Cleavage

[Pax2u]

Dressing in an inappropriate manner…and by inappropriate I mean revealing clothing…is obvious to most people as disrespectful and not appropriate. Obviously there is a segment of society that doesn’t understand that or doesn’t feel it’s an issue. So they dress as they want to go to Mass.

I would not say anything to someone because of their dress (unless it was to whisper…“oh my, be careful when you bend, your underwear shows” or something to that effect!).

I’m sure it makes it difficult for some of the men to keep their minds/eyes focused elsewhere. It’s too bad everyone doesn’t realize there’s a better way to dress at Church. I just am not willing to offend someone over their clothing choices.

 

[josie_L]

So obviously the correct answer is to publicly single them out for the lack of decorum and tell them to go change.

Or we could try something with more tact.

I never said that, I didn’t even mention Lost Sheep, I’m just trying to point out why some people might be frustrated over the lack of decorum/apparel some people exhibit while in church, i.e., it’s not a free for all just because it is a church.

 

[DeniseNY]

Are you kidding me? I walked into a religious service by myself that I knew nothing about. I think feeling intimidated was a perfectly human response that I don’t have to justify. Dare I say you would feel the same.

But being intimidated and then dealing with rude, judgemental people was enough to have me crying in the parking lot. A little awareness that mass is a little out of the comfort zone of most non catholics is a good thing.

No one asked you to justify it, and I’m not “kidding you” . Being in a situation in which one feels out of place (for what ever reason) can lead to somewhat skewed perceptions of what’s going on around them.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

No one asked you to justify it, and I’m not “kidding you” . Being in a situation in which one feels out of place (for what ever reason) can lead to somewhat skewed perceptions of what’s going on around them.

Please drop this. I said I had a bad experience, and you told me that I didn’t, that it was my own prejudice clouding my judgement. This was not the case and you’re getting a little out of line.

 

[DeniseNY]

Please drop this. I said I had a bad experience, and you told me that I didn’t, that it was my own prejudice clouding my judgement. This was not the case and you’re getting a little out of line.

Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were the only one allowed to question people, their actions, and their motives in this thread.

 

[Mandychu22]

She is a regular member of our congregation; I doubt that she would never return.

Besides, she was free to go home, change her outfit, and come back to a later mass.

No one was saying she couldn’t come to mass; just not wearing what she was wearing.

None of you were there and none of you know the full context of the situation.

Frankly, unless she was so underdressed that you could call the police and have her arrested for indecent exposure, it would have been sufficient to inform her that she should dress more modestly the following week. Repeat until she gets the hint.

She may have been free to go home, change, and return. She may have had other obligations that she planned around mass. What’s relevant to the situation is that ‘some guy’ (NOT THE PRIEST) walk up to a woman, told her (however nicelely) that she looked like too much of a whore for mass and that she would have to leave.

Sounds a bit like telling Jesus he doesn’t want to be associated with ‘that sort’ of person… I’m sure He would have agreed and sent her away… just like He did in the bible.

Just because someone is a regular member of the congregation doesn’t mean that it’s alright to treat them uncharitably or that they’ll continue to return regardless of their treatment. And to gloat over that action as you did in your initial post… congratulations and great job.

If I’d seen this treatment of a woman at my parish, even as a regular attendee, I would have 1) stood up for her and given you a piece of my mind, and (if it continued) 2) left the parish immediately and forever.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were the only one allowed to question people, their actions, and their motives in this thread.

I just think that assuming that I have hidden feelings about Catholicism and then telling me that those prejudices are influencing my judgement crosses the line into uncharitable. I kindly assured you that it wasn’t the case, but you persisted. You’ve gone beyond simple questioning.

 

[Sarcelle]

No one asked you to justify it, and I’m not “kidding you” . Being in a situation in which one feels out of place (for what ever reason) can lead to somewhat skewed perceptions of what’s going on around them.

It may or it may not. Sometimes these perceptions can be correct.

This reminds me of a friend who was born and raised Buddhist. She was convinced that Christ was who He said He was and wishing to know more of Him went to mass at a nearby Catholic Church. This was an affluent parish and people were dressed to the nines. She was dressed modestly but not in designer clothes like the rest. People she tried talking to stared coldly at her and went on their way effectively dismissing her. If you say hello to someone and he/she stares at you coldly, say nothing back, and go on their way, this is rudeness and not skewed perception on your part.

Needless to say she ended up in an Evangelical church.

 

[DeniseNY]

I just think that assuming that I have hidden feelings about Catholicism and then telling me that those prejudices are influencing my judgement crosses the line into uncharitable. I kindly assured you that it wasn’t the case, but you persisted. You’ve gone beyond simple questioning.

Once again, there was no assumption. You said you were “intmidated” and that’s what my comments were based on. I also said if “one feels out of place”. Nothing about “prejudice”. You introduced prejudice into the dialogue and that’s what you’re now responding to and attirubting it to me.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Once again, there was no assumption. You said you were “intmidated” and that’s what my comments were based on. I also said if “one feels out of place”. Nothing about “prejudice”. You introduced prejudice into the dialogue and that’s what you’re now responding to and attirubting it to me.

