Cady, they said they would only publish it as an 'ad.' An ad for what, is the question?

His wife says that one benefit of the website is that it "legitimizes it"--"it" being infidelity. How is that a benefit, exactly? I don't think she comes across as someone who thinks these things through, but rather seems to take the attitude of: "it's his business so I have to be 'cool' with it." Also, if someone has written a book entitled "Cheaters Prosper" and thinks that lying and cheating is "a catalyst for change," how can you trust them when they maintain that they personally don't cheat? Maybe he also regards his own infidelity as a source of prosperity and and "a catalyst for change," but the nature of that change is that you have to lie, so he lies too. I mean if it's true for others, why isn't it true for him? In the department of amusement, take a look at one of their commercials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pud3Mn2XCU What do you think? Doesn't make it sound terribly appealing in my view.

The problem is that "common courtesy" is not so common anymore. Whereas men who do believe that every woman is a lady and deserves to be treated as such, these men generally identify with chivalry more than with common courtesy. Or they are coming from a religious perspective where the focus is on 'guarding their eyes' and their own responsibility, so they would never dream of using female dress as an excuse for boorishness. Common courtesy, although it sounds great, does not usually get us very far in practice.

I admire Robert's sentiment and I think this is the ideal of the concept of chivalry--"every woman a lady." On the other hand, we are left to deal with and manage in a world in which, alas, all men are not like Robert.

Great blog, Rachel. Do you find that muting is a successful strategy though? I guess it depends on the personality of your child--I know it would make my son even more curious.

Love your take on this, Nurit. Interestingly, back in the early 1970s, George Gilder wrote that detached sexuality doesn't benefit men either (not from a physical standpoint, nor emotionally) and was taken to task for this. But check out CNN today and Ian Kerner, a sexuality counselor, is saying much the same thing; specifically, he talks about men afflicted with SADD ("Sexual Attention Deficit Disorder," caused by watching too much pornography): http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/20/how-porn-is-changing-our-sex-lives/?hpt=C2

I think the number one thing that needs to be done to curb this trend is to teach children the difference between public and private--granted, a difficult task in an era when many adults do not value privacy either. My heart goes out to the poor girl in the story, who was never taught that a boy who is cruel to you has not earned your trust, and certainly does not deserve to get a naked picture of you. The fact that such a thing could even happen in the first place is beyond low-self-esteem issues; it reveals a fundamental confusion. These boorish boys need to be given severe consequences, but at the same time, young people need to be taught to value privacy. Today we are taught that if we keep something private, we must be ashamed of it--that's the legacy of the 1960s; Show your body if you are proud of it! But showing and telling everyone everything also destroys the possibility of real intimacy, trust and connection.

This is so timely. There's a grandma in my neighborhood with the license plate "HOTBUBIE" and the juxtaposition of the plates with the poor driving skills (she never seems to signal when changing lanes) is really too much to bear. Every time she suddenly cuts me off as we enter the main street I wish that Bubbie could be a little less hot.

Melissa, thank you. You raised so many important issues here, and you really made me think. I wish I could say that people are just trying to raise money and doing it the only way they know how, but I think that just begs the question: Why isn't there anything similar to Raise Awareness regarding prostate cancer? So it can't just be about raising money or awareness. And as Talya points out, the messenging of the campaigns-- such as "save the Boobies"-- is not just insulting, it is directly contrary to the woman's best interest, which is to have the mastectomy as soon as possible in some cases, and to save THEMSELVES. Great point, Talya. I think that perhaps the answer is very simple, so simple that I never even stopped to think about it until I read your blog. I think that the popular culture's view of women has become so misogynistic, the commitment to woman-as-sex-object first and foremost is so strong, that it simply eclipses everything else--even life-and-death issues like cancer, and a woman's health and well-being. No matter how serious the issue, sadly, it just all gets swallowed up in that black hole and when it comes out into the public realm, it must be repackaged as 'sexy" no matter what. If it is to be public and it concerns women, then it must be sexy. Just like those prudes in the Victorian era supposedly didn't allow sexy in the public realm, not even uncovered piano legs--although that is apparently a myth--we don't allow non-sexy in the public realm, when it comes to anything concerning women.

Great points, Alyson. You really brought out all the contradictions in this preposterous article. When I first read this CNN advice, my head was spinning. I couldn't even think of asking why we can't have a higher standard for both sexes--even though this is one of my favorite topics, as you know. All I could feel was a tremendous desire to set up this woman with the man who endorsed infidelity on CNN the previous week. I believe his name was Christopher Ryan, and he considers himself "one of four African great apes, along with chimps, bonobos and gorillas" (hence cheating is only natural). Obviously I don't know Mr. Ryan, so I can't speak about whether or not he spurns spooning during his moments of infidelity, but it seemed to me like a match made in heaven.

