Help Finding Modest Clothes

[Bruised_Reed]

Yes, it covers about the same amount, depending on the bikini and depending on the underwear. All the private parts are covered, and while going to the beach in the Western World, that’s all that’s required and normal to wear to the beach. It’s appropriate swimming attire.

Actually, by appropriate I really want to say appropriate.

Do you think bikinis are appropriate for little girls?

FYI I don’t think shorts or tanks are the most immodest thing to wear but it isn’t the most modest either.

Let’s try to get on the same page. Shorts: Hems no higher than your fingertips with your arms at your sides. Same for any woman. Is there a body type that this will be immodest on? Plus sizes usually allow for a bigger belly and bum so it’s not just about size. I allowed for a different cut or design upthread, too. Everything is covered except for a little cellulite and flabby upper arms. Is it still modest?

 

[Debora123]

I think that there are woman out their who wear bikinis’ to flaunt what they have. These are the same woman that if you look at them they will probably call you a pervert. I feel as though some woman just do it for the attention. That being said I’m also not saying that if you have curves you should hide them, but I mean some girls don’t even where bikini’s there more like g strings you wear to the beach. Even though I am a guy I’d rather see woman wearing vintage bikini’s like ones with polka dots that you can’t just blow off in the wind. I think even today Women where things that men take as inviting, and I’m not saying they where them on purpose . I’m just saying in general.

I agree on what you said about G-strings. It’s very very seldom that I see those, even when I go to Brazil. But then again, it’s not considered appropriate attire in western culture, so there’s really no question that it’s immodest.

 

[Debora123]

Do you think bikinis are appropriate for little girls?

Absolutely. I see little girls in bikinis running around the beach all the time. I’ve always had bikinis as a little kid. I tried out a one piece once for a while when I was around kindergarten age, but it stuck to my stomach and made me hot on hot days and colder on not so hot days, so I just stuck to 2 pieces. I remember even when me and my little girlfriends used to wear just the bottom piece. I think we were like 3 or 4.

Let’s try to get on the same page. Shorts: Hems no higher than your fingertips with your arms at your sides. Same for any woman. Is there a body type that this will be immodest on? Plus sizes usually allow for a bigger belly and bum so it’s not just about size. I allowed for a different cut or design upthread, too. Everything is covered except for a little cellulite and flabby upper arms. Is it still modest?

I’d personally look ridiculous in shorts that were as long as my fingertips, but it may look perfectly fine on others.

And yeah, of course I think what you mentioned isn’t immodest.

 

[Debora123]

Hi Deborah,

Sorry that I mistakenly left a post with just quotations and no reply. I tried to correct it, but ran out of time.

I don’t think the Church needs to define each and every thing. In choosing clothes to wear, the main thought should be how it will affect others, men specifically. Lots of men (who want to practice purity) have struggles seeing women when they wear short skirts, immodest shirts, bikinis etc. They are not abnormal, and it’s not “their problem”. We should make it as easy on them as we can.

Modesty flows naturally the virtue of purity. Fashion is fine in its place, but it is easily trumped by modesty issues.

I saw an appeal to heat in a previous post; I forget by whom. I can only say that modest clothes do not make me less comfortable at all, even when our Maryland temps approach three digits. If anything, light cotton helps with the sun.

Regarding swim suits, modest ones can be found. I found one in a swim shop. It’s a one piece that is very nice; it just happens to cover the entire bust and the upper thigh. Good for casual swimming anyway.

I note that a great many posts on this thread is being taken personally. I’d just say in advance that I only wish to share what I think the principles are; I judge nobody personally.

God Bless,
Joan

Thank you. I respect your views, though I stick to my more laid back ones.

I’ve never been up in Maryland. Too cold for me! I bet the seasons are beautiful though!

 

[Debora123]

It is not the task of the CCC to go down a laundry list of specific body parts or fashion types, yet I think the above puts some limits on what is reasonable for a Catholic. We do, of course, each need to bring individual judgement to the table as well.

God Bless,
Joan

Yes. And I have one to add as well.

Section 2524 - “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening conscientiousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

---

Sin is still a choice made by the person who sins.

Sounds like you don’t believe in collaboration or in anyone being led into sin, that no one has any effect on another.

I’m not as skilled as some others here in quoting Scripture, but in Luke – Jesus said something like, Woe unto those who lead one of these little ones astray.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sounds like you don’t believe in collaboration or in anyone being led into sin, that no one has any effect on another.

I’m not as skilled as some others here in quoting Scripture, but in Luke – Jesus said something like, Woe unto those who lead one of these little ones astray.

