Can men dress immodestly?

[adgloriam]

Just saying.

As saint John Paul II put it, (and I’m sure others before him) there is a difference in genders regarding modesty and attraction (men’s place is to actively search, while woman’s place is to passively with-guard). Also, women are more called to conceal their bodies and be protective of their modesty - more so than man. [Putting away with these obvious differences is dismissing the natural differences written in the genders. Placing the question in those terms is misleading since the comparison needs first to establish those differences.]

 

[dochawk]

Kind of follows along the dress code policies I’ve seen in th health systems where I have worked; four pages addressing women, and a paragraph or two for men.

That’s really not surprising given how each dress. A couple of centuries ago, men’s attire went from as varied as women’s to a single variation of a 19th century british officer’s uniform, and the closely related sports coat and tie. The variants really only include skipping/including a vest, skipping the coat or tie, and short sleeves.

Women are far more creative, and I’d expect about three of those four pages are addressing specific acts/trends that were done to “get around” the first page . . .

hawk

 

[dochawk]

but I think he’s been happy with the return of the skirt himself,

There are two kinds of men: those that go mushy over their woman in a skirt–and liars.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

but I think he’s been happy with the return of the skirt himself,

There are two kinds of men: those that go mushy over their woman in a skirt–and liars.

That totally sounds like something my dad would’ve said. And I mean that as a compliment!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Men, control yourselves.

Women, don’t let yourselves be controlled.

If women want to be desired by men, they will let themselves be controlled.
If men want to be desired by women, they will let themselves be controlled.

But if they don’t want that sort of thing, they have control. No one can take it from them. That is the meaning of the virtue of chastity.

 

[adgloriam]

QContinuum:

Men, control yourselves.

Women, don’t let yourselves be controlled.

If women want to be desired by men, they will let themselves be controlled.
If men want to be desired by women, they will let themselves be controlled.

But if they don’t want that sort of thing, they have control. No one can take it from them. That is the meaning of the virtue of chastity.

The word “control” actually means “to know”. As simple as that!! If you know where she was and what she did you have “control”.

Having someone do what you want is called:“power” or “manipulation” depending on the objective concordance of the wills.

So you see, a “healthy relationship” being based on trust, truth and candor, has plenty of “control” yet never requires “power” or “manipulation”. And it is important to know this difference as the origin of either is different.

 

[dochawk]

Deleted the reply out of deference to the delete of the quoted post.

Those who deleted the deleter, have been deleted.

Or something like that.

Maybe it’s the reverse for women. The more clothes a man wears the more attractive he is… GAME CHANGER.

Oh, dear.

I am not going out in public in a thong just to save women’s eyes . . .


hawk

 

[ModernCatholic]

I just wanted to mention that modesty is actually a virtue. So an item of clothing can’t just be deemed objectively modest or immodest. In order to be modest, one must br completely in tune with their deepest intentions and conscience in order to identify what the real reason they are wearing something is. And in fact, modest actually refers to dress, actions, and words. The point of modesty is not for other people but for yourself that yoy may imitate Christ in word, action, thought, and dress. That way toh completely emanate Christ from you. Now I’m just wondering, what are us guys supposed to do to cover if we have an emergency down there. I mean, those things happen completely out of a man’s control anyways.

P.S. I need answers

 

[dochawk]

That totally sounds like something my dad would’ve said. And I mean that as a compliment!

I’m not that much older than you (but then, you’re not old enough to have children the age of my oldest, either . . . )

My reference was to the long dresses of the era. The belief - at least the front - that more created the mysterious.

Sounds like you’e one of those shameless hussies who wanders about flashing her * gasp * ankles under a skirt too short to keep them covered.

A couple of years ago at a conference we went on a tour of an antebellum mansion in New Orleans. Our hostess, in character, sent the men up the stairwell first, as was proper, so as to not risk our glimpsing her ankles . . .

anyway, one of the few things that hasn’t come up yet is the difference between male and female attraction.

Speaking broadly, male attraction tends to be to female physical, and particularly to signs of successful fertility (ability to feed, and to give birth) and health (hair). While females definitely appreciate the male form, attractions is driven (at least far more so than men) by signs of ability to protect and provide.

So, in today’s world, it’s quite possible that a man’s suit would be tantalizing to a female the same way that a low neckline on a woman would be to a man, and so forth.

So wear does that take things?

I’m not even sure how many suits are hanging in my closet right now. It used to be a dozen, but some have left service. However, there are several more from a spectacular sale waiting: I’m usually an off-the-rack 42L, needing only the cuffs put on and the suspender buttons installed (men’s suit pants come uncured, to fit a variety of leg lengths). As it turned out, when they arrived, inches had gotten smaller (yeah, that’s it; I hadn’t gotten larger) and they didn’t fit–badly so. A few more pounds though.

