Desensitized?

[Portrait]

I’m afraid that’s where you might possibly be wrong and that is why I’m asking the question. My sister wears a mini-skirt. Her reason? None. She just wants to. I see girls wearing shorts and skirts all the time. My reaction? None. My question is why am I going to be called desensitized even though I have no lustful reaction at all (which is the reason why “immodest” clothing is looked down on in the first place)?

The problem is people such as myself hardly find such apparel alluring in the first place so why should it be even considered “immodest” and therefore “offensive and shameful”?

Once again, do not assume that every woman that dresses in certain ways that you deem “immodest” is out to tempt you. As I said before, some people dress in a certain way simply for the sake of it. They like the way they look. Period. There is no ulterior motive to seduce or whatnot.

Dear Lost Wanderer,

Let me say, by way of response to your latest reply, that our own personal opinions as to what is immodest are really of no consequence. As Catholics we accept fully the teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. Now both have remarked on the subject under discussion.

First, Sacred Scripture

“…women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in* seemly apparel*” (I Tim. 2: 9).

Second, Catechism of The Catholic Church

“Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person. * It means refusing to unveil what **should remain hidden”*. (para. 2521).

“Modesty is decency. * It inspires one’s choice of clothing”* (para. 2522)

“Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing idealogies” (para. 2523).

(all emphasises mine)

Surely the above citations are quite unambiguous: can mini-skirts or low-cut garments, revealing cleavage, be countenanced in the light of the above explicit statements?

Incidently, the word “modestly” in the I Timothy quote indicates a sense of shame and a recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety. I am not saying that women have to balk at all fashion, only fashion that is decidedly indecent and therefore not in good Christian taste. Clearly their attire must be expressive of an inner modesty and of a sane outlook on life, in short a Christian outlook.

You are to be commended at not finding the sight of womens legs “allluring”, especially since you are young person. However, I believe that you are in a very small minority, the vast majority of males are attracted to a shapely pair of legs and, if they are Christians, need to resist the temptation not to leer (cf. Matthew 5: 28), thus avoiding the sin of lust.

It is one thing for a woman to make herself attractive, but totally another thing to make herself seductive. Women know the difference; so do we men.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS. Your local parish priest ought, in the light of the Church Catechism, to be denouncing indecent attire.

 

[KindredSoul]

If, as you indirectly imply, short skirts and such clothing aroused virtually no one, in such a society your point is entirely valid, provided that there wasn’t a “middle stage” where countless souls who were aroused were ignored and spiritually sacrificed. Basically pre-fall Eden is the only perfect example I can think of. I personally do not believe that such a world has ever existed on a universal scale ever since the Fall, however, and until I can crawl into the brains of scantily dressed tribes-people, I cannot say they are a comparable example either, so for the sake of being safe rather than sorry, I would guess that keeping well covered is the only way to be sure you are dressing morally.

Also, at least in Western culture, short skirts and the like (including certain masculine equivalents, if they exist) still do arouse a great many people, even if there are also exceptions (even if many of them). The only way to get to a point where that is no longer true is to practice immodesty–that is, to dress in ways that you know will arouse a number of people, even if that’s not your intention. In other words, the only way Western society will ever cease to have a great many people who are aroused by such currently “immodest” dress is if women and men ignore the fact that they are potentially tempting countless people until, after a few decades (after many people may have been irrevocably lost to their lusts) all the people who found it arousing have died out or withdrawn from society at large. It is basically to say “The end justifies the means” by saying that, since it would be good and even morally strengthening if nobody was aroused by short skirts, it is okay for women to wear super short skirts until that day comes, even if it means many men go to hell due to the lust that will inevitably be caused until that day. The same would be true in a situation where the genders were reversed, this is just an example.

Basically, immodest dress is any dress that pushes or surpasses the boundaries of what is considered sexually appropriate (non-arousing) in the greater culture of a given society. In our culture at least, it is often true that the only reason revealing a little more skin becomes acceptable and “non-arousing” is because for a decade or so a lot of people decided to push the envelope and wear what they wanted, even if that meant offending and arousing a great number of people in their culture. And that is deliberate desensitization.

As a rule, not personally finding a certain style of dress arousing or tempting is not desensitization. That means you are gifted as such that it takes more to tempt you, and you should be thankful. However, not being able to see the lust-inducing danger (and thus not being able to see anything wrong) when a man or woman dresses in a way that would indeed arouse a large number of people within his or her culture and era–that is desensitization. To give an example, if I see nothing wrong with women wearing clothes that reveal their ankles in today’s society, that’s just me realizing that ankles are (virtually) not at all sexual in our culture. If, on the other hand, I say there was nothing wrong with women wearing such clothes in Victorian times, I am desensitized to the power and danger of dressing in ways that one’s society and culture deem to be sexual. While I would not force everyone to go back to Victorian styles, I do recognize that if no one had ever been immodest back then, we would not have ever reached the point where we are today. In other words, while it is okay that women today show their ankles since it doesn’t arouse hardly anyone, it was not worth the “in-between” stage when women did so even though it aroused many people. If I could erase such immodesty from history, even if it would mean we were all still wearing Victorian styles, I would, because immodesty is never okay, even if it can possibly lead to a society where people don’t look at human skin so sexually.

Again, I am inclined to believe that general standards of what is and isn’t sexually arousing do not loosen unless there is first a middle stage where those standards are carelessly (and thus sinfully) ignored. That middle stage is undeniably tragic and wrong. That is why it is dangerous to say “Since what is and isn’t arousing is relative, we shouldn’t mind if a woman or man dresses in ways normally considered immodest.” Because the “normally considered immodest” part is a red flag that society is smack in the middle of a “middle stage,” and that many people, even if not those you typically talk to, are indeed still being tempted and aroused. In a world where people were doing the right thing and refusing to accept that middle stage, women and men would still be extremely well covered, at least in societies like ours. Therefore, in an ideal society where people practiced Christian virtue, we would never have gotten this far.

Also, another caveat: Today’s society and dress standards are often worse than ever, at least here in Western Society. Because currently, many perfectly acceptable scanty clothing styles (such as seen in music and in some movies) are not acceptable because people do not find them sexually arousing, but rather because our current culture, more than any in recent memory, believes it is okay to seek and cause (whether intentionally or not) sexual arousal outside of the privacy of the marriage-bed. Therefore, I cannot agree that ultra-short skirts and midriff bearing shirts are as objectively “modest” as ankle revealing dresses. The latter is now modest, and acceptable to society at large, because it is almost universally not considered sexually arousing (in Western cultures). The former is only acceptable to society at large because people don’t care that it is is indeed sexually arousing to a great number of people.

