How should women act so as not to draw undue attention?

[Cracker_Mom]

Wow - I just found this post - all 12 pages of it! I made the quoted comment in the OP, so I’m going to expound on my reasoning at the time of the original quoted comment…

At that point on another similar thread, someone else had mentioned a story where a virtuous woman (I’m not sure if she was a nun or not) walked down a street or at least in view of others. However, her body language, dignity, and demeanor did not cause the scandal that many would have thought. Instead, it was obvious that this virtuous woman respected herself & did not necessarily need clothing to cover her body to make her virtuous.

There was another story of two priests (I think) walking down the street & meeting a pair of prostitutes. One looked them in the eye and smiled. His companion rebuked him saying he should keep his eyes downcast when passing a fallen woman. One of the women remarked to the other that the man that looked her in the eye gave her respect for herself. This woman later converted & gave up her prostitute ways.

In other words, how we dress has very little effect on our true nature if we behave appropriately. Pope JPII ordered the replacement of many of the ‘covered’ nudes in the Vatican b/c there is nothing inherently sinful about the naked body. Its how it is perceived and how it is presented that becomes problematic. Remember, Jesus was stripped of His garments, not to incite lust, but instead to humiliate. However, due to His strength of character and pious nature, I doubt His nakedness caused Him a moments humiliation. The same can be said of some of the saints (both male & female) who were abused for their piety. Even when stripped naked and/or threatened w/ rape or assault, their steadfastness was obvious and their shining examples live on today.

The clothes do not make the man or woman holy. What makes them holy is their behavior and the perception of the on-lookers. I do not advocate in any way parading around naked to test this theory. Instead, I advocate dressing appropriately for the situtation (that’s to your own opinion) and carrying yourself with the dignity God gave us. If you present an image of dignity and prudence, others will most likely see that no matter how you’re dressed.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Wouldn’t that seem to be a lot like moral relativism though? If what is moral and good becomes dependent upon ones past experiences? Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

I don’t think this is necessarily directed at me, but I think I’ll answer anyway… I can see where it can seem like (or even be) moral relativism to not have hard/fast rules of modesty. However, the Church does not clearly define modest clothing or action. Instead it is a personal decision that reflects the dignity God gave us as indicated by the Church.

So what do you say the Church requires of us regarding modesty of either dress or action?

The Church requires us to present ourselves (in dress, action, and words) with the dignity due our wonderful creation by the Master Creator. There are no hard/fast rules written or universally used beyond that.

So would you say that modesty in

clothing is

: Anything that is culturally the current norm. Attire outside of the norm draws undue attention, and is therefore immodest. How much of ones body is exposed does not matter so long as it is culturally acceptable.

No. Attire outside the norm can draw undue attention, but not all that attention will be negative. Nor is there anything against drawing attention to oneself for pure motives (by our holy examples for instance). Over covering is not easily immodest (although it could be by some), but if the intention is to draw attention to oneself, it can be prideful/vain. Excessive exposure of skin/body inappropriate to the situation (bathing suit in Church or court for example) can be immodest, but mostly its inappropriate. The modesty depends, and cannot entirely be separated from the actions of the wearer.

action is

: women should be free to act in any way they want. Men need to control themselves in thought.

No and yes. Women should be free to act appropriately for the situation. However, they should not intentionally lead anyone astray by their actions (or dress). Men do need to control their thoughts and actions. However, some reactions are elicited with little or no consciousness (ie they’re instinctive or physiological). What happens after these responses is the man’s responsibility. What caused the reaction is the other person’s responsibility (as well as the man’s sometimes).

Considering that, what do you define as true modesty

.

I define true modesty as reflecting through one’s attire, action, and words the dignity God gave us. I define true modesty as having enough respect for oneself and others to dress, act, and speak respectfully with regards to oneself or others. I define true modesty as suiting ones mind, body, & soul.

 

[BiologyBrain]

My apologies, I quoted you from another thread and did not know how to notify you. I haven’t figured out the messaging system here yet. Someday…
Hope you don’t mind.

No problem. I did not think it malicious in any way. I just decided it would be nice to give some background to my reasoning for posting such remarks!

You’re actually more advanced than me for being able to get a quote w/ reference to the previous poster in a new thread! Oh well… Now I know its possible!

 

[Sarabande]

I define true modesty as reflecting through one’s attire, action, and words the dignity God gave us. I define true modesty as having enough respect for oneself and others to dress, act, and speak respectfully with regards to oneself or others. I define true modesty as suiting ones mind, body, & soul.

