nce upon a time, differences between women and men represented its in linguistic usage in the following manner.  It was deemed quite appropriate to say that a woman dressed in a certain way was dressed like a slut or a tramp.  By contrast, it seemed almost a misuse of language to say that a man was dressed like a slut or a tramp.  Of course, no one ever doubted that men could dress inappropriately, and that this even included sexually inappropriate.  It is just that the inappropriate dress of men was rarely, if ever, characterized as being on the order of a slut or a tramp.  Modesty was seen as a woman’s virtue—and not a man’s virtue.  As we shall see, there was some very bad reasoning involved here; for the simple truth is that men have never really had the freedom to dress in sexually provocative ways.  But this is to get ahead of ourselves.

Why was there this attitude towards women with regard to dress, but not men?  The answer is very simple.  It has been supposed that men are always ready for sex with just about any female available and that, as such, this was not such a bad thing.  On the other hand, it has been supposed that women are not supposed to be ready for sex with any man available; and a woman who so presented herself owing to how she dressed was characterized as a slut or tramp.  This, needless to say, gives us the double standard that men can sleep around and still be deemed worthy of respect, but not women. 

This double standard was officially felled by the axe of feminism.  If men can sleep around and hold on to their good name, then women can to.  And someone would always make that potent conceptual point: “After all, men can’t sleep around if there are no women with whom the men are doing the sleeping”. 

As a result of this line of reasoning, modesty ceased to be a woman’s virtue, and appeals to it with respect to women were seen as ruthlessly sexist. 

What is quite interesting in all of this is that some quite bad reasoning took place.  Although men were rarely, if ever, referred to as a slut or tramp owing to how they dressed, it was never ever supposed that men could dress however it pleased them.  So a man who wore pants so tight that his sexual organs were outlined by the fit of his pants was seen as dressing in a rather unbecoming, if not disgusting, way.  No one needed call him a slut owing to how he dressed precisely because being always ready for sex was part of the very idea of manhood.  In some sense, then, being a perpetual slut has been part and parcel of the very idea of a man.

Indeed, a man who did not seem interested in sex—who was not at least aroused by the moment—was readily raised seen as not being normal.  At best, only priests were naively thought to be above it all. 

At any rate, the point is that modest dress on the part of men has always been seen as appropriate.  It is just that an insatiable appetite for sex was seen as part and parcel of manhood.  Accordingly, immodest dress on the part of a male did not add anything.  But make no mistake about it, one could quiet sternly say to a man “You are dressed in a disgusting manner”. 

So feminism got something very important very, very wrong.  The freedom to dress like a slut or a tramp did not put women on a par with men.  This is owing to the simple truth that men have never really had the freedom to dress in sexually provocative ways.  And not much on that score has changed, even though it has been come fashionable in some circles for men to have bits of the waist-band of their under-shorts showing. 

Certainly attitudes about female sexuality have evolved for the better; and we can allow that in general women are more interested in and more ready for sex than was ever supposed generations ago.  Further, we can allow that this is a good thing. 

But what on earth does this new view of women have to do with dressing immodestly?  The answer: Nothing at all.  And this, too, feminism got very, very wrong.  An insatiable sexual appetite does not warrant immodest dress.  Nor, a fortiori, does it make immodest dress a virtue.  In fact, immodest dress does precisely what feminism claims to be so adamantly fighting against: such dress cheapens women.  And it is not just that it cheapens women in the eyes of men, it cheapens women in the eyes of women as well.  And yes, a parallel holds with regard to disgusting attire worn by men. 

Perhaps more so.  It is easy to miss this because (generally speaking) men are not as fashion-conscious as women; hence, men are less attentive to what each other is wearing.  Yet, there are clear boundaries.  Most men would just as soon not be seen walking with another male whose pants were so tight that they outlined his sexual organs.  What can I say?  That is tantamount to dressing as a male tramp. 

Enormously enjoying sex is one thing.  Valuing oneself is quite another.  And whether we are female or male, there is no getting around the reality that how we carry ourselves is an indication, albeit not a decisive one, of the ways in which we value ourselves generally.  A person cannot spend night and day on personal appearances and, at same time, insist that appearances are of little or no significance in her or his life—at least not without a very long and unobvious story. 

Likewise, a woman can’t wear a blouse so low cut that a man has to make a concerted effort not to notice her breasts, and then claim that she detests the fact that men can’t seem to hear her for looking at her breasts.  True enough, they are all body parts.  But that truth does not change the reality that their presentation can make all the difference in the world.  And it is so much nonsense to ask a man to treat all modes of presentation as if they are the same.  That would be like asking women to have exactly reaction when they see me walking by as they have when they see an absolutely drop-dead gorgeous man walking by. 

Modesty is a good thing whether a woman is utterly exhaustive as a sexual partner or a nun-in-the-making. 

Modesty is one thing.  Chastity is quite another.  And the absence of sluttiness is not chastity but modesty.  Unfortunately, there is form of feminism that, in the rush to insure that women and men are treated exactly like, seems intent upon not reasoning correctly about these things. 

In this regard, Wendy Shalit, in her book A Return to Modesty, got it absolutely right.  In eschewing modesty in the name of uplifting women, feminism has in fact denigrated women.  The point of feminism was to bring it about that women should take themselves seriously.  The problem is that feminism was too busy attending to male privilege to notice that modesty is valued by men among men.  And in jettisoning modesty, the result is that women have gotten sluttier than ever, much to the delight of a great many man.  It is just that in the name of political correctness, sluttiness now travels under a different name.  “Fashion”, I believe it is called.

This tells us what we all must surely know, namely that it is impossible to take oneself seriously whilst aiming to be like someone else who, owing to one’s myopia and agenda, one gets wrong in the first place. 

There are aspects of feminism that I take to be extraordinary and wonderful.  The disregard for modesty in attire is not one of them, however.  And there is no need to worry; for it should be clear that I am, in this regard, radically egalitarian: immodesty in attire strikes me as no less disgusting when it is exhibited by men.  It is just that in this regard men have not, by and large, sunk to the level of moral squalor, the level of sluttiness if you will, reached by women.  Who would have imagined that?