Am I making any sense at all or am I not finding the right words to express myself? It’s easy for me to ramble.

 

[Portrait]

Dear kindredsoul,

Western culture is very decadent and has been since the cultural revolution of the permissive sixties; things which once offended tender Christian conciences, and even non-Christian Conciences, offend no more. I think we have become deadened to decadence and all forms of depravity.

The mini-skirt owes its origin to Mary Qaunt here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called swinging sixties London was very much bound up with that anti-Christian Womans Liberation movement. It became a symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress and also being able to exercise a sort of power over men. Along with the advent of the pill around the same time, it became a powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the effects of which are still being felt today. For example here in the UK we have more teenage pregnacies than most European countries.
More couples opt to co-habit rather than enter into marriage as was the norm formerly.

Our Church has spoken quite unequivocally (see my previous thread to LostWanderer) on the issue of modesty in one’s attire. For us Catholics Rome has spoken, the matter is closed. All that remains is for us either to obey or disobey the Church’s teaching, it is that simple. How we need to be like Daniel of old who refused to compromise and be contaminated by the prevailing Babylonian cultute of which he was a captive (Dan 1:8).

Apologies for the homily, but we Catholics need to rise up and taking a stand against the moral degeneracy of our age; we need to ask our dear Lord for the courage to rebuke vice and patiently suffer, if need be, for the Gospels sake.

It deeply saddens me to read threads on this CAF from Catholics defending unseemly garments like mini-skirts which have been the occassion of so much sinning in that they “…unveil that which should remain hidden” (Catholic Church Catechism para. 2521). I would expect that sort thing in Anglicanism where moral relativism and indiffernce is the prevailing orthodoxy, not in the Catholic Church.

warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS I am recently converted from Anglicanism (Church of England) to Catholicism

 

[KindredSoul]

Dear kindredsoul,

Western culture is very decadent and has been since the cultural revolution of the permissive sixties; things which once offended tender Christian conciences, and even non-Christian Conciences, offend no more. I think we have become deadened to decadence and all forms of depravity.

The mini-skirt owes its origin to Mary Qaunt here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called swinging sixties London was very much bound up with that anti-Christian Womans Liberation movement. It became a symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress and also being able to exercise a sort of power over men. Along with the advent of the pill around the same time, it became a powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the effects of which are still being felt today. For example here in the UK we have more teenage pregnacies than most European countries.
More couples opt to co-habit rather than enter into marriage as was the norm formerly.

Our Church has spoken quite unequivocally (see my previous thread to LostWanderer) on the issue of modesty in one’s attire. For us Catholics Rome has spoken, the matter is closed. All that remains is for us either to obey or disobey the Church’s teaching, it is that simple. How we need to be like Daniel of old who refused to compromise and be contaminated by the prevailing Babylonian cultute of which he was a captive (Dan 1:8).

Apologies for the homily, but we Catholics need to rise up and taking a stand against the moral degeneracy of our age; we need to ask our dear Lord for the courage to rebuke vice and patiently suffer, if need be, for the Gospels sake.

It deeply saddens me to read threads on this CAF from Catholics defending unseemly garments like mini-skirts which have been the occassion of so much sinning in that they “…unveil that which should remain hidden” (Catholic Church Catechism para. 2521). I would expect that sort thing in Anglicanism where moral relativism and indiffernce is the prevailing orthodoxy, not in the Catholic Church.

warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS I am recently converted from Anglicanism (Church of England) to Catholicism

Dear Portrait,

I agree with you, pretty much whole-heartedly. In fact, throughout my post I think my sentiments were evident (if vague) that I’m not sure that short skirts and midriff bearing will ever become as un-sexual as showing one’s ankles, which is why only in pre-Fall Eden can I think of an example where showing so much skin wasn’t wrong. As for our fallen world, ankle showing vs. wearing short skirts or skimpy shirts, are simply not really all that similar in context, and, as do you, I suspect they never will be. What short skirts and scanty shirts come within inches of revealing (genitals and breasts) are inherently sexually charged (regardless of exceptional individuals who do not feel any sexual energy from such), and have been so charged all throughout human history (read the Song of Solomon, for example to find that breasts are definitely not only sexualized by the modern mind) whilst ankles were only sexual because of culture of the times. So, come to think of it, I quite agree with you that wearing skirts too short or shirts too scanty are never going to reach a point to where they could truly be morally acceptable. It’s simply a whole different animal, I suppose. Of course, there are masculine indecent counterparts to the indecent feminine clothing, but I take it that this is understood.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Portrait]

t,

Dear Portrai

I agree with you, pretty much whole-heartedly. In fact, throughout my post I think my sentiments were evident (if vague) that I’m not sure that short skirts and midriff bearing will ever become as un-sexual as showing one’s ankles, which is why only in pre-Fall Eden can I think of an example where showing so much skin wasn’t wrong. As for our fallen world, ankle showing vs. wearing short skirts or skimpy shirts, are simply not really all that similar in context, and, as do you, I suspect they never will be. What short skirts and scanty shirts come within inches of revealing (genitals and breasts) are inherently sexually charged (regardless of exceptional individuals who do not feel any sexual energy from such), and have been so charged all throughout human history (read the Song of Solomon, for example to find that breasts are definitely not only sexualized by the modern mind) whilst ankles were only sexual because of culture of the times. So, come to think of it, I quite agree with you that wearing skirts too short or shirts too scanty are never going to reach a point to where they could truly be morally acceptable. It’s simply a whole different animal, I suppose. Of course, there are masculine indecent counterparts to the indecent feminine clothing, but I take it that this is understood.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

Dear Kindred Soul.

Have just read your response and it has really cheered and encouraged me. You will be pleased to know that you are the first Forum user to date that has actually endorsed anything that I have said. Truth is certainly depreciated nowadays. I think our lot is cast in very difficult days when just about everybody is rebelling against authority, even, sadly,
the authority of Holy Mother Church. If one dares to be loyal to the Magisterium and Sacred Scipture, one is branded a “bigot”; if one speaks up for the moral teaching of the Church, then we are vilified as being “way too narrow” or too “Puritan”. We would expect as much from those still as yet outside of the fold, but not from those within it; even within the Church a persons enemies are within his own house. Then again the Parable of the Tares and the Drag Net do teach as much I suppose. The Church does indeed "gather"every kind so we should not be too surprised at the current state of things.