I’ve been really enjoying your posts. This particular quote stood out to me, in part because it came to mind how sometimes we over-think how we should act and dress to be modest and sometimes it actually brings more attention to ourselves than what we’d want. I think when someone is truly and deeply modest, they would never bring about “undue” attention. Admiration, perhaps, but never disdain or just plain, old over attention. It reminds me of how when I was 14, I had a religious epiphany. I over-thought everything and was very new and infantile to my fervor as a Christian and more specifically, a Catholic. I went out of my way to be as different as possible in regards to my actions because I thought that was the right thing to do. Everything was black and white for me at that time. It was very rigid and in a way, unloving, but I believe it was a short period in my life that I needed to get to the deeper levels of my faith. I believe you sometimes have to go overboard before finding true depth in your faith. The problem is when you stay there and never grow. Anyway, during that year, I certainly got a lot of undue attention which I didn’t mean to attain. As I grew, matured and aged, I learned to do things in a way I believed God would be happy about without going overboard, and any attention I might have gotten was admiration and very subtle attention.

Anyway, just thoughts.

 

[NoWhereMan]

When we are at the beach, we are all showing more skin then usual. I doubt that women or men are looking at the modestly dressed ones. Been to the beach lots, & its the ones who are showing the most who are attracting the attention, whether its a man or a woman.
The beaches today are a meat market

 

[lobster]

I define true modesty as reflecting through one’s attire, action, and words the dignity God gave us. I define true modesty as having enough respect for oneself and others to dress, act, and speak respectfully with regards to oneself or others. I define true modesty as suiting ones mind, body, & soul.

Perhaps so. Wonderful definition.
Maybe we have a tendency to over-analyze needlessly and fret about when we should just embrace the simplicity of God’s Will. Sometimes I wonder if the “little flower” made her mind anxious about such things, or did her simple desire to please God in little but unending ways make her naturally someone of great and immense dignity? I imagine if we ‘follow the book’ solely based on our own efforts, we will fail without God’s help. After all, no one can ever say they are legally entitled to Heaven. We are all at God’s mercy.

 

[Zooey]

First of all, I want to say that anyone who thinks that RedSoxWife is some kind of a strange case of far-out notions about dress needs to take the time to link to her blogs and see what she actually is wearing: Pretty, feminine, flattering clothes that are both stylish and modest. Honey, you look great to this Cranky Old Lady’s eyes!!! Dinnae let anyone tell you otherwise!!
I think a lot of people hear “modest” and assume it means the person is talking about something out of[cue opening theme from Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone]
modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/
Note: Do cast an eye on the swimsuit: modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/modest_swimwear.htm
and see what my grandmother would have called “notions”…with a snort. (My grandmother had a very expressive, almost Gallic snort).

There is a difference. A big difference.
I live in a community where there is a sizeable Conservative Mennonite presemce, and more than a few Amish. God bless them, they do stick to their principles. But you know what? I have been to many a Mennonite store & an Amish roadside stand, &** not once** have I ever felt that even one of them found this 62 year old woman in blue jeans (or teeshirt & shorts) to be someone they were shocked or distressed by. No, as sweet & approachable as anyone you ever hope to meet.
I only wish I could say the same good things about the pastors (& some of the parishioners) at a couple of fundamentalist churches, when I was visiting with some of the fundies in my own family. They saw my (quite simple long skirt & silk or linen top as “worldly”…and they let me know it.
I think that that is where the “attitude” part comes in. Not in a relativistic world kind of way, but in the fact that cultures are different. And we all need to learn to live with each other, without falling into judgemaentalism, for that way lies: hijabgirl.com/kh1004.html
And that, my dear sisters (& brothers) in Christ, does nothing** good for who seek to love & serve Our Lord . Nothing at all.
God bless all here.

In His love & in His service,
Zooey

 

[Sarabande]

Is retreating from a non-Christian lifestyle supposed to be negative in this scenario? I don’t want to sound argumentative, but it makes it sound like dressing modestly is a bad thing. I just think that it’s something that women should be conscious of and should prayerfully consider, because I don’t think very many people do think much about it these days.