I’d never given thought to them as attracting women, or being attractive, or . . . they’re just what I need as work clothes as a lawyer–and a well cut suit of good material is a signaling device announcing that I’m good (whether for better or worse; it is).

Anyway, is dressing in a way that signals financial success and ability immodest if it has the same effect on women that a tight bodice does on men?

oh, and as for the Victorians . . . it wasn’t just piano legs–they also kept books by male and female authors on separate shelves . . .

hawk

 

[luisvera]

Has anybody noticed how (well for a part, haven’t read the whole thing) this thread about wether men can dress immodestly turned into a thread about female modesty, that’s rather odd isn’t it?

 

[Pup7]

You should’ve been here last night. It was ALL over the show. It’s become a thread-for-all.

 

[Pup7]

I think if one dressed that way simply because they wanted to show off the wealth in an ostentatious display, then yes, I think it could. But buying well-cut, higher end clothing simply because one can afford it and desires it seems a bit different.

 

[dochawk]

Has anybody noticed how (well for a part, haven’t read the whole thing) this thread about wether men can dress immodestly turned into a thread about female modesty, that’s rather odd isn’t it?

if you read the whole thread, you will find several of those comments.

To some level, it almost have to go there to get the parallels, but it didn’t have to go that far . . .

hawk

 

[Seagull]

I woke up groggy for Saturday morning mass because of reading this thread.
It’s fun knowing the people onboard in this manner.
No way though - not tonight - lol

 

[luisvera]

Yeah, you’re right

falcon (I guess?)

 

[dochawk]

But buying well-cut, higher end clothing simply because one can afford it and desires it seems a bit different.

I actually came to enjoy wearing them after having to wear them daily a decade ago.

A lot probably comes from the cut of men’s dress shirt shaving changed from the 90s until then, though. I used to have to buy western shirts for the length (you could buy plain white western shirts before Garth Brooks happened), and the collars of either kind rubbed against the scar tissue under my chin when I did the top button. So I let it open and wore bolo ties, which wasn’t rare either in El Cajon back hen (about 5%) or Vegas (far less common, but not rare at the time, either). Today, that the collar is cut ever so slightly lower, and I can wear an eastern tie all day without discomfort.

However, they haven’t gotten my boots from me . . . when asked why I wear them, I point out that I’m about a thousand miles west of the pesos, and the real question is why other people are wearing eastern shoes . . . when I bought my current tux, I scandalized my salesgirl at Joseph Banks by having the cuffs measured for boots instead of eastern shoes . . . (I actually keep a pair of black leather boots in their box and wrappings, which only come out for another polishing and to wear with the tux, and go straight back in. But with the KofC dropping the regalia for what looks like a banana republic military uniform, I’m not sure when I’ll wear it again. I suppose I still have three more weddings . . .)

hawk

hawk

 

[DarkLight]

It’s not because women are seen as having an inner defect. The problem lies with the over sexualization of women in our culture. So women are more likely to dress immodestly, because it’s become so normal from all of the marketing executives and everybody who has changed the culture. (Probably men.)

I think that’s partly true, but I think it’s also much more likely for women to be presumed to be acting for male desire. For example, if a man takes off his shirt to mow the lawn in the summer, most people will presume he’s doing that because it’s very hot out and he wants to cool off. If a woman mows the lawn in just a sports bra top, many people will think she intends to put on a show.

Heck, I’ve had the issue that talking about certain fit issues, and how to find women’s clothing for certain body shapes, is assumed to be really a way of secretly showing off for men by finding an excuse to talk about my breasts. A lot of men just assume that women are dressing to please them, while the reverse is usually not true.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The same rules that apply to women apply to men. Modesty in dress.

 

[QContinuum]

agree! Women, don’t let yourselves be controlled. So just wear low cut blouses and tight jeans that aren’t even comfortable. That’ll show them!

You could not have misunderstand my point more.

Women, do not let yourselves be controlled - and let yourselves become commodities for male appetites.

Women, do not let yourselves be controlled - and pressed into covering yourselves up to the point of erasing your very public existence.

Women, do not let yourselves be controlled by the lustful intents of others, whether secular or righteous.

 

[QContinuum]

Which is why is it ideal to become the object of one man or or one woman’s desire.

In our culture, both men and women are made into commodities. To be bought, sold, consumed, discarded.

It’s a the main reason I fault capitalism as much as I do communism. I’m a fan of the CC’s distributionism, which is honestly the only economic theory I’ve found that respects the dignity of people.