Yes loyal Catholics cannot ever countenance mini-skirts or low-cut tops that reveal cleavage. This type of garment is most definitely indecorous and immodest, simply because it reveals too much of a woman’s body. Moreover, the woman who dons such provocative clothing not only sins herself, but potentially causes others to sin also - a man, possibly an otherwise good Christian man, could commit adultery in his own heart by lusting after her (cf. St. Matt. 5: 28). This is very serious; we cannot give an uncertain sound on the trumpet regarding the gravity of this sin. No Catholic woman worth her salt would wish to be a potential prime mover in causing a man to sin, perhaps even a fellow Christian an good friend. As you rightly point out there is a world of difference between exposing a little ankle and revealing most of the thigh.

Since the Fall our God has implanted within in us a cerain shyness and sense of shame about sexual matters - indeed He made “garments of skins, and clothed” the first pair after they fell to cover their nakedness. Our present age so urgently needs to recover a sense of shame and reserve when it comes to sexual matters and we Christians need to set an example of modesty in our choice of clothing.

So sorry KindredSoul I didn’t mean to get on the old soap box again. I have really enjoyed our on line chat so let us do it again sometime soon.

With warmest good wishes & prayers,

Portrait

“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a virgin” (Job 31:1)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

“Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person. * It means refusing to unveil what **should remain hidden”*. (para. 2521).

“Modesty is decency. * It inspires one’s choice of clothing”* (para. 2522)

“Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing idealogies” (para. 2523).

(all emphasises mine)

Surely the above citations are quite unambiguous: can mini-skirts or low-cut garments, revealing cleavage, be countenanced in the light of the above explicit statements?

This is why am I asking the question because I see a loophole here. What if that particular danger to the person’s intimate center no longer exists? Where is then the need to protect it? If you remove that danger, you remove the purpose of that passage and nullify it, and if you nullify that one, the rest follows for I find them dependent on the first.

It is one thing for a woman to make herself attractive, but totally another thing to make herself seductive. Women know the difference; so do we men.

I’m afraid that you haven’t noticed that I’m actually presenting a third reason for the way people dress the way they do. That is: for the sake of it. Don’t believe everyone dresses for the sake of how people see them. My brother and my sister (both consider themselves “fashionable” ) say I dress sloppy. Frankly, I don’t care. I like the way I look. I dress not for others, but for myself. Surely there are others who think the same.

PS. Your local parish priest ought, in the light of the Church Catechism, to be denouncing indecent attire.

Sorry, not much I can do about that. Apparently it’s either the Eucharist or the current state of this poverty-stricken nation that is more important topic for him and others residing here.

Am I making any sense at all or am I not finding the right words to express myself? It’s easy for me to ramble.

Actually… you’ve made far better points than everyone else so far. Congratulate yourself.

It is true, your theory with regards to the “middle-stage” would jeopardize a lot of minds to the danger of lust while on the way to being immune to it. It’s just like the same way many bugs must die by a certain chemical before they evolve/adapt the immunity to it. This is why I am not proposing this as a means to anything.

However, my question is with regards to the now. I see growing signs already that the current trend in “immodest” fashion is losing its allure (people such as myself are one of them).

Also, while I would take pride in myself in being immune for it makes me feel unique, on the other hand, should such immunity spread out, I would be proud of my generation and culture for it is what makes it unique to the era when compared to the others. In fact, one of the things I like to imagine are people dressed in the very attire that many here find “immodest” yet portrayed in a way that is not sexual but one that embodies this century just as the dresses and togas did for their respective eras. I’m thinking something along the lines of this one picture here though there are probably others that have more effectively captured the nice (albeit somewhat grim) urban feel I get that I love about this century.



P.S.

There’s actually more I like to say right now but I don’t have the time. However, with regards to what I call your “chain-reaction” theory (where you say the exposure of ankles led to the exposure of the rest of the body in succeeding fashions), you also have a point. I’ve had similar thoughts myself which is why when I decided to get a little witty with another poster here and wished him luck dragging everyone back to the 19th century.

 

[Portrait]

Dear LostWanderer,

The potential danger to an individuals “intimate centre” will continue to exist for as long as original sin and our propensity to sin exist, i.e. until the consumation of all things at the Second Advent of Christ.

It is immaterial as to why people are choosing to don indecorous attire, or as you put it for the “sake of it”. What matters is not the reason as such but rather the effect of the action.

The woman who wears such provocative garments becomes a potential prime mover in causing a man to commit adultery with her in his own heart because of lust (cf. St. Matt. 5:28). Moreover, such a woman is choosing to ignore the teaching of her own Church, assuming she is a Catholic that is. Even if she isn’t she is still offending against decency and good taste, and, what is more grave, sinning against God.

I am sure your parish priest can find sometime to decry clothing that offends against standards of decency, after all he is charged with preaching faith and morals.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The potential danger to an individuals “intimate centre” will continue to exist for as long as original sin and our propensity to sin exist, i.e. until the consumation of all things at the Second Advent of Christ.

Note how I said ‘particular danger’. I am of course referring to what you’re implying here:

It is immaterial as to why people are choosing to don indecorous attire, or as you put it for the “sake of it”. What matters is not the reason as such but rather the effect of the action.

The woman who wears such provocative garments becomes a potential prime mover in causing a man to commit adultery with her in his own heart because of lust (cf. St. Matt. 5:28).

I have already demonstrated how some people are growing increasingly immune to the “arousing” nature that was originally attributed to the such clothing. Thus, the danger that causes the demand for modesty is slowly vanishing which in turn diminishes the need to continuously enforce such a standard.

Moreover, such a woman is choosing to ignore the teaching of her own Church, assuming she is a Catholic that is. Even if she isn’t she is still offending against decency and good taste, and, what is more grave, sinning against God.

For the former, once you throw in that little loophole that protection is the only reason for wearing modest apparel, there’s a chance that any Catholic woman would indeed become more casual and less scrupulous about what she wears since the danger that is needed to be protected from grows less and less as standards for what is considered “sexy” change.

With regards to the latter it can even be worse on your part. As many have already stated (perhaps even by yourself), what is considered “decent” is still not so under your standards. Take the picture I showed above. Two girls are actually wearing mini-skirts yet you will find many that say that is only “decent”. In fact, one of them is actually wearing it as a part of her uniform.

Furthermore, “good taste” is not what people of today would call your sense of fashion and would not hold reservations with criticizing it. “Backwards and Old-fashioned” are in fact just the mildest words they might use.

I am sure your parish priest can find sometime to decry clothing that offends against standards of decency, after all he is charged with preaching faith and morals.