Go read your first post. You told me that I had underlying feelings about Catholicism, which I don’t. Then you persisted because you didn’t want to believe that someone would be rude and unwelcoming.

 

[DeniseNY]

Go read your first post. You told me that I had underlying feelings about Catholicism, which I don’t. Then you persisted because you didn’t want to believe that someone would be rude and unwelcoming.

Oh, I know what I said in my first post. You said it was intimidating, and I said perhaps your reaction was based on how you viewed the Church - “intimidating”. So exactly where did I say you were prejudiced?

 

[josie_L]

It may or it may not. Sometimes these perceptions can be correct.

This reminds me of a friend who was born and raised Buddhist. She was convinced that Christ was who He said He was and wishing to know more of Him went to mass at a nearby Catholic Church. This was an affluent parish and people were dressed to the nines. She was dressed modestly but not in designer clothes like the rest. People she tried talking to stared coldly at her and went on their way effectively dismissing her. If you say hello to someone and he/she stares at you coldly, say nothing back, and go on their way, this is rudeness and not skewed perception on your part.

Needless to say she ended up in an Evangelical church.

Those people have got some “splainin to do”, when they meet up with God.

 

[josie_L]

Frankly, unless she was so underdressed that you could call the police and have her arrested for indecent exposure, it would have been sufficient to inform her that she should dress more modestly the following week. Repeat until she gets the hint.

She may have been free to go home, change, and return. She may have had other obligations that she planned around mass. What’s relevant to the situation is that ‘some guy’ (NOT THE PRIEST) walk up to a woman, told her (however nicelely) that she looked like too much of a whore for mass and that she would have to leave.

Sounds a bit like telling Jesus he doesn’t want to be associated with ‘that sort’ of person… I’m sure He would have agreed and sent her away… just like He did in the bible.

Just because someone is a regular member of the congregation doesn’t mean that it’s alright to treat them uncharitably or that they’ll continue to return regardless of their treatment. And to gloat over that action as you did in your initial post… congratulations and great job.

If I’d seen this treatment of a woman at my parish, even as a regular attendee, I would have 1) stood up for her and given you a piece of my mind, and (if it continued) 2) left the parish immediately and forever.

I think everyone needs to lay off Lost Sheep, the barrage of criticisms is starting to feel like a gang up, i.e., I don’t think anyone is going to convince him he was wrong with the way some of you are pouncing on him.

P.S. Jesus would surely expect modesty from everyone, and charity as well.

 

[Nacho45]

I serve as a usher at Mass. One morning a young woman came with an extremely low-cut. And she was rather, um, well-endowed to boot.

I asked her to leave because she was not appropriately dressed and she gave me some argument about “God doesn’t care how I dress.”

I said “No, God probably doesn’t care but we do.”

She left in a huff and went to complain to the priest who backed me up.

Now I’m intensly curious. If you subscribe to the understanding this woman in no way could cause another to sin (to which I suspect is not true), why the response you describe above? If, as you say, she could not cause another to sin by her revealing herself and the responsibility lay only on the man, why react in the above described way? If you were having problems with her bosom then it would be your problem and not hers. You should have toughed it out and let her be, unless there is truth to her actions causing sinful thoughts to manifest.

Your posts seem to contradict themselves. What am I missing?

I am beginning to think a better, prepared, response would be to have some shawls handy to pass out to parishioners who may or may not realize they leave themselves open to be viewed in an inappropriate way.

 

[thewanderer]

Then it is their sin; not mine.

Now I’m intensly curious. If you subscribe to the understanding this woman in no way could cause another to sin (to which I suspect is not true), why the response you describe above? If, as you say, she could not cause another to sin by her revealing herself and the responsibility lay only on the man, why react in the above described way? If you were having problems with her bosom then it would be your problem and not hers. You should have toughed it out and let her be, unless there is truth to her actions causing sinful thoughts to manifest.

Your posts seem to contradict themselves. What am I missing?

I think what you’re missing is the distinction me and lost_sheep are making between causing and leading into temptation. I think you are using the word cause to mean what we mean by leading into temptation, whereas when we hear or use the word cause we take it to mean that you are allowing the sinner to scapegoat his/her own responsibility by blaming the tempter. You know, the whole “its not my fault, don’t blame me, he made me do it” mentality. So it seems to me that Lost_Sheep agrees with you that those who wear immodest attire and are culpable for it sin and need to take responsibility for their own actions. But you seem to think that if you avoid saying the tempter “causes” someone to sin that means you are letting the tempter avoid responsibility whereas Lost_Sheep (and I) think that using the phrase “causes to sin” means you are letting the sinner avoid responsiblity for their actions. Does that make sense? Would you agree that that is what is going on here?

I am beginning to think a better, prepared, response would be to have some shawls handy to pass out to parishioners who may or may not realize they leave themselves open to be viewed in an inappropriate way.

I absolutely agree with you here, that is definitely a better way to handle such a situation rather than sending her away from Church.