---

CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 3
MAN’S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; **he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27 **

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731** Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and **so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 **Every act directly willed is imputable to its author: **

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

You conveniently ignored your own quote. The part that says:

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

The more innocent and the less schooled, the more likely someone will be led into sin by the actions and coercion of others.

All you have to do is look at the headlines.

 

[Walking_Home]

You conveniently ignored your own quote. The part that says:

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

---

I did not “conveniently” ignore the quote. It is included in the post.

1735 – does not nullify that sin is a personal act. It just says imputability and responsibility can be diminished or even nullified depending on the circumstances.

For ex. — Someone holds your family hostage–and commands you to go rob a bank–or they will kill your family. You have the choice --to robe the bank or not. For the safety of your family — you perform the sin of robbery-- it is still a sin – but the imputability and responsibility on you can be diminished or even nullified because you acted under duress, fear for the life of your family, etc.

 

[Joan1969]

Yes. And I have one to add as well.

(Cited by Debora) Section 2524 - "The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man…

This is true, but it should not be taken in a way so broad that it nullifies the very idea of modesty in dress. A bikini (I’m talking about the ones that adults typically wear, not a child’s two-piece such as the one my own daughter wears) just can’t be seen as modest in any meaningful sense.

The standard I would suggest is what a typical man who is trying to practice purity might find difficult or distracting. The men on this forum are in a better position to talk about what the standards should be than I am.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

---

I did not “conveniently” ignore the quote. It is included in the post.

1735 – does not nullify that sin is a personal act. It just says imputability and responsibility can be diminished or even nullified depending on the circumstances.

For ex. — Someone holds your family hostage–and commands you to go rob a bank–or they will kill your family. You have the choice --to robe the bank or not. For the safety of your family — you perform the sin of robbery-- it is still a sin – but the imputability and responsibility on you can be diminished or even nullified because you acted under duress, fear for the life of your family, etc.

You might find this site enlightening:

Accessories to sin?

 

[Walking_Home]

You might find this site enlightening:

Accessories to sin?

---

I’ve read it. But since I am not God to judge interior motives – I am not going to go about pointing fingers/ throwing stones at someone — who does not dress to another’s “criteria”.

 

[Debora123]

(Cited by Debora) Section 2524 - "The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man…

This is true, but it should not be taken in a way so broad that it nullifies the very idea of modesty in dress. A bikini (I’m talking about the ones that adults typically wear, not a child’s two-piece such as the one my own daughter wears) just can’t be seen as modest in any meaningful sense.

The standard I would suggest is what a typical man who is trying to practice purity might find difficult or distracting. The men on this forum are in a better position to talk about what the standards should be than I am.

God Bless,
Joan

Unless a man is deprived/not used to seeing it, or has issues with perversions, or cannot distinguish the difference between sexual attraction and lust, I highly doubt that any of them really cannot stand to go to the beach where 90% of women are wearing bikinis.

–And my husband, as a man who goes to the beach himself, confirmed this. ^

I go to the beach almost everyday right now, since it’s summer, and the only time I see someone in a one piece is when they’re either older or excessively over weight (but sometimes, even then they wear a 2 piece, and it’s perfectly fine). I am not joking when i say that about 90% of the women there are in a bikini. And I highly doubt that all the guys there are seriously in a constant state of struggle. Especially since recently (in regards to this thread) I’ve been paying attention. The men don’t sit around and stare with dazed looks on their faces, covering up the front part of their swim trunks. They go about their day and have fun at the beach like everyone else, taking walks along the surf, laying out in the sun, talking with friends, playing in the water… hardly batting an eye at the dozens of bikini clad women all around them.

I mean, I’m sure that if an attractive girl walks by in a bikini, they’ll probably glance over, just as they would if a beautiful women walked by wearing pants and a sleeved shirt. There’s nothing wrong with looking and feeling sexual attraction for someone of the opposite sex. It’s perfectly natural, perfectly good thing.

Pope John Paul II, our most current BLESSED pope wrote about modesty and specifically mentioned swimming attire.

Pope John Paul II -------in Love and Responsibility:

While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so.
For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.

If he wanted to say that wearing a bikini to the beach was immodest… or if he even wanted to put any sort of set restrictions or standards to what “modesty” would entail, this seems like the perfect opportunity.

But he didn’t, instead he said the opposite - that it’s ok, and that there is not set standard of modesty and that it changes depending on time and place.

 

[Debora123]

You might find this site enlightening:

Accessories to sin?

You can’t be an accomplice to sin by wearing normal, standard clothing, while having no intention whatsoever of causing another to sin.