Mary: this blog is for both liberal and conservative readers, anyone who wants to discuss issues relating to modesty and more specifically, what we value in women and in men. Each of the writers comes from a different perspective and that's why the discussions are so interesting--at least to me. If you're looking for the blog to reflect your perspective exactly, then you should sign up as a blogger! Or comment more often. In general, when you read this group blog, you should expect each person to come to the table with a different perspective (and, usually, religion) than you. Some commentators correctly ask what men's obligations are, and I think they are right to bring this up. I can only speak for Judaism since that is my religion and background. There is some overlap in Judaism with the concepts Cady discusses--certainly, the concept of not 'practicing' negative speech--but both spouses are to give 100% in a Jewish marriage. There is no concept of, "So what if he wants sex when you don't" as formulated above.. To the contrary, for thousands of years, as codified in Jewish law, men are prohibited to have relations with their wives if the wife is not interested, if he is even thinking of another woman, if he is contemplating divorce, or if he is drunk. (Just to give some examples of a woman's sexual rights in marriage under Jewish law.) The goal of a Jewish marriage is intimacy and peace--and that is what is thought to bring the Divine Presence into the home, not submission per se. Indeed, the phrase "helpmeet" is a very inexact translation of the original Biblical Hebrew which is that a woman is to be an "ezer kinegdo," a helper opposite him, or against him. This is a difficult concept to explain in a short space, but suffice it to say that "helpmeet" does not begin to do it justice. In Jewish tradition, this is understood to mean that when the man is doing the right thing, his wife is to support him; and when he is doing the wrong thing, she is supposed to be against him and actually oppose him--just as Rebecca opposed Isaac when he did not see that Esau did not merit the blessing of the firstborn. These are just some of the differences between my perspective and the perspective of someone like Ms. Pearl. However, it doesn't bother me in the least to hear people coming from different perspectives than my own, and I enjoyed reading Cady's blog, especially the piano metaphor; and liked the reminder not to 'practice negativity.' There are people who have written to me privately that they are upset by this particular blog's existence, which I don't get. I don't think we have to agree with a blog completely to get something out of it. For anyone who is is Jewish or interested in reading more about the Jewish perspective on marriage, a great book is THE RIVER, THE KETTLE AND THE BIRD, by Rabbi Feldman; or in more detail, Rabbi Shalom Arush wrote separate books about man and woman's separate obligations in marriage: the one for men is called THE GARDEN OF PEACE and the one for women is called WOMEN'S WISDOM. I think it is very significant that he wrote the book for men first. You can be as feminine as you want, but you have got to have a partner who appreciates your efforts and more specifically, is willing to work to make a marriage great.

People seem to be reacting to the issue of PDAs in general, which is fine, but Melissa's post was about Facebook PDAs specifically and personally, I thought her post and the questions raised were quite clear. Melissa wrote that she was talking about receiving a feed of "constant lovey-dovey-mushy-gushy posts [from a couple's]walls." I think the weirdness here goes beyond PDA. What does it mean to post on someone's Wall vs. sending them a personal message? If you choose to post on someone's Wall instead of sending a message, you are essentially sending them a message which you want everyone to read. Why? What are our motivations? To me, the Wall seems like a great tool when it comes to Happy Birthday-type messages or threads others would be interested in, but when it comes to very personal messages, it's not obvious that the Wall is the best format for that kind of message. Just because the Facebook Wall option encourages a particularly external way of relating doesn't mean we have to use it religiously, without questioning it. Personally, I have never accepted the Wall format to deliver my private messages to people. Other than the most general missives (Happy Birthday, a congratulations, etc.) I use the Facebook "Send a message" option to deliver my personal messages to people. Am I the only one who does this? As for Melissa's original question, I don't know--maybe send the lovebirds a link to this blog? :-)

I would agree with Shanna, except that people only use that phrase "comfortable with my body" to justify taking it all off. The implication is that those who don't take it all off are NOT comfortable. Nobody is questioning her "right" to do anything. The reason she recently kissed a girl onstage and her state of undress makes Madonna look modest-- that's all because Miley has the right to do that. But is the hypersexualization of under-age girls automatically beyond criticism because it's about 'comfort'? No. I have no doubt that it's more 'comfortable' to go with the flow and the herd; but that doesn't mean it's admirable.

Here is the site I found. Looks interesting, but more apparently coming soon: http://www.tznius-ista.com/t2_about.html

I understand where Ann is coming from but I respectfully disagree. I think the open, conversational way in which Melissa approaches these questions is much more likely to help people come to appreciate modesty than a heavy-handed, judgmental approach. I think most people prefer honesty over ideology.