Funny. You know when a people are faced with much more pressing and perilous dangers such as poverty, economic instability, and political turmoil… everyone realizes that things such as the clothes you wear or how you look are no longer worth talking/thinking about compared to what really matters. It’s scenarios like that I really wish would manifest more in the world. Heck I go as far as to fantasize about living a dangerous yet adventurous life in some pseudo-futuristic metropolis where people would dress in attire that you would probably cringe at yet they care more about staying alive while holding to whatever bonds of friendship they might have, holding on to whatever strong beliefs or codes of honor they adhere to, while/or fighting against a greater and far more oppressive evil. (Throw in a supernatural phenomenon that grants fancy powers to increase the danger of it all and it would be a huge plus to the effect ).

 

[KindredSoul]

t,

Dear Kindred Soul.

Have just read your response and it has really cheered and encouraged me. You will be pleased to know that you are the first Forum user to date that has actually endorsed anything that I have said.

…

So sorry KindredSoul I didn’t mean to get on the old soap box again. I have really enjoyed our on line chat so let us do it again sometime soon.

With warmest good wishes & prayers,

Portrait

“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a virgin” (Job 31:1)

I am pleased to know I have helped you along and encouraged you, in however slight a way, with my words. And do not worry about that soapbox…I’ve been known to proclaim my views from more than a few of them.

Actually… you’ve made far better points than everyone else so far. Congratulate yourself.

…

However, my question is with regards to the now. I see growing signs already that the current trend in “immodest” fashion is losing its allure (people such as myself are one of them).

I am indeed glad if people are becoming immune to the hazardous effects of immodest fashions. However, I do believe the overwhelming majority of people are still subject to the allure of fashions which show too much skin on the upper leg or the torso/breast area. While it is true that many people may grow immune to such lust-inducing fashion, I do not personally believe (the Church’s views on what constitutes modesty seem to back me up here, at least indirectly) that these particular fashions will ever lose their allure on a majority of society. Sexual arousal is becoming more casual in our modern world, which means that many people won’t necessarily be hooting and drooling (or, for the moral folks, visibly expressing anger) over the arousal being induced, but even that doesn’t mean it isn’t there…it just means it’s considered a “fact of life” so that people tend to just shrug it off and try to go on with their business, in which case the lust is still there, but the reaction to it is simply more subdued and subtle. Of course, I choose to believe you when you say you are an exception; but I do believe that a great number of people simply will always be sexually aroused by exposure of too much thigh (it comes within inches of exposing the genitals) or too much upper body exposure (ditto, or it comes within inches of exposing the breasts). I believe we have at last arrived at an objective line that we shouldn’t cross, though through centuries of “middle stages” we have come closer and closer to it by crossing subjective lines (which, as I said in my previous post, was wrong enough given the sacrifices of morality needed to get to where we are).

I myself, for instance, am not sexually aroused by fashions that show off the upper extremities of women’s legs…I see pretty legs the way I would see a pretty painting or pretty eyes, rather than in a sexual way, and that is how I have always seen them: However, I believe that there will always be men who are aroused by this, and I believe there will be plenty of them, because unlike, say, ankles, upper legs are in very close proximity to a sex organ, suggesting “easy access”. Many men may put this temptation in the back of their minds, and be able to play it cool (thus to an onlooker it would seem that they are “immune” to the effect) but that doesn’t mean I can safely say that coming within less than a foot of showing off objectively sexual organs will ever become morally safe. Again, since I have somewhat of an immunity to legs, I can relate somewhat to your overall immunity. But people like you and I must always beware that immunities we enjoy to even objectively sexualized parts of the body will likely never be enjoyed on a universal (or even nearly universal) scale. The human psyche, for the most part of the population, will always be capable of finding arousal at the thoughts of the genitals or breasts being casually exposed (or nearly-so). The sexuality of these areas, unlike showing the ankles, seems to be less cultural and more biological, even if there are exceptions, and that’s why showing off skin that draws near to those areas will probably always have a sexual effect on some significant portion of people.

I’m thinking something along the lines of this one picture here though there are probably others that have more effectively captured the nice (albeit somewhat grim) urban feel I get that I love about this century.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/...anga Pictures/AirGear/YoungSleepingForest.jpg

You know, I must say, the only article of clothing I see there which is rather immodest is the uber-short shorts of the girl in the background. Everyone else is rather well covered. The girl in the sailor suit and skirt is just as well covered as a Catholic student–I actually looked up pictures of real Catholic students (not fetishtasized models, but rather real school girls wearing the uniforms in ways that real Catholic schools will permit) and their skirts and socks cover them as much as hers, and it is especially striking that these girls were standing, while the drawing’s clothing covers her as well even though she is sitting (which makes a skirt ride up). So again, only one person in that picture has an article of immodest clothing, by the objective standards of showing off skin very near to sexual regions, and even she is rather well covered in her upper body.

Basically, that picture demonstrates a possibility (with the lone tweaking of the short short shorts in the background) that you can enjoy the urban style portrayed therein without there having to be anything that would traditionally be labelled immodest. It is a testament to the way that this century’s styles can be unique and true to our own sense of fashion without having to risk immodest dress. I believe any style, including the modern style, can be tailored in a way that fully appreciates its essence (in this case, the urban semi-casual essence) while still keeping those who wear it well covered, especially when it comes to showing skin quite close to the genitals or (for women) to the breasts.

By the way, did you draw that picture yourself? It is very well drawn!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Again, since I have somewhat of an immunity to legs, I can relate somewhat to your overall immunity. But people like you and I must always beware that immunities we enjoy to even objectively sexualized parts of the body will likely never be enjoyed on a universal (or even nearly universal) scale. The human psyche, for the most part of the population, will always be capable of finding arousal at the thoughts of the genitals or breasts being casually exposed (or nearly-so). The sexuality of these areas, unlike showing the ankles, seems to be less cultural and more biological, even if there are exceptions, and that’s why showing off skin that draws near to those areas will probably always have a sexual effect on some significant portion of people.

You may have a point about it never being universal. However, even if it were to be contained within it at least a culture of a certain place, people should still reconsider throwing around accusations of “immodesty” and “desensitization” for that particular place. I believe someone else mentioned that while some things would be considered sexual and immodest, one should consider circumstances, context, and the location of where such an attire is prevalent and judge it from the standards of those places.

I believe we have at last arrived at an objective line that we shouldn’t cross, though through centuries of “middle stages” we have come closer and closer to it by crossing subjective lines (which, as I said in my previous post, was wrong enough given the sacrifices of morality needed to get to where we are).

I agree somewhat. You mentioned something before about how desensitization is actually ignoring the danger certain outfits would present to the eyes. While I would not really consider things such as mini-skirts immodest anymore, I would in fact protest if something along the lines of a bondage outfit would be suggested as the next form of casual dress.