 

[mcteague]

Absolutely. I see little girls in bikinis running around the beach all the time. I’ve always had bikinis as a little kid. I tried out a one piece once for a while when I was around kindergarten age, but it stuck to my stomach and made me hot on hot days and colder on not so hot days, so I just stuck to 2 pieces. I remember even when me and my little girlfriends used to wear just the bottom piece. I think we were like 3 or 4.

It has never made any sense to me that prepubescent girls are usually dressed to hide breasts they don’t actually have. Many people seeing an eight year old topless at the beach, or playing outdoors, would find it scandalous. Seems a little weird

Except for a small number of wierdos no one is excited by children. Little girls and boys could run around buck naked as far as I’m concerned. Not that I’m a nudist or anything. And I am not really recommending it. But why it would be shocking is a bit of a mystery to me

 

[Debora123]

It has never made any sense to me that prepubescent girls are usually dressed to hide breasts they don’t actually have. Many people seeing an eight year old topless at the beach, or playing outdoors, would find it scandalous. Seems a little weird

Except for a small number of wierdos no one is excited by children. Little girls and boys could run around buck naked as far as I’m concerned. Not that I’m a nudist or anything. And I am not really recommending it. But why it would be shocking is a bit of a mystery to me

I agree… it would take a pretty perverted person to see anything wrong with little girls playing topless at the beach.

I found a “modesty swimwear” website once and these women were wearing spandex capris with like a skirt thing over it, and the top piece was an elbow length spandex shirt with like a weird loose tank top over it.

The saddest part about it was when I saw the section on the website that had that exact same “swim wear” in little girls sizes with a picture of a little 3 year old wearing one.

Funny how there was a section on there for baby girls but not a single section for men’s “modesty” attire.

…And then they try to tell me it’s not sexist

 

[Joan1969]

Unless a man is deprived/not used to seeing it, or has issues with perversions, or cannot distinguish the difference between sexual attraction and lust, I highly doubt that any of them really cannot stand to go to the beach where 90% of women are wearing bikinis…

… I highly doubt that all the guys there are seriously in a constant state of struggle…

…There’s nothing wrong with looking and feeling sexual attraction for someone of the opposite sex. It’s perfectly natural, perfectly good thing.

Pope John Paul II, our most current BLESSED pope wrote about modesty and specifically mentioned swimming attire.

If he wanted to say that wearing a bikini to the beach was immodest… or if he even wanted to put any sort of set restrictions or standards to what “modesty” would entail, this seems like the perfect opportunity.

But he didn’t, instead he said the opposite - that it’s ok, and that there is not set standard of modesty and that it changes depending on time and place.

Hi Debora,

The first thing to consider is that we are living in a sexually charged society, where the majority of men frequently watch very provocative material in the movies and on the internet (not necessarily porn; PG-13 will do just fine), so it is not surprising that most are relatively immune to just a bikini. Among those men trying to practice purity, complaints about women’s attire are very common- I’ve seen them online, and my own husband has confirmed to me that many women are alluring just as they appear on the street or on the beach. They do not need to trigger physical arousal right on the spot in order to create a problem for a man. Men are very visual, and can re-create a mental picture.

As the former pope pointed out, bathing attire is okay at a pool, but we can interpret his remarks in a way that makes room for real modesty. Again, if bikinis are allowed there is really no such thing as an immodest garment, except whatever the very low standards of society might think goes “too far” (a standard that is constantly being lowered as the most-immodest keep pushing the envelope). And it is not the call of Christians to take a stand here? I think it is.

While sexual attraction is not sinful, fostering attraction that is not ordered to marriage is. Immodest clothing promotes sexualization.

Excessive appeals to cultural standards are ill advised for Christians, since we are called to change the culture.

Speaking of sexism, there is no question that men are rarely immodest- the rare Speedo at the beach; that’s about it. This is something women do, while men participate by promoting it. Why is that, if scanty and revealing clothes are all about comfort and freedom? Why do the Hollywood men all wear tuxes, while Hollywood women prance in outrageous get-ups?

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Monica4316]

I have some more thoughts after reading this thread…

I agree with those who said that modest clothing doesn’t have to look ugly or like a potato sack. OR like something from centuries ago. I posted before about how I couldn’t seem to find any modest clothing at the mall, especially for my age group. I wanted something below the knees and could only find those skirts at very expensive stores. Well eventualy I went to a store called Winners (here in Canada), and found lots of good long skirts, that are fashionable too and not like something from another century. (If any of you live around this store, it seems like a good option, and the prices are good too ).

