular thought in today’s society to think that the female gender was created for men (for God saw that something was missing in just creating one gender) and that the female gender also requires the male to reciprocate. He created exactly what the male needed to make the world perfect when he created women by creating a gender who needed him.

And I think that with this world-view, it is not inappropriate to define certain aspects of masculinity and femininity; manhood and womanhood; male modesty and female modesty within a framework that considers the gender whose needs they were meant to fill.

So men will continue to shave their faces if their wives (or girlfriends or the female populace they care about) find this attractive and women will continue to shave their legs and armpits for the same reason. (Sorry for the simplistic example)

I just think that defining manhood and womanhood completely without consideration for the opposite results in an incomplete picture.

Only in the same way that the Confederate battle flag–a symbol of liberty and of rebellion against oppression to some–reeks of its association with slavery.

One doesn’t necessarily follow the other.

One can believe that female sexuality needs to be put back in a box and not want to return to the mores of 1890. One can also believe that female sexuality is inherently evil and not think that male sexuality is inherently any better.

In fact, the Victorians were the opposite. They believed that female sexuality was better, more pure, and that male sexuality was dirty and roguish. 200 years later, we get what we have now.

“I’m not saying there’s no issues regarding female sexuality, but one can say the same about male sexuality.”

Perhaps we’re talking past each other. Out-of-control male sexuality would be just as bad…if we had it truly uncontrolled male sexuality. But I contend we don’t…our society very much applies controls to male sexuality.

Ok, this is where we differ in opinion. This just reeks of the old belief of female sexuality as being inherently evil and male sexuality being ok. And believe it or not, not all men and women want to have a family, especially kids. I just don’t think that ALL the blame on what you mentioned should lay at the feet of female sexuality.

So a dude strutting around in a bikini isn’t alluring; it’s just gross.

I think it depends on if he has a great bod. Just saying…..

I’m not saying there’s no issues regarding female sexuality, but one can say the same about male sexuality.

Yes, it was control. Very necessarily so, IMHO. Let female sexuality out of the box and you get what we have right now, with female sexuality figuratively running down the gutters, resulting in broken families (or no families at all), marginalized men, stunted girls, aimless boys, and social disorder. Unrestrained female sexuality is the social pattern of the urban ghetto or the Sub-Saharan Africa.

Men were controlled too in Victorian society and, regrettably, continue to be so to this day. But control for men wasn’t sexual in nature. It was monetary.

Control isn’t necessarily bad. Particularly when one is dealing with fallen men and women who fail to control themselves.

“I mean, what logical reason was and is modesty in a sexual sense not applied to males?”

I think the logical reason for it may be found here: it is because there isn’t much use for guys to be sexually modest. Women aren’t switched on by guys’ bare chests like men are for womens’ bare chests (see this post for what does turn women on…scary). So a dude strutting around in a bikini isn’t alluring; it’s just gross.

Now where there is a need for male modesty is in displays of higher value, such as cars, clothing, house, etc. You know, things that make the female all hot for a guy but is actually a turn off when the sexes are reversed.

I don’t see how the female variety is any less pernicious than the male one, so I don’t buy it. Besides, the Man sez that both sexes shall be chaste until marriage and faithful during, so it’s really kind of a moot point for me.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

Modesty is classically associated with females I think because it is the easiest to see/grade (”are those boobs checked baggage or carry-on?”) and was a big staple of Victorian morality.

Honestly, I think this all goes back to society attempting to control female sexuality and how female sexuality used to be (and today still in some circles) feared and seen as evil. It was a form of control in a way. I mean, what logical reason was and is modesty in a sexual sense not applied to males?

Think about it, if you look on network television and see bare breasts, people will be all up in arms, but if you see a bare male chest, then no big deal.

@Renee,

Some patriarchy theorists would say that chastity and fidelity only applies to women, on the grounds that female infidelity and unchastity is more disruptive of the social fabric than male infidelity/unchastity.

I don’t see how the female variety is any less pernicious than the male one, so I don’t buy it. Besides, the Man sez that both sexes shall be chaste until marriage and faithful during, so it’s really kind of a moot point for me.

Modesty is classically associated with females I think because it is the easiest to see/grade (“are those boobs checked baggage or carry-on?”) and was a big staple of Victorian morality.

Male modesty has to do with not being flamboyant or in-your-face about his means/power/wealth…in other words, humility, something that doesn’t lend itself to quick and ready judgements.

Is it only women who must be chaste, not men as well? And why is modesty always associated with females? The last question is something that I’ve mulled over for a while.

Men are throwing off the shackles to become independent, to become whatever they wish; the social contract is dead.

The precise point at which men have no say over the behavior of females is the point at which females have no say over the behavior of men. Reciprocity is a two-way street.

I have no problem leaving off “shaming” words–I use them seldom, if at all–as long as the male half of the population uses their masculine liberty to be responsible and godly (men for Christ, not merely chickified dudes who are homeboys with Jesus), to pursue what’s right rather than “what I want”.

It’s too bad that so many guys are throwing off the shackles of feminism to become exactly what feminists said they would be: cads and users. I despise feminism, and hate to see its priestesses being given ammo.

It is all purely manipulative, even when used with sincere intent. Yes, it used to be an effective means of social control, but only when used sparingly and appropriately. It’s edge and effectiveness have been blunted from overuse.

These days I just laugh in the face of anyone trying to use it on me, and comment that (sigh) I have just had to get used to being an UN-RealMan (TM), and on those days when I am at the top of my form, a SUR-RealMan. The surest way to complete destroy someone’s credibility with me is to utter the word “RealMan”(TM). From that point onward I just tune them out.

There have been times in the past when cultures went insane. The Nuremburg trials were mostly of people who had been “RealMan”ed into behaving in inhuman, diabolical ways. I can easily imagine Jim Jones telling his followers “Well, if you were a REALMAN(TM) you would drink the Kool-Aid and cause your wife and children to drink it too.”

For good or ill, a man has to be the final authority on whether he will listen to or cave in to social pressure.