Dear Editor,
I wish to applaud the Student Honor Association’s new campaign for modesty.
I, for one, have seen too many slices of back, belly buttons, and low necks. The SHA’s “Goldifox” campaign seeks to reduce the number of these sightings. Hoorah! A straightforward and worthy goal.
It came as something of a surprise that there should be any controversy about the posters at all.
The related story that ran on Friday quoted the co-president of VOICE as saying, “It’s silly to set any kind of standard for the way a woman should dress.”
So setting sartorial standards is silly? Wow. I was under the impression that the Lord did set standards for the way his daughters should dress. (Exhibit A: “For the Strength of Youth.”)
Granted, the world twists this into an undue emphasis on cutaneous exposure.
The Goldifox posters, by contrast, send the opposite message: modesty is more attractive than immodesty.
The message is that guys will be more attracted to you – or at least the kind of guys you want to attract – if you cover yourself adequately.
You don’t need to expose strategic sectors of skin to get our attention; we’d rather that you’d not. We, too, like it better when we can focus on what you think.
What, pray tell, is wrong with that message?
Michael Christenson
Porterville, Calif.
