How bad is immodesty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lea101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lea101

Guest
Weird title, but whatever.

So how bad is it when a person wears immodest clothing? Let’s assume that the person is not trying to arouse anybody but to perhaps feel confident in a trendy outfit, or to simply wear it ‘just because’. And maybe the outfit is not vulgar by any means (no butt cheeks spilling out for instance)

Just asking because I feel like this topic is so hazy and most people don’t wear such clothes to incite lust. Thoughts?
 
Well, immodesty is a direct violation of the sixth commandment. But somehow, I don’t see what you’re describing here as particularly immodest. Perhaps you could explain what you mean here somewhat better?
 
Very bad, because it is a sin that can lead others to sin, either by being an occasion of impure thoughts and acts or by giving scandal. 😦
 
What is considered immodesty is getting into deep muddy waters. Some people think a woman not covering her head is immodest, others don’t like a woman wearing shorts, or short sleeved shirts. Some people think they have this magical super power to know all about someone and their lifestyle just by looking at the clothes they wear. You may see a girl dressed in a mini skirt and call her a slut in your mind, but in reality she could be more saintly than you are. She probably just likes fashion and doesn’t waste her time caring what perverts who have no self control think about. Meanwhile, that modest “good girl” you know, could be the biggest heap of moral trash. Best to not judge and just get on with life.
 
Well, immodesty is a direct violation of the sixth commandment. But somehow, I don’t see what you’re describing here as particularly immodest. Perhaps you could explain what you mean here somewhat better?
Modern fashion is generally immodest (when i say immodest, it is quite general-you can’t wear it to mass). But it is so ‘normal’ that say, a strapless dress isn’t seen as ‘slutty’. Or a figure hugging skirt. Or a dress that ends mid thigh. Clothes like this are generally so common that it’s just ‘trendy’ as opposed to ‘too revealing’.

And the people that wear it generally do not do so to attract others. It’s just ‘fashion’. Including most “good girls”.

I’m just thinking out loud, because modesty depends on the culture, so is this the time where it changes?
 
Modesty and fashion can can coexist. I don’t know why people seperate the two…

Modesty is not only the visual aspect but the results of thinking and behaviors thst follow.

The results of immodesty is evident in the trends in society that have evolved because of it. It is not conducive to perpetuating a Catholic culture at all.
 
Weird title, but whatever.

So how bad is it when a person wears immodest clothing? Let’s assume that the person is not trying to arouse anybody but to perhaps feel confident in a trendy outfit, or to simply wear it ‘just because’. And maybe the outfit is not vulgar by any means (no butt cheeks spilling out for instance)

Just asking because I feel like this topic is so hazy and most people don’t wear such clothes to incite lust. Thoughts?
So the virtue of modesty (a part of temperance) is to reasonably restrain the less violent human passions.

A person could sin by giving scandal (lead others into sin), either actively or passively, even by an act that is not a sin in itself. So we must avoid scandalizing the weak if we can do so easily.

Did you ever read St. Thomas Aquinas on this issue? I concluded the following after study.

Passive scandal is the sin which another commits in consequence of active scandal. Active scandal can be accidental or direct.

Accidental active scandal:
Accidental active scandal is venial when a venial sin or only appearance of evil scandalizes.
Accidental active scandal is mortal if mortal sin scandalizes another to mortal sin, or if one will not forgo for the sake of the scandalized. (Example: drinking around a known alcoholic.)
Direct active scandal:
Intention of a venial sin leading another into venial sin is then a venial sin.
Intention of a mortal sin leading another into mortal or venial sin is then a mortal sin.

Did you ever read St. Thomas Aquinas on this issue (Summa Theologica, II, II, Question 169. Modesty in the outward apparel, Article 2. Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?):

I answer that, As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman’s apparel may incite men to lust, according to Proverbs 7:10, “Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot’s attire, prepared to deceive souls.”

Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 7:34) that the woman “that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Wherefore if a married woman adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this without sin.

But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect.

newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm
 
It is possible to be in the fashion of the times and still be modest. Just look through the clothes racks a lot more carefully.
 
It is possible to be in the fashion of the times and still be modest. Just look through the clothes racks a lot more carefully.
That’s not really my argument, but the truth is that like 90% of fashion is not modest. The 10% is, but the person does have a limited range of stuff to pick from vs a person who isn’t looking out for modest clothes (100%)

I would not call myself frumpy, but I do practically wear the same stuff all the time simply because the 10% left is not that diverse. Add the tropical weather and you got yourself in a rut. :o
 
So the virtue of modesty (a part of temperance) is to reasonably restrain the less violent human passions.

A person could sin by giving scandal (lead others into sin), either actively or passively, even by an act that is not a sin in itself. So we must avoid scandalizing the weak if we can do so easily.

Did you ever read St. Thomas Aquinas on this issue? I concluded the following after study.

Passive scandal is the sin which another commits in consequence of active scandal. Active scandal can be accidental or direct.

Accidental active scandal:
Accidental active scandal is venial when a venial sin or only appearance of evil scandalizes.
Accidental active scandal is mortal if mortal sin scandalizes another to mortal sin, or if one will not forgo for the sake of the scandalized. (Example: drinking around a known alcoholic.)
Direct active scandal:
Intention of a venial sin leading another into venial sin is then a venial sin.
Intention of a mortal sin leading another into mortal or venial sin is then a mortal sin.

