Re: “A contradiction?” (Letters, May 29).
First, on the basis of absolutely nothing, Ken Shore equates modesty with a desire to be unattractive. It’s an untenable link. Just as it’s possible to be both modest and attractive (e.g. my wife in a business suit), it’s equally possible to be both immodest and unattractive (e.g. me in a Speedo).
But then from this flimsy perch, Shore leaps to the absurd conclusion that a woman he saw wearing both lipstick and a hijab was forced to wear the latter (but not the former). Surely it’s equally possible she was just trying to be like my wife: modest and attractive. Or is Shore suggesting that a woman must be immodest to be attractive?
It’s possible Shore possesses an impeccably logical mind, but in this case,it appears to have been impeded by his clear antipathy toward those who don’t share his secular principles.