The girl in the sailor suit and skirt is just as well covered as a Catholic student–I actually looked up pictures of real Catholic students (not fetishtasized models, but rather real school girls wearing the uniforms in ways that real Catholic schools will permit) and their skirts and socks cover them as much as hers, and it is especially striking that these girls were standing, while the drawing’s clothing covers her as well even though she is sitting (which makes a skirt ride up).

I guess that’s the reason why I assume people would consider that immodest. You’d be surprised of how easy it is do that portion I just underlined. >_>;;

By the way, did you draw that picture yourself? It is very well drawn!

No I did not, excruciatingly painful it may be for me to admit sniffs. It’s actually a page from one of my favorite manga (and quite a popular one at that).

Still, you’d figure if I could draw with such awesomeness, I would’ve already published something by now. TwT

 

[KindredSoul]

You may have a point about it never being universal. However, even if it were to be contained within it at least a culture of a certain place, people should still reconsider throwing around accusations of “immodesty” and “desensitization” for that particular place. I believe someone else mentioned that while some things would be considered sexual and immodest, one should consider circumstances, context, and the location of where such an attire is prevalent and judge it from the standards of those places.

I suppose the question is, could it truly happen on even a very small scale? Do nearly naked tribesmen, for example, really not find it at all sexually arousing? Or is, for them, sexual arousal not so taboo as it is in Christian cultures? They may not act on it, and may even remain faithful to one “spouse” (not sure how marriage works in such cultures) but I fear their nonchalance toward nudity/near-nudity may not be so much a sign that they don’t attach sexuality to it so much as that, for them, such sexuality and the readily available allure of it is considered as natural as the stars in the sky, and thus it doesn’t seem as “naughty” or “noteworthy” to them, thus it appears as if they are sexually disinterested. It’s a possibility that makes me think that, if such cultures adopt a Catholic world view, they may in fact want to cover up more. On a less extreme scale, I suspect the same would be true in cultures where uber-short skirts and skimpy shirts are the norm. I am not accusing them in any Pharisaical fashion, merely suggesting that such cultures may leave something to be desired in keeping in line with Catholic virtue…and this is true of every culture in one aspect or another.

I guess that’s the reason why I assume people would consider that immodest. You’d be surprised of how easy it is do that portion I just underlined. >_>;;

It is unfortunately true that many people do make a fetish out of the schoolgirl uniform, though I think it has more to do with the forbidden fruit allure of the outfit (disturbing though that is) rather than immodesty…also it usually involves making the skirt shorter (often much shorter) than what real Catholic schoolgirls would wear. As for whether or not a real schoolgirl uniform (or a non-uniform equivalent) is immodest, I do not feel bold enough to say that something nearly universally accepted within the Catholic school system, the dress code of which is often directly regulated by very pious and modest people (including many orthodox nuns and priests) is immodest. Perhaps that is just the “not-sexually-aroused-by-legs” speaking, though. When I object to short skirts, I have in mind something shorter, although to be clear I believe that anything noticeably shorter than that skirt begins to dance too close to (or in fact crosses) the objective “too close to the genitals” line.

No I did not, excruciatingly painful it may be for me to admit sniffs. It’s actually a page from one of my favorite manga (and quite a popular one at that).

Still, you’d figure if I could draw with such awesomeness, I would’ve already published something by now. TwT

Best wishes with your drawing, in any case. I myself am fond of the anime/manga style of animation, although I don’t get around to watching or reading a lot of it. I might also ask you, are fashions such as that in the drawing more prevalent in the Philippines? Because that may be a source of much misunderstanding on this thread. When you think urban and modern, you may be envisioning styles like that (which, at least in my eyes, are mostly modest with the exception I noted in my previous post) whereas we here in more Western cultures are thinking of some fashions that would make those girls (especially the girl in the foreground, and regarding upper-body dress, even the girl in the background) look like nuns by comparison.

I don’t mean to make you think all girls in America dress like street walkers (I do see many women who are well covered), but when a woman chooses to ignore modesty here, especially in the media, she really makes an out and out skinfest of it, with dresses or shorts right up to the buttocks and necklines that show off as much cleavage as possible (sometimes, in the media at least, plunging all the way between the breasts nearly to the navel!!!), and that’s probably the image your questions are conjuring up for many on this thread instead of anything remotely resembling that drawing. In other words, even if it’s not bondage (which you say you too would object to) it seems to be the non-bondage equivalent, where the amount of sexually-charged skin shown is concerned. Again, I’m only focusing on women because that is what my culture tends to potentially dress up more sexually (as a nation we’re still quite a bit icked out if a man tries to do the masculine equivalent).

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I suppose the question is, could it truly happen on even a very small scale? Do nearly naked tribesmen, for example, really not find it at all sexually arousing?

I’ve learned a few things about tribal cultures in what I’ve read about from my own cultural heritage pre-dating the Spanish arrival upon these islands.

One thing’s for sure, they don’t make marriage/courtship an easy ritual. Thus, I can only assume that with such rigid guidelines despite their way of dressing, I’m inclined to believe it is not alluring. Besides, as I’ve cited in another example, some tribes in Burma believe a long neck is attractive. I also believe that the ancient Chinese used to practice foot binding for it was one seen as a form beauty? If that isn’t proof of how different cultures have different standards of what is alluring then I don’t know what people would make of this.

Best wishes with your drawing, in any case. I myself am fond of the anime/manga style of animation, although I don’t get around to watching or reading a lot of it.

Meh, I’ve pretty much given up on the drawing part. It’s why I’m a writer. I’ve resigned myself to just look for a willing illustrator (unless by some miracle I end up having drawing skills to match my literary ones).

I might also ask you, are fashions such as that in the drawing more prevalent in the Philippines? Because that may be a source of much misunderstanding on this thread. When you think urban and modern, you may be envisioning styles like that (which, at least in my eyes, are mostly modest with the exception I noted in my previous post) whereas we here in more Western cultures are thinking of some fashions that would make those girls (especially the girl in the foreground, and regarding upper-body dress, even the girl in the background) look like nuns by comparison.

Well I wouldn’t say they dress in an overly sexual way that you had described but as I said before, men and women alike tend to dress more casually especially during the evenings when at home or just lounging about in the neighborhood. Men (usually street vendors or jeepney drivers) could be usually seen playing pool or having an inuman (drinking session) and there are several who do so shirtless. Girls simply waltz into my cafe to online chat or type out homework wearing just plain shirts and shorts no longer than what Simca there (the one who is not in the school uniform) is wearing.

 

[Portrait]

Dear LostWanderer,

Thanyou for your latest response.