I’m not advocating covering completely up. But it bothers me that dressing modestly is, by many women, looked at negatively. The other day I took my daughter to the park after Mass and there was a playgroup of mom’s there, in short shorts and tanks tops that were about my age. I didn’t think too much of it, it’s our culture and while I wouldn’t choose them I know that they really don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. However, after we left my husband pointed out the glares I had been getting (and trying to ignore) the whole time we were there. I was wearing a skirt and a sweater with short sleeves, nothing close to Amish dress.

And there was another thread where a girl said she felt called to cover up more and quite a few women jumped on and told her no there was no need to. It doesn’t bother me that some women dress in a way I wouldn’t feel comfortable wearing, it bothers me that they feel the need to “empower” other women to do the same thing.

Retreating from sin should be considered a victory, not a reaction.

Now we’re leaving to go see the inlaws in Boston, so I may not have internet for a few days (maybe we will) if I don’t respond. I’ll check back in when I can! Have a nice week!

I think many of your points on this thread have been valid, but to give these women at the park the benefit of the doubt…

Maybe they weren’t actually glaring at your choice of dress? Perhaps they were looking because they had forgotten that people go to Church on Sundays and that people still wear dressier outfits and just thought it was a little strange you’d be wearing something that nice to a playground. (Believe me, I try to dress up very well for Mass most Sundays and depending on what church I’m in, even in church some people have found it strange that I would get “dressed up” for mass.) Or they might have been thinking that you’d be really hot in that outfit.

Or, they could have truly been glaring, I don’t know, but just to give a thought. Also, you’re a beautiful woman. I know that some women, can be really catty towards other women (especially those beautiful women with children because they’re jealous you can still look good and have a child). They never got out of high school phase. So they just could have been catty about how you looked - not how you dressed. I could go on and on with the maybes, but either way, just ignore it. You’re doing what you believe is the best way to God’s heart.

 

[Sarabande]

I think you and Cracker Mom are right, just mesh the two thought processes together, and you have what I think. *

I agree with whatevergirl. I think both Cracker Mom and Redsoxgirl actually have similar ideas (and they’ve both made some very valid points), but something in the understanding of what both are saying is being just slightly misconstrued by each other. When I look back on this entire thread, I really think their ideas are almost the same. They are both right.

 

[GraceDK]

…many a Mennonite store & an Amish roadside stand, &** not once** have I ever felt that even *one *of them found this 62 year old woman in blue jeans (or teeshirt & shorts) to be someone they were shocked or distressed by. No, as sweet & approachable as anyone you ever hope to meet.
I only wish I could say the same good things about the pastors (& some of the parishioners) at a couple of fundamentalist churches, when I was visiting with some of the fundies in my own family. They saw my (quite simple long skirt & silk or linen top as “worldly”…and they let me know it.
I think that that is where the “attitude” part comes in. Not in a relativistic world kind of way, but in the fact that cultures are different. And we all need to learn to live with each other, without falling into judgemaentalism, for that way lies: [

Zooey]( )

Zooey.
you are not alone with that experience. I come from a different culture than the American Catholic one. I was once judged for my, in my culture, normal clothes and treated like a prostitute by a Catholic man who patronised me in front of a group of people for my normal dress which in his little world was considered immodest…
I was confused totally and also ashamed for I felt branded. Afterwards I saw him as a nutcase and still do. He was one of the first Catholic men I ever met after my conversion to Christ outside any Church. Had all Catholics been like him I would have probably stayed protestant. I see him to this day as having the pharisaik spirit … the one that Jesus did not have, “for He spoke as someone with authority and not like the pharisees”.

Peace

 

[Sarabande]

I just had to bring this up because I always found it a little funny.

Husband and I are Rev War reenactors and so we’ve had to learn alot about 18th c. dress and culture within various classes. Proper decorum, modesty and dress was very important. Religion was important as well. In that time, women always covered their heads for both sanitary reasons - helped keep extra dirt out of their already unwashed hair - and for modesty reasons. Women who didn’t cover their heads back then usually were immoral women, so you didn’t want to have an uncovered head. Although some of the head coverings were just these little doily-looking things that barely covered their heads. Although at the same time, if you were a young woman, you could sometimes get away with not having a covered head because it showed you were a virgin and unmarried.

The funny thing we ladies involved in the reenacting joke about is how, despite how religiously upright these people were back then, it was actually considered extremely immodest and unbecoming to have their elbows showing than it was to have their cleavage show. There were “fichus” (which are sometimes called modesty cloths today) that were used to cover their upper chest a little more if it were cold, etc. But it was less for modesty and more for style or practical reasons. Those fichus for the working women were often used more so as a natural “air-conditioner”. You’d soak it in water and keep it around your neck to help cool you off in hot weather.