 

[Estevao]

Immodest dress doesn’t bother me much anymore. I’ve had to develop the ability to bounce my eyes and always be on guard where I’m looking whenever there’s a woman around thanks to the way fashions are these days. Of course this is rather awkward and uncomfortable, having to watch where you innocuously look, but being awkward and uncomfortable is what fashion is all about.

I think I’m done posting in modesty threads. In my short time here it’s just spinning wheels with the same sides at loggerheads.

Also kudos to that usher on the first page who told that inappropriately dressed woman to leave mass. The problem these days is that people are so timid to speak out against what is wrong, and as long as that’s the case the march of the diabolical in the west will continue unabated.

 

[JamesBond007]

Here is my 2 cents. God put Adam and Eve nude in the garden. I think we all have some natural propensity to want to be nude, but lack the understanding of just how powerful our sexuality is. With great power comes responsibility!

Ladies: You need to understand that most men have been treated / raised like nuclear waste with regards to sexuality. Anytime a young boy shows curiosity about the female body the “sex police” show up to make him feel like a freak. Sadly, the first time many boys see a naked woman is in a sexual context (porn). Nudity thus becomes associated with the all too powerful feelings of lust. For the guys who never saw a woman and now suddenly do its a shock. To be honest the female form is shocking in unexplained ways to a man because 1) we don’t have those parts and 2) any curiosity about them invokes a whole host of emotions that are confusing. Couple that with the societal notion that a man “has to be worth of a woman” but not the other way around and that’s ANOTHER thing to deal with. We went from “young freaks” to “unworthy confused freaks” at an older age. Psychologically this doesn’t play out well.

To discredit what men say and feel is no better than men not giving a darn what you think and feel. Instead of flying off the handle and making it into a “battle of the sexes” control issue, it would be more productive to use it as a teaching moment. Have the women here ever considered holding a forum (in person) to actually talk to guys about what they think / feel? Have you shared what you think / feel in a non-accusatory way? I think a lot of guys would benefit from seeing female nudity in a non-sexual setting such as an art museum or something. I know people that are nudists (I’m not) and yes the guys walk around WITHOUT getting aroused or bugging because 1) the women they are around don’t treat them like unworthy freaks and 2) the environment is one of complete openness where everyone can respect the vulnerability of the other. There are no power struggles. No one tries to show off or out do the other because all aspects of status, power, etc are removed.

To be clear, I am NOT advocating a nude lifestyle or that women should walk around nude but understand where guys are coming from. Attributing every disagreement between men and women to some male effort to control is uncharitable and counterproductive. Until you’ve walked a mile in a guys shoes don’t judge!

To the guys:
I’ve heard from lots of Protestant guy “how difficult it is in our modern world” to the point some of them hold conferences on how to “contain their problem.” Honestly, its sad to the point I want to buy them a ticket to Alaska. Their biggest problem however is they fail to see their dependency on women to cover up is a lie. It was an attitude instilled in them from a time when the only influence a woman had was the regulation of sex. I think one of the biggest failings of Puritanism was the though that women are “gatekeepers of sex.” Men are the gatekeepers of our own. We don’t have to give it and we can be extremely discriminatory with it! It is pathetic that studies show a woman can walk into a bar and get more than twice as many guys to have casual sex than the other way around. A man’s honor is who / what he is and is given to him by God. Why leave something so valuable up to someone else to regulate? God will deal with immodest, they are not your responsibility.

 

[Estevao]

Denial is an ugly, ugly thing.

I know, it’s pathetic that somebody would be okay with inducing immature 14 year old boys into lust just to make sure that nobody is inconvenienced in any way or made to dress with some self-respect and restraint.

I remember seeing something about this on the TV show “Malcom in the Middle”, where the neighbor mom chastises one of the teen boys for staring at her chest, and his mom responds “Well, you’ve got them laid out there like Sunday brunch, what do you expect!?!”

Of course she was a no-nonsense kind of character. Good thing that a woman character said that common sense though, because if a man character had said it, all the feminazis would get incensed at such hate-speech and start marching under the banner of “I’m an immodestly dressing slut and proud of it!” or something.

 

[JamesBond007]

I know, it’s pathetic that somebody would be okay with inducing immature 14 year old boys into lust just to make sure that nobody is inconvenienced in any way or made to dress with some self-respect and restraint.

I remember seeing something about this on the TV show “Malcom in the Middle”, where the neighbor mom chastises one of the teen boys for staring at her chest, and his mom responds “Well, you’ve got them laid out there like Sunday brunch, what do you expect!?!”

Of course she was a no-nonsense kind of character. Good thing that a woman character said that common sense though, because if a man character had said it, all the feminazis would get incensed at such hate-speech and start marching under the banner of “I’m an immodestly dressing slut and proud of it!” or something.

I agree with you in principle, but I’m not about to let someone else’s callous act have power over me. When my younger brother used to provoke me my parents would usually say to ignore him and he would stop. As much as I hate to say it, it works. People don’t like to be ignored when it is attention they are after.

 

[severus68]

Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were the only one allowed to question people, their actions, and their motives in this thread.

What is the point of your posts to BEG please? As I see it, you are just making it harder for BEG to look kindly at the Catholic Church.