Modesty is based on the concept of moderation – in all things. While I agree with much of what is said in the OP, it is more than just a bit ironic to attack one version of modesty in an completely immodest manner. Using one inaccurate extreme (“Children can’t dress immodestly.”) to attack another inaccurate extreme (“Children who expose their shoulders are sluts.”) is no more modest than the extreme being attacked. It simply is the other extreme of the immodesty coin.
Again, I agree with the concern about how modesty is taught in our culture, especially the obsession over narrowing it exclusively to clothing and females, but this post is no more modest than what it attacks. I would love to read a modest response to such an important issue.
Matthew responded with the following comment:
You’ve created a false equivalency rather than responding to the argument and I know you can do better because I’ve seen you do better. If you want to explain with examples why you believe children can be immodest, you are welcome to do so. If you want to explain why you believe my statement is extreme you should do it.
At the time, I felt I would need to write an entire counter-post in order to explain why I believed the post was extreme, so I didn't respond in a comment. I thought of writing an official response for a while but never got around to it. Two weeks later, Paul wrote a responding post on "Real Intent" - and it expressed my concerns very well.
I came across that discussion again recently and decided today to post the link to Paul's article as my own official response to the idea that children can't be immodest, even though it has been three years since the original post. It is a bit lazy of me, but Paul's post said almost everything I would have said in a post of my own.
With that LONG introduction, here is the link:
In Defense of "The Orange Shirt"