Showing more of your legs would also be considered more immodest than showing the cleavage - another thing we always laugh about. (Oh, and in terms of clothing, wearing striped stockings in the camps was usually a sign that you were a loose woman. Of course, you could be drummed out of camp for selling your body to the soldiers.)

But it is interesting how culture and society have changed through the times. There have always been a set standard of what was morally right within Christian societies, but depending on what people considered sexually arousing, that also dictated on what would be modest action and dress. For the record, I’m not saying that since cleavage wasn’t really considered so bad even among religious people in 18th century that we should follow that example. I do know we are living in the 21st century and the culture/society has changed. I just thought it would be an interesting and funny thing to know since there has been a lot of discussion on this.

 

[lobster]

So what do you say the Church requires of us regarding modesty of either dress or action?

So would you say that modesty in

clothing is: Anything that is culturally the current norm. Attire outside of the norm draws undue attention, and is therefore immodest. How much of ones body is exposed does not matter so long as it is culturally acceptable.

action is: women should be free to act in any way they want. Men need to control themselves in thought.

Considering that, what do you define as true modesty.

As a Catholic, I would consult the Catechism for answers to these questions.

Could you provide the page/paragraph which has the answers?
Thanks,
Lobster

 

[lobster]

The funny thing we ladies involved in the reenacting joke about is how, despite how religiously upright these people were back then, it was actually considered extremely immodest and unbecoming to have their elbows showing than it was to have their cleavage show. There were “fichus” (which are sometimes called modesty cloths today) that were used to cover their upper chest a little more if it were cold, etc. But it was less for modesty and more for style or practical reasons. Those fichus for the working women were often used more so as a natural “air-conditioner”. You’d soak it in water and keep it around your neck to help cool you off in hot weather.

I know what you mean. It probably wasn’t considered as immodest to have cleavage show back them, since that very well be a product of our commercialized society which is influenced by media and advertisement that market women’s bodies and takes advantage of them to sell their products.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Could you provide the page/paragraph which has the answers?
Thanks,
Lobster

I don’t have my copy of the Catechism with me at the moment.I’d start with the index.

 

[Serap]

Do any of you guys think this is immoral dress? I’m curious.

What if a woman wears fitted feminine clothing, but no cleavage or short mini-skirts. Do you guys think that slim fitting clothes are immoral so long as they cover everything up?

BTW…I don’t see anything wrong with walking shorts that go at least 3 or 4 inches below your bum. I also don’t see anything wrong with shorts and a tank top - again, as long as everything is covered up with a pair of flat sandles.

What do you guys think of that? Lobster? Just curious…

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Do any of you guys think this is immoral dress? I’m curious.

What if a woman wears fitted feminine clothing, but no cleavage or short mini-skirts. Do you guys think that slim fitting clothes are immoral so long as they cover everything up?

BTW…I don’t see anything wrong with walking shorts that go at least 3 or 4 inches below your bum. I also don’t see anything wrong with shorts and a tank top - again, as long as everything is covered up with a pair of flat sandles.

What do you guys think of that? Lobster? Just curious…

I am a married man and have a lovely wife who is a very modest dresser. Her dresses are always below the knee. She never shows a lot of skin beyond bare arms when it is toasty outside. One piece swim suits unless it is just her and me in the pool.

Serap, your categories are pretty broad.

Sunday dress at Mass should be toned down. Since the secular world is nuts we should make certain we do not bring it into the Mass.

In public, women should not dress provocatively.

Men, turn your eyes away and stop ogling and lusting.

Eddie Mac

 

[BiologyBrain]

Do any of you guys think this is immoral dress? I’m curious.

What if a woman wears fitted feminine clothing, but no cleavage or short mini-skirts. Do you guys think that slim fitting clothes are immoral so long as they cover everything up?

BTW…I don’t see anything wrong with walking shorts that go at least 3 or 4 inches below your bum. I also don’t see anything wrong with shorts and a tank top - again, as long as everything is covered up with a pair of flat sandles.

What do you guys think of that? Lobster? Just curious…

Again, I’d have to say it depends on the attitude/behavior of the wearer. On a typical woman who’s not out to have guys oogle her, I’d say your described outfit would be ok. As a matter of fact, that’s probably a description of how I dress.