Modesty has widely been defined and defended as per individuals’ perception, and any recommendations or suggestions immediately attract hurls of rebukes defending one’s freedom of expression.
Thoughts arising in one’s mind are directly based on the type of stimulus from the external environment, a decent manifestation attracts decent thoughts and likewise the opposite.
Under all circumstances, it is agreeable that every action, every choice and every quality in us is meant to have and attract a specific kind of attention from society, yes of course life needs mutual attention to acquire essential things for the survival of an organism.
Henceforth we humans (man and woman) project ourselves to the society based on our needs, thereby it is equally arguable that “the way we prefer to be manifested to the society speaks about our desires as a human being in the society”.
A human in the society is technically / grammatically termed as a person.
And their desires shall be considered as personal.
And so, the “way of conduct of a person in the society is called personality”.
So, ultimately, we are exposing our personality through our expressions in the (civilized) society.
What constitutes expression?
Well, the Article 19 of the Constitution of India permits an individual to bare the freedom of speech and expression, this is widely interpreted as “one’s wish to dress in a particular way, to use a particular language, to speak (conditionally) the way one feels comfortable and the definition goes endless”.
Although the fundamental rights are tagged with certain restrictions which do not disturb the national security, or social order or cause any harm to other individuals, they are presumed to have a positive contribution to the society.
In this regard, every individual must have caution over ones conduct in the society to ensure the above agenda.
Even though there are laws (IPC Sections) to prevent unruly behavior and language in the public, there are bleak restrictions over ones attire (dress code).
Modesty and dress code
Apart from organizational requirements (as per educational, professional, and devotional places), there are limited restrictions for an individual to project oneself in the public, this is where the question of personal preferences/personality arises.
A saint/priest dons sapid-colored gowns indicating their adherence to spirituality. A politician (in India) dones white (formal) robes indicating their purpose to serve the public. And so the others accordingly.
We are now clearly understanding how an individual gets judged based on their way of dressing.
Our attires define us louder than our words (even before we speak)!!
The dress code is not an overnight invention, as mentioned earlier about civilization, we humans have gradually evolved certain concepts to suit our harmonious living. Thus such elementary entities are naturally biased into us.
And at this point of discussion, we clearly understand the difference between modest and flaunty dress codes (regardless of gender).
Certainly, these appearances intend to gain the focus of the audience towards the physically emboldened portion of the body or the portion exposed.
And such form of deliberate bodily attraction can never be for non-sensual purpose (other than spiritual nudism which doesn’t have sexual intent), because the desires of human beings are commercially exploited widely, because scientifically sexual desire naturally releases the highest amount of (pleasure hormone) dopamine.
Â
This is purposely leveraged by the commercial entities to gain profit by tinkering with the minds of society and indoctrinating them to emphasize their body image to become the center of attraction.
This is why the ad industries, newspapers and even the entertainment industry is focusing more on sexualizing characters.
For example, certain snippets taken from a reputed newspaper, indicate mispositioned attires of female athletes, while there could be several instances to get a good snap, the deliberate intention of the photographer to click such positions indicate the sordid purpose behind it.
Modesty in sportswear
The basic requirements of sports ware to comfort the athlete are met by several other costume designs as well, but the widely held stereotype in the media industry, the sports industry to gain TRP and promote their brands has forced the athletes to accept skimpy outfits.
Historically all athletic costumes were baggy and sloppy, and there are well-ascertained facts to reveal the efficiencies of such costumes. Basically, the performance of the athlete depends on the training and mindset and not much on the costume.
Example:- Ruqaya Al-Ghasara won the gold medal in the 200 m race at the 2006 Asian games (Doha).
Modesty in the film industry
In a view of competing for profit the film industries are coming up with voluptuous content rather than value-based content, and the children of these celebrities are again raised on these lines.
The industries in the early 1900s had equal respect for both genders and any intimate clip was restricted to socially acceptable scales, while the present trend subverts either gender depicting them to be subservient to the other.
Â
How immodest actions contradict personal and professional life
A singer can entertain his/her family by singing and a businessman can help his relatives on any matter concerning his business. But how can an actress/actor intending to seduce another man/woman (as their profession), wishes her/his family not to be benefited from it?
A singer can teach his/her children how to sing, and so a doctor can teach medical science to his/her children, but what can a prostitute (male/female), or stripper (male/female) teach their children?
When we as a society defend a profession we also need to ensure that such a profession should be universally inheritable regardless of the customers seeking the service.
If such practices are left to perpetuate it certainly leads to objectionable incestuous practices.
Modesty for a teacher
From a well-established research published on Hindawi it is clear that the dressing sense of a teacher has a significant impact on the students learning.
The research concludes by stating that the dress code of a teacher (in personal life and professional life) is inspiring toward goal achievement of the students.
And It was evident from the analysis that dress creates a strongly favorable image in the minds of students by assuming teachers’ family background, personality, choice, or product of preferences by viewing his/her clothing, values, and social status.
Social mentality
Society also feels contradicted over receiving and respecting an individual based on the modest and immodest dressing. The survey attached below explains how the majority of participants refuse to respect and accept slovenly appearances.
Conclusion
Sexuality is the biological need of human beings, but it was a primitive drive to perpetuate the human population, but the advanced civilization needs to focus on progress, while there are various social, national and global issues, it is impertinent to focus in this perspective.
If flaunting nudism is boldness, then the apes and animals are the boldest
Read More –
- The Effect of Teachers’ Dress on Students’ Attitude and Students’ Learning: Higher Education View
- What Is Teachers’ Dress code? Of Course, Saree
- Teacher reveals ‘inappropriate’ outfits she can’t wear to work.
- The Great Cleavage Conundrum: should men look if it’s on display?
- Why women are least expected to be criminals?
- Bhaghawat Geeta; Chapter 6:- Dhyana yoga – verses 13-14 (Speaks about spiritual education for children to have restrictions over sexual desires).
- Bhaghawat Geeta; Chapter 17:- Division of faith – verses 4 (tells that sexual service is objectionable).
- Bhaghawat Geeta; Chapter 1:- Observing the armies on the battlefield of Kurukshetra – verses 40 (tells that adultery spills violence in the society).
- Quran; Chapter 24:- An-Nur – verses 57 (Highlights that dressing must be modest).
- Quran; Chapter 55:- Ar Rahman – verses 32 (Modesty highlighted, condemns bodily flaunting).