The assertion that “some people are growing increasingly immune to the arousing nature that was originally attributed to such clothing” is as yet unproven, if not unprovable. There have been no surveys and, even if there were, would people be totally truthful about such an issue?

What I do think is that for many people their retina of reason has been severely obscured by sin. By continual indulgence in and gratification of sinful pleasures/activities, they have reached a stage where they cannot rightly distinguish between what is seemly or unseemly, pure or impure. To use the old terminology they have become “dyed-in-the-wool” sinners who are religiously estranged from the life of God (see Eph.4: 18), cosequently their moral judements are perverted.

The fact remains that the vast majority of males are sexually aroused by seductive or “sexy” outfits. Of course sexual attraction is not wrong per se, indeed it is a God given gift. However, because of our fallen nature this natural attraction can all too easily become unbridled lust. What starts as a quite innocent passing glance turns into a lecherous ogle. The net result is that the women ends up becoming objectified for her body only whilst the dignity of her personhood is ignored.

Mini-skirts will always be sexually provocative simply because of the amount of leg reveal; men being men will always find that captivating, it is just the way it is. Thus women will continue to have a need to protect their “intimate centre”, as the Catechism states, by dressing with the utmost propriety. This is good for them and good for society at large.

By advocating modesty with respect to female apparel, Christians have always elicited a negative response and been subjected to various abusive epithets, such as “Puritanical
prude”, “narrow-minded bigot”, “moralistic fuddy-duddy”, to name a few. So what, when have Christian standards of decency and moral recttitude ever been popular?

There are no hierarchy of issues as far as God is concerned; issues pertaining to morality are as equally important as the ones you mention such as poverty. As a matter of fact moral deterioration can effect the complete breakdown of the social order, as in the case of the Roman Empire; remember it was internal decay and corruption, rather than external military forces that brought about its fall.

I am going to bow out now so this is my final reply. May I just take this opportunity LostWanderer to thankyou for engaging with me on line, its been a thoroughly enjoyable experience for me and I hope for you also. Can I recommend that you check out the “Chastity” pages at Catholic Answers. Click “Chastity” tab, then click “Chastity Q&A”, then select “How far is too Far” and then go to section heading “Modesty”. This section examines the very issue we have been discussing and I think you may find it helpful.
May God bless and take care of you always. Hope to see you on the Forums again sometime.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

 

[KindredSoul]

I’ve learned a few things about tribal cultures in what I’ve read about from my own cultural heritage pre-dating the Spanish arrival upon these islands.

One thing’s for sure, they don’t make marriage/courtship an easy ritual. Thus, I can only assume that with such rigid guidelines despite their way of dressing, I’m inclined to believe it is not alluring. Besides, as I’ve cited in another example, some tribes in Burma believe a long neck is attractive. I also believe that the ancient Chinese used to practice foot binding for it was one seen as a form beauty? If that isn’t proof of how different cultures have different standards of what is alluring then I don’t know what people would make of this.

Oh that’s quite true. Different cultures do have different standards of what is alluring. I wonder (and I’m only wondering) if maybe we are approaching this from a narrow standpoint, and maybe the Church’s definition of modesty is built around more than just what is and isn’t alluring? Perhaps the Church’s definition of modesty stems not only from a desire to prevent lust, but to protect the sanctity of the body. Maybe (again, I’m theorizing) the Church feels that a woman’s husband is the only man who should have a particular level of access, not only physically but visually, to her body, at least without there being some less-than-casual reason for it (art modelling, like for something like the Sistine chapel, tends to be an exception from what I’ve read), and of course in that case vice versa is also true, that she is the only woman who should see his. If the body is sacred in some way, then just like the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament, not just anyone has a right to see it in all its beauty at just any old time, not because it is dirty and not only because it can inspire lust, but rather because it is special, sacred, and not to be taken lightly or shown off as though it is “only” a little skin, anymore than the Holy of Holies was “only” a room, if that makes any sense. If my body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit, then perhaps that means it is analogous to the Temple of the Old Covenant in some way, and maybe one such way is that only on special circumstances (primarily lovemaking with my Spouse, if ever I marry) may anyone enter most deeply into intimacy with it–the bodily equivalent of approaching the “Holy of Holies.” I’m obviously only theorizing right now (unless I’m accidentally hitting some theological nail right on the head) but it makes sense to me.

Meh, I’ve pretty much given up on the drawing part. It’s why I’m a writer. I’ve resigned myself to just look for a willing illustrator (unless by some miracle I end up having drawing skills to match my literary ones).

Miracles happen, you know. Either way, whether as a writer or drawer or both, it’s excellent to have a passion for something.

Well I wouldn’t say they dress in an overly sexual way that you had described but as I said before, men and women alike tend to dress more casually especially during the evenings when at home or just lounging about in the neighborhood. Men (usually street vendors or jeepney drivers) could be usually seen playing pool or having an inuman (drinking session) and there are several who do so shirtless. Girls simply waltz into my cafe to online chat or type out homework wearing just plain shirts and shorts no longer than what Simca there (the one who is not in the school uniform) is wearing.

Thinking back on my description of clothing styles I’ve seen here, the description was probably a bit exaggerated on my part…one does see some (but even then, certainly not all) celebrities dressing that way (especially the more rebellious female singers) but the overwhelming majority of normal, everyday women don’t take it that far, at least not in my region (but then, I don’t live in a very urban areas–so I don’t know). I suppose the really bad cases stand out so much that those are what leave a lasting impression.

 

[edwest2]

Note how I said ‘particular danger’. I am of course referring to what you’re implying here:

I have already demonstrated how some people are growing increasingly immune to the “arousing” nature that was originally attributed to the such clothing. Thus, the danger that causes the demand for modesty is slowly vanishing which in turn diminishes the need to continuously enforce such a standard.

For the former, once you throw in that little loophole that protection is the only reason for wearing modest apparel, there’s a chance that any Catholic woman would indeed become more casual and less scrupulous about what she wears since the danger that is needed to be protected from grows less and less as standards for what is considered “sexy” change.

With regards to the latter it can even be worse on your part. As many have already stated (perhaps even by yourself), what is considered “decent” is still not so under your standards. Take the picture I showed above. Two girls are actually wearing mini-skirts yet you will find many that say that is only “decent”. In fact, one of them is actually wearing it as a part of her uniform.

Furthermore, “good taste” is not what people of today would call your sense of fashion and would not hold reservations with criticizing it. “Backwards and Old-fashioned” are in fact just the mildest words they might use.