Regarding modesty… I think we should be careful about basing modesty on what people today find appropriate or not appropriate… because the final word on this is God, and not society. I’m saying this because Our Lady of Fatima said that many fashions will be introduced that would offend God… maybe most people today don’t find shorts and tank tops immodest, but how do we know if that is what Our Lady meant?? I’m not pointing any fingers at anyone here… but I still think we should be careful about that the views of our society don’t reflect truth necessarily… if a society is very far from God, of course their views on modesty would not be reliable.

God bless

 

[Debora123]

Hi Debora,

The first thing to consider is that we are living in a sexually charged society, where the majority of men frequently watch very provocative material in the movies and on the internet (not necessarily porn; PG-13 will do just fine), so it is not surprising that most are relatively immune to just a bikini. Among those men trying to practice purity, complaints about women’s attire are very common- I’ve seen them online, and my own husband has confirmed to me that many women are alluring just as they appear on the street or on the beach. They do not need to trigger physical arousal right on the spot in order to create a problem for a man. Men are very visual, and can re-create a mental picture.

As the former pope pointed out, bathing attire is okay at a pool, but we can interpret his remarks in a way that makes room for real modesty. Again, if bikinis are allowed there is really no such thing as an immodest garment, except whatever the very low standards of society might think goes “too far” (a standard that is constantly being lowered as the most-immodest keep pushing the envelope). And it is not the call of Christians to take a stand here? I think it is.

While sexual attraction is not sinful, fostering attraction that is not ordered to marriage is. Immodest clothing promotes sexualization.

Excessive appeals to cultural standards are ill advised for Christians, since we are called to change the culture.

Speaking of sexism, there is no question that men are rarely immodest- the rare Speedo at the beach; that’s about it. This is something women do, while men participate by promoting it. Why is that, if scanty and revealing clothes are all about comfort and freedom? Why do the Hollywood men all wear tuxes, while Hollywood women prance in outrageous get-ups?

God Bless,
Joan

Well, I’ve covered most of these points already, if not all, and I feel as though I’ve been exhausting this for long enough.

I think I’ve provided good, logical points to back up all my claims, as well as quotes from the catechism and the latest blessed pope. All these posts just seem to be going around and around in circles, with me just pointing out the same things over and over again.

I respect your views, but I also acknowledge that they are just that, YOUR views. Not the Church’s, not my culture’s, YOURS.

With that being said, I am completely at peace with what I wear and I’m sure God is too. I know I can’t please everyone, but I know that I am doing nothing wrong, and that the people I am surrounded by respect me and think highly of me. That’s all that matters.

I had a very nasty insult thrown at me earlier on in this thread, where a “modest” woman said to me, “if you think it’s too hot here, what do you think hell will be like?”
…I hope everyone here remembers that modesty of HEART is infinitely more important than the clothes we put on our backs, and that lust and vanity are not at the top of the 7 deadly sins as being the most evil - PRIDE is. Pride is #1.

Most people here, however, have been really nice (including you Joan!), and I hope it stays that way.

It’s been a good discussion, peace!

 

[Joan1969]

Well, I’ve covered most of these points already, if not all, and I feel as though I’ve been exhausting this for long enough.

I think I’ve provided good, logical points to back up all my claims, as well as quotes from the catechism and the latest blessed pope. All these posts just seem to be going around and around in circles, with me just pointing out the same things over and over again.

I respect your views, but I also acknowledge that they are just that, YOUR views. Not the Church’s, not my culture’s, YOURS.

With that being said, I am completely at peace with what I wear and I’m sure God is too. I know I can’t please everyone, but I know that I am doing nothing wrong, and that the people I am surrounded by respect me and think highly of me. That’s all that matters.

I had a very nasty insult thrown at me earlier on in this thread, where a “modest” woman said to me, “if you think it’s too hot here, what do you think hell will be like?”
…I hope everyone here remembers that modesty of HEART is infinitely more important than the clothes we put on our backs, and that lust and vanity are not at the top of the 7 deadly sins as being the most evil - PRIDE is. Pride is #1.

Most people here, however, have been really nice (including you Joan!), and I hope it stays that way.

It’s been a good discussion, peace!

Hi Debra,

I respect your interest in ending the exchange.

I would suggest that saying “that’s just your view” negates an argument and makes an exchange far less useful. Even if people don’t want to accept a line of reasoning at the time of a debate, keeping in mind the possibility that it might be true gives more power to change viewpoints, and maybe come closer to God’s truth.

Thanks for taking the time to exchange with me.

God Bless,
Joan