ultimately i just dont understand how modesty rules for women actually respect women when often they take body parts or shapes that were never objectionable or sexual and make them so. there were places where women could be topless because there was no separate, distinct meaning applied to women's bare chests. and then non-natives went in and said "no, actually, women's breasts are inherently sexual and meant for the husband's enjoyment". they did the same thing with legs and midriffs and shoulders and arms and you get the idea.
like how does this help me? it's new things to stress about. now i exist in a sexualized state that I didn't before, and it's not just me -- it's a cultural and social shift, too. Men and boys who were raised not to give a fuck about legs now lose their minds because they've been told it's normal to lose their minds about women's legs, specifically. when you live in a place that genuinely doesn't care about shoulders or thighs, having someone say you NEED to care about them specifically on women and girls because otherwise a Man will jack off to you, or you'll be likened to a sexually open and available woman, is disturbing. Normal people don't think like that.
And then they try to add some level of paternalism or chivalry to it. They say "Yeah 85-90% of your body is inherently sexual but look! Rather than be a sex toy for any random man on the street, isn't it so much better if it's the man you marry? Why don't you wear this or do that for your husband?" Like oh okay yeah that solves me being objectified. Now I'm for the sexual consumption of One Man instead of Many, and this man I happen to legally/religiously/socially owe my body to anyways. Now something that wasn't deemed sexual to begin with (shorts, tank top) has an inherently sexual overtone because it's gone from "Wear this when its hot out or just because you like it" to "Wear this for the Man who has a Sexual Right Over your Body. Wear This to Titillate Him".
