Saying that modesty is so good implies that being more revealing is, well, bad. The amount of skin someone is showing does not affect how shallow they are, at all. I am quite nearly asexual. I have no sexual attraction to anyone until I'm close friends with them, and then it flips. I find all my friends absolutely gorgeous. Does the fact that I am not "modest" (nor am I overly showy so to speak) mean I am shallow? No, of course it doesn't. So what does it mean?
Kirby says:
That is, if we made less of a deal out of sex, and nudity and whatnot, we'd be more interested in a person's characteristics
Put it this way: FEW people REQUIRE blue eyes out of a spouse
If we started covering up blue eyes
Guess what'd be desireable in a spouse?
Blue eyes.
Modesty, by DESIGN alone, objectifies women's breasts.
"I will cover up my breasts because men want them, and in turn, men will want them."
This I believe is true. Essentially, breasts themselves instill no primal desire. Size-related, larger breasts do due to the fact that they enlarge during ovulation- to use Kirby's oh-so-modest terminology. However, the thing itself is not a primal turn-on.
150 years ago or so, ankles were a turnon- and everything between ankle and chin, because it was all so secretive.
If you put little kids in a room with a bunch of toys and an empty basket turned upside down they'd play with the toys and pay the basket little notice. Tell them they cannot look under the basket, and they will naturally be infinitely more curious.
My Signature