Funny. You know when a people are faced with much more pressing and perilous dangers such as poverty, economic instability, and political turmoil… everyone realizes that things such as the clothes you wear or how you look are no longer worth talking/thinking about compared to what really matters. It’s scenarios like that I really wish would manifest more in the world. Heck I go as far as to fantasize about living a dangerous yet adventurous life in some pseudo-futuristic metropolis where people would dress in attire that you would probably cringe at yet they care more about staying alive while holding to whatever bonds of friendship they might have, holding on to whatever strong beliefs or codes of honor they adhere to, while/or fighting against a greater and far more oppressive evil. (Throw in a supernatural phenomenon that grants fancy powers to increase the danger of it all and it would be a huge plus to the effect ).

Children are starving in India and you want to talk about clothes? The same pitfall. When the standard becomes no standard then anything goes. As a famous artist once said, “I don’t want to go down that road. People could get used to just about anything.”

There is no ‘code of honor’ without rules. The same is true of human decency. I cannot make up my own rules. I will follow what the Bible teaches.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Oh that’s quite true. Different cultures do have different standards of what is alluring. I wonder (and I’m only wondering) if maybe we are approaching this from a narrow standpoint, and maybe the Church’s definition of modesty is built around more than just what is and isn’t alluring? Perhaps the Church’s definition of modesty stems not only from a desire to prevent lust, but to protect the sanctity of the body.

Well that is actually the basis as to why modesty is demanded and that is to preserve the sanctity of the body from sinful intents. However, should the sinful intent cease to exist (at least to an extent), won’t the protection just be restrictive and burdensome? You don’t wear thick clothes that are for winter during the summer or run wearing heavy armor now do you? (Unless of course you’re desperate to lose weight to the point of practicing some bizarre training/exercise method. >_>;; )

Children are starving in India and you want to talk about clothes? The same pitfall. When the standard becomes no standard then anything goes. As a famous artist once said, “I don’t want to go down that road. People could get used to just about anything.”

This is such a bad response, I don’t know where to start. You obviously don’t want to admit that when life gets rough and dirty, only the really important rules and truly strong morality are what matters. Suppose a city’s under a terrorist attack (or crazier yet, a giant monster is rampaging through town) and you’ve been enlisted to help and work together with other people. Would you really care if some of them didn’t dress the way you want?

I know I wouldn’t. Heck, I’d work alongside a biker chick in skimpy leather if it meant we could both save people (or kick monster butt ).

There is no ‘code of honor’ without rules. The same is true of human decency. I cannot make up my own rules. I will follow what the Bible teaches.

That’s true, there are rules. Rules on clothing however, have got to be the most petty rules to be associated with the term “code of honour”. (Unless of course, you’re what, from the medieval period? )

 

[KindredSoul]

Well that is actually the basis as to why modesty is demanded and that is to preserve the sanctity of the body from sinful intents. However, should the sinful intent cease to exist (at least to an extent), won’t the protection just be restrictive and burdensome?

Ah, but you see, that is where the rest of my previous post comes in. Recall, the bigger portion of that paragraph was dwelling on the possibility that protecting the sanctity of the body may not only be about protecting it from sinful intents but rather that a fuller view of the body’s bare skin, similar to the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament (as the human body is now the Temple of the Holy Spirit) may be a sacred thing that others just don’t have a right to look upon in casual circumstances, just as no one could casually stroll into the Holy of Holies. In that event, it’s not (only) about preventing lust, but rather about sacred things. There was, after all, no fear that someone walking into the Holy of Holies would be tempted to do something wrong…it was simply its sacredness in and of itself that called for restrictions on who could enter, and not only that but on those who would ever even see the inside of the room. Since the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, perhaps it is possible that modesty is, along side the lust issue, also about treating the body as something sacred, something that (in all its nakedness or near-nakedness) to be reserved for the right person and the right occasions, not to be seen as mere flesh which is no big deal to show off to others.

You don’t wear thick clothes that are for winter during the summer or run wearing heavy armor now do you? (Unless of course you’re desperate to lose weight to the point of practicing some bizarre training/exercise method. >_>;; )

No, indeed you don’t. However, even in the summer, it is not too burdensome to wear jogging pants (or knee-length/nearly knee-length shorts) and a normal, short sleeved (or plainly sleeveless) T-shirt made of light fabric such as cotton. Never is it in fact a necessity to show off the amount of skin that some action movies or fantasies may imply; the fact that, in such shows, the action men often manage to move around just fine even though they are (often, though not always) monumentally more well covered than the action women goes to demonstrate that the womens’ skimpiness is sheerly for the sake of showing some skin than due to realistic necessity.

Gymnasts, for instance, need to be more flexible (or at least as flexible) and free of “in-the-way” clothing as anyone I can possibly think of, and there are gymnast outfits that are relatively modest; in fact, if you combine the modesty of what is often the male gymnast’s lower outfit and the fact that the male gymnast’s outfit isn’t usually quite so absolutely skin tight with the modesty of how much certain versions of the female gymnast’s upper outfit covers her skin (and every part of both of these outfits, for obvious reasons, quite safely permit every manner of realistically necessary mobile freedom) then you’d arrive at an outfit that was rather modest; considering the fact that differences between the two outfits seem strictly “aesthetic,” not necessary, such an outfit combining the most modest aspects of the two would not be unrealistic nor burdensome. This is evidence that “sometimes people must be nearly naked in order to move properly” just isn’t true.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[j2c99]

I’ve read almost all the posts in this thread, and a lot of the ones I want to comment on from the OP are in earlier pages. But I’ll still make one big statement that is the basic sinful theme of this thread.

The OP is trying to justify nudity with a “good” end. Never gonna happen and the Church won’t allow it.

There was this news article the other day where the Make-a-Wish foundation was offered a significant amount of money by a car wash vendor. Upon further investigation, the car wash vendor was some car wash service that had women in scantily clad clothing and bikinis washing cars. Of course playing on sexuality and “skin exposure”, many customers showed up (gee, how many real Catholics would go there… ). MakeaWish refused to accept the proceeds saying they do not accept money from such groups. It made me glad. They aren’t a Catholic organization, so far as I know, but they upheld principles of modesty and ethics.

Now the OP wanderer brought up some situation where “isnt it okay if I have some crime fighting partner dressed in immodest clothing”? No, it’s not okay technically and realistically. That’s being permissive and that’s what Make-a-Wish was NOT doing by NOT accepting the money from the slutty car wash place.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Ah, but you see, that is where the rest of my previous post comes in. Recall, the bigger portion of that paragraph was dwelling on the possibility that protecting the sanctity of the body may not only be about protecting it from sinful intents but rather that a fuller view of the body’s bare skin, similar to the Holy of Holies in the Old Testament (as the human body is now the Temple of the Holy Spirit) may be a sacred thing that others just don’t have a right to look upon in casual circumstances, just as no one could casually stroll into the Holy of Holies. In that event, it’s not (only) about preventing lust, but rather about sacred things.