Did you ever read St. Thomas Aquinas on this issue (Summa Theologica, II, II, Question 169. Modesty in the outward apparel, Article 2. Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?):

I answer that, As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman’s apparel may incite men to lust, according to Proverbs 7:10, “Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot’s attire, prepared to deceive souls.”

Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 7:34) that the woman “that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Wherefore if a married woman adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this without sin.

But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect.

newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm
Thank you for that source. I’m not well-versed with his work since I was warned that he has said sexist things (I wouldn’t know how to filter what is right and wrong)

But since lust is being brought up, what about women who don’t attract attention no matter what she wears-as long as it is not vulgar? This is something i have also wondered-whether unattractive girls get more slack because men don’t lust after her.
 
Modesty is also context dependent and cultural. When it’s ninety degrees out and you’re at the beach, you can wear something you couldn’t wear to a wedding. I think just ask yourself why you’re wearing something: is it because it looks nice and is appropriate for the occasion? Or is it to excite others?
 
If you are aware it is immodest, it is bad. You might think “oh, but I’m not wearing it to incite lust”, but that doesn’t matter. If you know it could be viewed as immodest, it could also incite lust whether you want it to or not. It’s possible to look trendy and feel confident without ever showing anything you shouldn’t.
 
That’s not really my argument, but the truth is that like 90% of fashion is not modest. The 10% is, but the person does have a limited range of stuff to pick from vs a person who isn’t looking out for modest clothes (100%)

I would not call myself frumpy, but I do practically wear the same stuff all the time simply because the 10% left is not that diverse. Add the tropical weather and you got yourself in a rut. :o
This may be a location difference. I feel like I have more options than 10% of the clothing department…some stores are better than others.
 
Modesty and fashion can can coexist. I don’t know why people seperate the two…

Modesty is not only the visual aspect but the results of thinking and behaviors thst follow.

The results of immodesty is evident in the trends in society that have evolved because of it. It is not conducive to perpetuating a Catholic culture at all.
👍
 
That’s not really my argument, but the truth is that like 90% of fashion is not modest. The 10% is, but the person does have a limited range of stuff to pick from vs a person who isn’t looking out for modest clothes (100%)

I would not call myself frumpy, but I do practically wear the same stuff all the time simply because the 10% left is not that diverse. Add the tropical weather and you got yourself in a rut. :o
I just took my 11 year old granddaughter shopping yesterday. She is big for her age and has outgrown the kids department. I did not have a difficult time finding her nice things in the young women’s department. Since she is only 11 anything immodest is completely out of the question. We were not limited to 10% of what was on the racks.

It may be you need to shop at different stores like Macy’s or Dillard’s. They both have great sales racks so you don’t even have to spend a lot of money to look nice. I was able to pick up three tops, 1 dress, and two skirts for under $100.
 
This may be a location difference. I feel like I have more options than 10% of the clothing department…some stores are better than others.
Could be. I’m from a very hot and tropical country so certain fashions are not sold here simply because it is not weather appropriate. Summer clothes are practically sold 24/7 in stores that are targeted at my age. The modest clothes are nice, but honestly boring. I have the same type of blouse in different colours 😊

The stores that carry more modest clothes are generally targeted at older women who are working maybe that’s why it’s harder for me?
 
Modesty is also context dependent and cultural. When it’s ninety degrees out and you’re at the beach, you can wear something you couldn’t wear to a wedding. I think just ask yourself why you’re wearing something: is it because it looks nice and is appropriate for the occasion? Or is it to excite others?
That’s kind of the guidelines i live by, but I’m beginning to think that’s it’s a very confusing time to follow that
 
I dunno…

I’m not a Biblical scholar, but I don’t recall Jesus going on and on about such matters. I suspect he had bigger topics on his mind, and perhaps we should as well. If that’s true (can be debated of course) then the question may arise…

Where did the Catholic obsession with sex, sex, sex come from anyway? This is open to debate too, by I cast my one little vote for this obsession coming from the clergy, who we might recall have been exclusively celibate men for 2,000 years, or at least a very long time.

I’m not against celibacy, or men, or the clergy, but it does seem reasonable to question whether putting celibate men who’ve never been married, never had a family, never raised children, in charge of instruction on such matters such as sex and family morality etc, is really such a good idea. There are plenty of happily married Catholic couples who have both sex and children, why not turn to them for counsel instead?

So I would answer the poster’s question this way. If the wearing of certain outfits is resulting in the poster becoming involved in sexual relationships which are damaging to any of the parties involved, then it’s probably a good idea to turn down the heat in the wardrobe department. Otherwise, it’s your wardrobe, your body, your life, all of which were given to you by God, not by a group of well intended celibate men who have appointed themselves to be moral teachers on subjects they actually have no experience with.
 
I dunno…

I’m not a Biblical scholar, but I don’t recall Jesus going on and on about such matters. I suspect he had bigger topics on his mind, and perhaps we should as well. If that’s true (can be debated of course) then the question may arise…

Women in Biblical times were totally covered.
 
Could be. I’m from a very hot and tropical country so certain fashions are not sold here simply because it is not weather appropriate. Summer clothes are practically sold 24/7 in stores that are targeted at my age. The modest clothes are nice, but honestly boring. I have the same type of blouse in different colours 😊

The stores that carry more modest clothes are generally targeted at older women who are working maybe that’s why it’s harder for me?
Spent some time in Singapore.

It was so hot and humid that it was so hard to breathe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top