Sarah is starting her first year at law school and also planning her wedding, but somehow still finds time to write for the Daily Beacon, the independent student newspaper at the University of Tennesee, Knoxville.

How she became interested in modesty is a fascinating story. When we caught up with Sarah, she admitted that:

Fashion was never one of my passions and I pushed my parents' modesty limits just like most other girls. Then, I read the book "Dress for Success for Women" by John T. Malloy. The book does not really discuss a philosophy of proper attire, but one of its major points is that sexy attire and success are negatively correlated. The more skin you show, the less professional you look. The premise got me thinking about fashion in general and the messages our clothes send to others. I got hung up on the idea of fashion as a tool of communication.

If you don't think of fashion as communication and think about how others interpret it, then you will inevitably communicate the wrong thing. My problem with immodest clothing is not that it conveys a negative message; my problem is that I don't think people realize what message they are conveying. Specifically, girls don't realize how much of an effect sex appeal has on guys. If you want a guy to desire you, then plunge those necklines and mini those skirts. But if you want a guy to respect you, admire you, or commit to you, then "sexy" will distract from what you are trying to convey.

If you want to read more of Sarah's fantastic, incisive commentary, her columns have recently included "Sexuality Not the Path to True Love" and "Tshirts Foster Degrading Image"

And here's an except from Sarah's more recent column, on chivalry:

The male code of honor has been replaced by protective laws against sexual harassment, rape and the like. These laws are good and necessary, but they do not sufficiently replace the standards of chivalry because they cannot truly set the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Only internal social pressure can convince a man that he should not act against a woman’s best interests when he has the advantage over her.

For example, there is almost no one weaker than a freshman girl drunk at a fraternity party. The chivalrous, and right, thing to do would be to take her home no matter what she wanted to do. Even if she were falling all over herself to hop into bed, a gentleman would not take his unfair advantage. Traditionally, if the guy failed to recognize this, her male friends and even his friends would condemn him for it.

The modern day standard allows the guy to take her into the back room and try his luck. Other men would not denounce him; in fact some would cheer him on.

His actions may be legal if she consents. (And even if they’re not, she statistically won’t press charges or have much of a case if she does.) But what he did was wrong according to almost anyone with a sense of honor.

There have always been cads and scoundrels who take advantage of those weaker than themselves. But the degradation of chivalry in modern society makes us less able to stop them.

So, who says you have to be a sex columnist to be hip? Today sex columnists are a dime a dozen, and some of the best journalism today from young women who actually believe in modesty and honor. Women like Sarah are the ones truly influencing the campus debate, by challenging people's preconceived notions about what constitutes liberation.

Sarah, we are in awe--keep up the great work!

If you would like to nominate a Rebel—including yourself—please send a short personal profile and what you are rebelling against to: There is no age limit, but high school and college students will be given priority over grandmas, since grandmas, after all, are supposed to be good.

Nominate a



About Us | Contact |Thanks | Copyright 2005-2007. All Rights Reserved.