I haven't read the book but when I hear Hepburn, especially in conjunction with classy behavior, my first association would be Audrey not Katharine. Perhaps Lindsay can clarify because she has read the book. Thomas, I love your point and I think YOU would be the perfect person to write that book. I do discuss men in my books but I find that, especially if a man doesn't already have a positive male role model in his life, it is very difficult for him to hear about proper behavior from a woman. The message just doesn't "take" and is often greeted with outright hostility.

Reminds me of the saying, "Angels don't leave footprints." :-)

Great discussion. It does seem to be the case (based on a study of 19,000 teens from the National Institute of Health) that girls are four times more likely to be depressed if they experimented with sex, and that the depressive symptoms generally increased as the risky behavior increased. The Pacific Institute for Research also found that "sex, drugs and alcohol among teens actually precede--and apparently lead to--the onset of adolescent depression, which contradicts the common belief that depressed teens may be 'self-medicating' through substance abuse and sex." Part of what a good study does is make a distinction between association and causation, and account for the former; and yet these researchers have found more than an associative link. I think we all can agree that emotional health is important, but to say so isn't to suggest that this is the ONLY reason teens are depressed. I thought the main point of Chaya's article was that there are alternatives now; whatever your views are on multiple partners and depression, can't we all be happy for the fact that those who DON'T want to take this route, now have more options? Clearly, the kids are looking for them

Eve, This is such a beautiful blog about a beautiful woman--thank you for sharing it. What an inspiration!

I think this is a really interesting issue. With respect to CMichelle's point, I think according to the Torah the man is supposed to go out and cleave to his wife--he's supposed to leave his parents and be the one to go out there and find a wife. But I agree with you that unfortunately this is not always the case even when women (and men) behave modestly. I think the key factor is that over the years the female Orthodox population has exceeded the number of religious males, and there is the same imbalance in higher education (more girls than boys). Whenever there are more females than males, it tends to create a dynamic where the women are more competitive, and the men feel less of a need to impress--though in societies where there are agreed-upon rules of behavior (such as among the Orthodox) it does tend to minimize heartbreak and mistreatment. I think in general, women also put way too much stock in what others are doing to impress guys, instead of what's comfortable for them. The focus needs to be more on authenticity and finding a soulmate, instead of fretting desperately that "somebody else will get him if I don't do this."

Chaya, what happened to that girl who taped it--didn't administrators initially threaten that they were going to discipline HER for videotaping the incident? I'm curious what ended up happening with that.... More evidence of moral confusion I suppose.

The same thing happened at Princeton University during their "Nude Olympics," when some of the female students were groped, and the response is always the same: "Just because I'm running around naked does NOT give you the right to touch me, or even to look at me!" How do such intelligent women come to this absurd position? I think people are rightly concerned about not 'blaming the victim' of sex crimes, and I personally agree that men should bear responsibility for their behavior, crimes, and poor choices in general--as should women. But then we really go overboard when we pretend that it's normal--and ideologically praiseworthy--to run around naked. It's not, and it certainly does nothing to 'empower' women. To me, the salient line from the piece is the following one: "However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more 'aggressive' in discouraging oglers." Really the most aggressive way to discourage oglers would be to walk around clothed, wouldn't it? About nursing, whenever I have seen women nursing in public, the baby is usually wrapped in a blanket or under a shawl--no breast is visible unless you really crane your neck to look--so I don't see why people get so worked up over nursing to the degree where they'll complain: "I know what's going on under there! You're not allowed to do that here!" Etc. I think that this response has less to do with modesty than its opposite--the real objection seems to be that the breast is serving a utilitarian and not a sexual function. I say this because the very same people will not object when much more of the breast is visible--under the guise of 'fashion.' So it's a bit of a contradiction.

That is a good point, Melissa. As for the earlier comment from Cass, I don't think Eve's blog was about the intimate lives of the newly married, or assuming that people were asking about that. It was, however, a useful reminder that instead of battering the newly-married with unbounded curiosity, it would perhaps be better to ask how we can help during this time of adjustment. In general it would be nice if the impulse to support others was stronger than the temptation to see others as objects of fascination and gossip.

I think our unidentified male commentator has a point about a dress code. Lacking one, perhaps there could be a class skirt or pants which are lent out on a temporary basis, for students who neglect to clothe their lower half that day; it could then be simply given out with a sincere smile and a simple non-judgmental explanation, such as: "perhaps you would be more comfortable if you put this on over your ensemble." I'm joking, but only half joking. . . .

If you know the lyrics, it's even creepier than you may realize. . . . http://www.elyricsworld.com/bad_romance_lyrics_lady_gaga.html