But even the room of the Holy of Holies was exposed to the outside world or is that not the meaning behind the tearing of the veil when Christ died? I get the gist of what you’re trying to say but I think the idea of treating the body as visually “sacred” in your sense isn’t really that important compared to doing the more important things in life.

Never is it in fact a necessity to show off the amount of skin that some action movies or fantasies may imply; the fact that, in such shows, the action men often manage to move around just fine even though they are (often, though not always) monumentally more well covered than the action women goes to demonstrate that the womens’ skimpiness is sheerly for the sake of showing some skin than due to realistic necessity.

I don’t know, I think it’s pretty balanced. I mean look at Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Gymnasts, for instance, need to be more flexible (or at least as flexible) and free of “in-the-way” clothing as anyone I can possibly think of, and there are gymnast outfits that are relatively modest; in fact, if you combine the modesty of what is often the male gymnast’s lower outfit and the fact that the male gymnast’s outfit isn’t usually quite so absolutely skin tight with the modesty of how much certain versions of the female gymnast’s upper outfit covers her skin (and every part of both of these outfits, for obvious reasons, quite safely permit every manner of realistically necessary mobile freedom) then you’d arrive at an outfit that was rather modest; considering the fact that differences between the two outfits seem strictly “aesthetic,” not necessary, such an outfit combining the most modest aspects of the two would not be unrealistic nor burdensome. This is evidence that “sometimes people must be nearly naked in order to move properly” just isn’t true.

Sorry but once you’ve reached to pants, you’ve pretty much already gone past the traditionalist perception of “modest”. Besides, even pants themselves can be alluring with just the right pose. And as an avid pants wearer myself, my legs do get really stifling after a long walk in them (and when hiking, they can snag sometimes too).

I’ve read almost all the posts in this thread, and a lot of the ones I want to comment on from the OP are in earlier pages. But I’ll still make one big statement that is the basic sinful theme of this thread.

The OP is trying to justify nudity with a “good” end. Never gonna happen and the Church won’t allow it.

Far from it. I suggest you read again, critically this time. You comparing my scenarios where skimpy outfits aren’t for drawing men’s eyes to one where someone deliberately exploits skimpy outfits for their sex appeal reflects badly on your sense of logic.

 

[KindredSoul]

But even the room of the Holy of Holies was exposed to the outside world or is that not the meaning behind the tearing of the veil when Christ died?

Every analogy breaks down somewhere…but since you later say you get the gist of it, I take it you know that such a technicality doesn’t invalidate the analogy by any means.

I get the gist of what you’re trying to say but I think the idea of treating the body as visually “sacred” in your sense isn’t really that important compared to doing the more important things in life.

Given that I sharply disagree that the “important things in life” will ever actually require a person to be scantily clad (with no plausible alternatives), there is no reason that those “important” things would be any excuse as to why one shouldn’t play it safe in the area of modesty. Plus, if the body is sacred (in the sense of not something to be treated lightly, not in the sense of directly comparing the body to God’s glory) as the Church teaches it to be, it is important enough to treat it as such (which again, I reasonably theorize could very well include keeping it well covered), which makes that a moral issue. And if it is in fact a moral issue, there are no “more important things in life.” There may be things more obviously important, but morality always ranks right up there even if it isn’t obvious.

It is no more important to, say, battle it out with the alien spawn of Cthulu in the streets of New York City ( ) than it is to adhere to what the Church teaches to be important, at least not for those who truly believe in Catholicism as do you and I. It would be like saying it is okay to actually lie, sometimes, if lying makes it easier to win some intellectual battle against an alien invader who would conquer the world if you don’t win. Winning that battle is no more “important” than adhering to what the Church believes in. Again, I’m not speaking with outright authority on the modesty issue, but I am always wary when someone takes something that could even potentially be a moral issue and says there are “more important things in life.” Nothing is more important than morality…perhaps some things are equally important as long as the morality isn’t compromised, but nothing is more so.

I don’t know, I think it’s pretty balanced. I mean look at Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I did say “often”. Which implies there are certainly exceptions to the double standard. Also, you’ll notice that usually when a man is exceptionally scantily clad in a movie (to where his “battle garb” is the male equivalent to, say, Xena’s “battle bikinis”) and it’s not just meant to be funny, he will likely have a body to die for (women in movies almost always have such a body due to a Hollywood double standard). I do not believe it’s any accident that if a person has less than a “hot” body, more often than not the characters they play are suddenly quite able to move about without being scantily clad. Again, I do believe there is more to this motive than “That’s just what they’d have to wear to move in such and such a way.”

Sorry but once you’ve reached to pants, you’ve pretty much already gone past the traditionalist perception of “modest”.

You seem a reasonable enough person that surely you understood that the point of that example wasn’t to demand that people can only wear pants, but rather to show that if even pants can allow for such freedom of movement needed in such a field as gymnastics, one certainly doesn’t have to be wearing little to nothing in order to have a free range of motion. In other words, if you can go beyond the “traditionalist perception of modest” and still be able to do gymnastics, you can certainly remain at the “traditionalist perception of modest” and still have enough freedom of movement for high stress situations.

Besides, even pants themselves can be alluring with just the right pose.

Again, it may not only be about whether or not something is alluring. Besides, showing off too much skin, when it is alluring and for those to whom it is such, usually requires nothing in the way of “posing” in order to be so.

And as an avid pants wearer myself, my legs do get really stifling after a long walk in them (and when hiking, they can snag sometimes too).

Again, I’m not saying pants are the only option, only that given their use in such a field as gymnastics (which requires a person to be rather unrestricted) even pants are not so incapacitating that a woman or man can ever reasonably argue that dressing like Princess Xena is actually necessary just because they need free range of motion. Also, just so you know, no matter how long I walk or run, pants are hardly ever all that more a hindrance than shorts, as long as they’re not overly baggy…and they’re certainly not so much a hindrance that I would even imagine, in my wildest dreams, that I’d have to resort to something no more covering than underwear in a high-action situation.

Rest assured, even if aliens attack and the evil Empire from the realm of doom sends their toughest legions of soldiers pillaging down our residential lanes, I do not believe that scanty clothing is required to stand a fighting chance (assuming we would anyway, in such outlandish fantasy-scale situations), nor would scanty clothing even improve our chances by the slightest realistic margin.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul