Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.

  • Thread starter Thread starter stccp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stccp

Guest
Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.

Respect for women in this country is at an all time low, and much of that is because of the way they dress, Going shopping, to class and even to Sunday Mass, in a t-shirt, jeans or shorts, does nothing to enhance the dignity of a woman. Women dress the way they do today because someone, over half a century ago, decided they wanted to dumb down America, and convincing people to be less concerned about how they dress is one way of doing it.

Our society today suffers from an acute lack of critical thinking skills, and there is a definite connection between the way we dress and how we think. If we dress like slobs, we soon begin to think like slobs. No discipline of body – no discipline of mind. This situation did not come about by accident, but was a well orchestrated plan to help destroy our Christian society. In her book "Dressing With Dignity”, Colleen Hammond explains this point in detail.

In her article, “The Dignity of True Femininity”, Dr. Anne Marie McDonnell also illustrates the extent of the problem. She says: *“For a woman to live according to Catholic teaching in today’s society she needs heroic virtue. Every form of media, including television, movies, magazines, books, computers, music, and theater all assault women’s human dignity, often portraying her in a pornographic manner as an object of lust." *

Women need to understand that men react differently than women in regards to modesty. Mrs. Hammond discusses this phenomenon in her book. The following quote illustrates the point.

*”Women must learn that men are “wired” differently and the way a woman dresses can have a definite impact on how a man reacts to her. As an example, if a man is watching a TV talk show or interview, and sees a modestly dressed woman sitting on a chair or couch and she is wearing a dress or skirt that extends several inches below the knees, she is viewed as a total woman and the mans concentration is on her, as a complete person, and on what she is saying or whatever her purpose is for being on that particular show.

However, if you take the same woman and shorten her skirt so that it is two or three inches above the knees, then the man perceives her in a different manner, more as a sexual object. He no longer views her as a whole person worthy of respect. Instead, he sees her as a collection of parts, with some parts drawing more attention than others. This sexual “evaluation” all takes place in split second in the brain, but has the effect of distracting the man from what she is saying, because her appearance is sending a different message. And the more immodest the manner of dress, the greater the distraction.

Even if they are full length and not tight fitting, a pair of slacks on a woman has the same psychological effect of dividing her up into parts”.
*
I would therefore encourage women to reconsider the manner in which they dress, and also the manner in which they dress their young children. How often do we see, even at Sunday Mass, young girls dressed in skimpy outfits, thus accustoming them to immodesty at a very early age.

And, as a side note, I should, at least, mention the disgraceful display of immodesty exhibited by brides and their bridal parties an most Catholic weddings today. Recently, at such a wedding I attended, the comment was made that the bride and bridal party looked more like the Playboy Review than an occasion of “Holy” matrimony.

In conclusion, I would offer a challenge to any woman who reads this article. For two or three weeks, get rid of the t-shirts, slacks and old tennis shoes and wear a long skirt and nice blouse, or dress, and dress very feminine and ladylike (but not extravagantly), and notice how you are treated by other people, men especially.

.
 
I will try this and see what happens.

(I wear jeans and LOOSE teeshirts or blouses most every day but never to Mass)
 
🍿

This is gonna be good! Let the heated debate begin!

btw…I was wearing skin tight pants and a skin tight halter top when my husband met me and he fell in-love with me and married me. It took him a month before he even tried to kiss me and I wore mini skirts, low waisted jeans, tight tops and heals on every date.
 
I do believe that clothes are important, but what you forget is that people are a whole. They have to be viewed as such.

There is a truism to Pygmalion - it’s not just how you dress. It’s how you act and how you carry yourself. To consider only dress is to trivialize women as mannequins. That’s incredibly sexist.

The quote from Colleen Hammond is just as sexist and untrue.
 
my 4 dds and i have been wearing dresses to Mass every week for a while now, and have really noticed a difference. Men and women alike are friendlier and more kind without any of the ‘looks’ that my teens were getting in slacks. We are seen more as ‘pretty’ and good rather than sexy or hot.
modest clothing – it does a body good!
 
Thank you so very much for this wonderful post, stccp. When I realized I could not find modest professional clothing in stores, I began to sew my own. It is very difficult to find skirt suits that are a proper length (several inches below the knee at the very least), and don’t even get me started about the walking vents which open up to the middle of the thigh. It embarrasses me to even type it knowing that men may be viewing this thread.

Several years ago, I began praying earnestly about Deuteronomy 22:5, a Scripture that prohibits the wearing of men’s clothing by women, and reading Cardinal Siri’s “Notification concerning Men’s Dress Worn By Women”, here is a link: catholicmodesty.com/Mens_Dress.html

Deuteronomy 22:5 states the matter quite succinctly: “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”

I began to realize how very inappropriate this attire is for a woman. Once again, God’s Word and the teachings of the Church were right!

Here is a brief excerpt from Cardinal Siri’s article that particularly struck me: “Male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man.” Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.”

I take care with my appearance, so that any time I step outside my door I am neat, well-groomed and dressed with dignity. Even when I go out to wash my car I wear a pressed button-down blouse and an ankle-length denim skirt. Because this is my “work skirt”, worn when I am washing my car, or cleaning out the garage, or moving, or doing any sort of physical work, the longer length ensures modesty whether I am bending down or reaching up, or climbing a ladder. Frankly, wearing a skirt offers much more freedom of movement and is much cooler than encasing my legs in denim pants.

I work in a very professional office environment, and I am frequently complimented on my professional attire. My skirts are, for the most part, column skirts that are ankle-length or a couple of inches above ankle-length. I wear jackets with blouses that reach my throat and long sleeves. I have heard some women complain that the warm weather where they live prevents them from dressing modestly. I live in a very warm region, where summer temperatures reach 115 or higher on a regular basis. This is not an appropriate excuse to relax the standards of modesty.

Women are daughters of the Most High, infused with the dignity and graces appropriate to her gender and station. I believe so very strongly that modest dress and demeanor are virtues that, as the original poster stated, should be cultivated from a young age. The womanly virtues of gentleness, meekness and quietness as described by St. Peter (I Peter 3:4-6) were the virtues that the “holy women of old” used to adorn themselves. These virtues are considered “of great price in the sight of God”.

There was an age when women dressed with modesty and dignity, and the culture reflected the importance of those virtues. As Catholics, I believe we are called to live apart from the world and to separate ourselves both in dress and demeanor from the “nations around us”. Allowing our dress and behavior to be governed by the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church clearly sets us apart from the age in which we live, where self-discipline and respect for others, and a sense of our duty to God and those around us has been sadly lost.
 
OK, got it. From now on I will never, ever respect anyone who doesn’t dress the way I see fit. Anyone who exercises their freedom as a human being to wear what they choose is obviously unworthy of respect. :rolleyes:

C’mon, as much griping as I’ve seen in these forums about the ‘evils of feminism,’ you’re proving them right: you’re saying that men are weak-minded imbeciles with no self-control. ‘Boo hoo, it’s all women’s fault we think the way we do, we can’t help it.’ I would have expected better from Christians.

But thank you so much for the laugh.

Miz
 
Even a lot of the skirts and dresses they make these days are “sexy”. I shop in thrift stores for my clothes which makes it even more of a challenge to find a long skirt or dress that is not “sexy” and is my size…and taste. It’s much easier for me to find a pair of pants and a blouse in my size and taste so that is what I wear. What is immodest about a t-shirt? The shrits I have worn to church did not show cleavage and was not tight. the Bible says not to judge, does it not?

I wear what I have. Should I stay home because I don’t have an appropriate dress or skirt to wear?

I don’t know why others wear what they do. Maybe that is what they have or maybe they just want to wear what they want? I don’t agree with the mini skirts or other “sexy” clothes that I have seen but I’m not the fashion police. If clothing is such a big issue, then I think the matter should be taken up with the Church. The pastors could set dress codes and then **reinforce **
it.
 
OK, got it. From now on I will never, ever respect anyone who doesn’t dress the way I see fit. Anyone who exercises their freedom as a human being to wear what they choose is obviously unworthy of respect. :rolleyes:

C’mon, as much griping as I’ve seen in these forums about the ‘evils of feminism,’ you’re proving them right: you’re saying that men are weak-minded imbeciles with no self-control. ‘Boo hoo, it’s all women’s fault we think the way we do, we can’t help it.’ I would have expected better from Christians.

But thank you so much for the laugh.

Miz
This whole topic reminds me of the Pharisees and how they judged and how Jesus questioned their motives. When I’m at mass, I’m too busy focusing on the reason I’m there than focusing on what someone is wearing.

If someone is blatently showing their breasts or something is see-through, then I’m like, wow, that’s out there, but it’s hard not to notice those displays of immodesty. AND if I see a guy who’s wearing something “sexy”, I think, wow he’s cute and then I turn back to my kids and the priest. 🤷

Have you guys not heard of the term “cougar”…young men LOVE cougars and they go to nightclubs dressing very sexy to entice older women. Men are just as bad…take a look around you; wake up and see that it’s not just women who are immodest and women DO get turned on my men wearing sexy outfits…

Why did Antonio Sabarto Jr. pose in underwear for Calvin Klein? Why do I see sexy men wearing underwear all over the subway?
 
Women are less blatantly visual creatures because they have a tendency towards hypergamy, as opposed to men who have a tendency towards polygamy. I say this from a purely biological and evolutionary standpoint; women must find the best possible mate because to ensure they have the strongest children. Men must simply find a lot of women they find attractive so as to have as many children as possible. When the two tendencies are combined, it makes for a very strong reproductive system… the advantage of sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual.

So then women would need more than just looks to be fully attracted, they need to know a man’s personality, his intellect and even yes, his skills and ability to make money (or kill wild animals and build shelters as the case may be). Men don’t. But if you think women don’t need the looks to be there, you’re out of your mind. Women aren’t giving ugly guys a second look because they assume bad genes in looks, bad genes in everything else.

And please, again, this is purely from a subconscious and evolutionary perspective. But the argument is, of course, that men can’t move past that. That the “split second” determines their attitude towards a woman. Why can’t men move beyond their primitive reactions but women can?
 
I thought I would also post, for clarity’s sake as far as the teachings of the Church on this issue, the following:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” “Standards of Modesty in Dress” Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956 --The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

“The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up. O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.” --Pius XII to Catholic Young Women’s Groups of Italy

It has been my experience that many people are not even aware that, along with the teachings of Scripture on modesty, the Church has, in her benevolence, given us specific guidelines to follow with respect to modest dress. She has not left us to wonder what is and what is not appropriate.

I have witnessed with my own eyes how immodest, careless dress changes the way women view themselves, the way women behave, and the way they are viewed and treated by men. Obeying the teachings of Scripture and the Church on this issue can go a long way in protecting women from inappropriate behavior and in encouraging modest, godly behavior in themselves.
 
Pretty sure there was already a 20+ page on this topic in Moral Theology that got locked. And for good reason. Modesty of dress is determined by culture, it is modesty of mind, behavior and public presentation that is never changing.

A woman walking around barechested on a beach in France where such bathing has been typical for many is different than a woman here in the States doing the same. A woman who is barechested at all times in rural Africa would be different in terms of modesty than a woman elsewhere in the world. A girl wearing short shorts and a tank top in Jamaica because it’s extremely hot and they don’t have air conditioning or the money to buy clothing that would be more modest by our standards, but also cool enough to prevent heatstroke would not be the same as a girl wearing extremely short shorts or skirt here in the US and has plenty of money.
 
I thought I would also post, for clarity’s sake as far as the teachings of the Church on this issue, the following:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” “Standards of Modesty in Dress” Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956 --The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
So, Miss Linda, you believe that the 1950s were the penultimate period in modesty that all other periods should be judged by?

The person from another time who believed that women should not show their bare lower arms were wrong? The people who believed that skirts should be floor length were wrong?

I do believe that there are standards of dress. I believe that it is inappropriate to wear sleeveless dresses/blouses to work or to Mass without a sweater or other cover. Inappropriate, not immodest. Short skirts are immodest if they show things they shouldn’t.

I think that a long dress can be immodest and a shorter dress can be modest. It depends of the woman and the dress. A one size condemns all rule won’t work.
 
These people are just like the Pharisees. They are “enlightened” and “better” because they feel that they are “superior”.

Honestly, stop judging others and focus on yourselves and your own relationship with God.

Yes, I too see “people” wearing inappriopriate clothing, but geez, I have a life to live and I’m not going to judge them and point my finger and think, “if they were only more like me…the world would be a better place.”

Think about it!
 
I think that a long dress can be immodest and a shorter dress can be modest. It depends of the woman and the dress. A one size condemns all rule won’t work.
There are people who think that those long dresses didn’t come off easily in bygone eras. I really, really doubt that. We may be more “open” about it (I’d personally say more “in your face” about it) but there was pre-marital sex and all sorts of stuff happening over the centuries. Very, very few people actually live up to the Church teachings on this issue and those people probably have other sins they’re battling.

Gee, you mean people in all eras have struggled with sin and sometimes done so very publicly? I would have thought since the women were wearing long sleeves and dresses that everyone was angelic.
 
It’s 80something degrees where I live, and as someone who has always taken the time to dress modestly by wearing long skirts, appropriate short-sleeved shirts and t-shirts, or lightweight pants I can say that my dignity is just fine, thanks. Compare that to the countless young women I see who feel the need to wear spaghetti strap tanks, super short shorts, or tight low-cut tank tops in this weather. Nope, I think I’m doing just fine.

Maybe you should concern yourself with someone more important and worthwhile, like your own spiritual life instead of the fact that women in this time don’t need to wear floor length dresses with the neckline all up their throats.
 
*Even if they are full length and not tight fitting, a pair of slacks on a woman has the same psychological effect of dividing her up into parts”. *
Yeah! Preach it, brother! And tell 'em 'bout how dat ‘lektricity stuff ain’t nuddin’ but Satan’s handiwerk!

:rolleyes:
 
i don’t understand why you have to get so upset about people trying to help other people grow in understanding of modest clothing. we all know clothing can be modest or immodest, how you move can be modest or immodest. you know when you notice someone what you are noticing first – the person or the body. dress so that the vast majority of people will notice the person, not the body. and you people who say tight or revealing clothing is fine – who are you trying to kid? sometimes it seems that people just don’t want anything to wake them up from their comfortable habitual unthinking behavior. i wear shorts, but find ones that don’t hug or reveal my curves and thighs. i wear shirts with no sleeves sometimes (i’m on my 4th year of (early onset) hot flashes, but can find lots of tops that don’t hug or plunge or reveal. but when i know i’ll be out and about where lots of mixed company will/may be, i wear dresses or skirts and am very comfortable and modest. no, i wasn’t brought up knowing modesty or thoughtful choices in dress and behavior. but i’ve learned. and i hope others are allowed to help others learn w/o all this venom.
 
I find ridiculous to apply 17th century standards of dress in the 21st century. I find it ridiculous for women to change because men can’t rein in their imagination.
 
Women are less blatantly visual creatures because they have a tendency towards hypergamy, as opposed to men who have a tendency towards polygamy. I say this from a purely biological and evolutionary standpoint; women must find the best possible mate because to ensure they have the strongest children. Men must simply find a lot of women they find attractive so as to have as many children as possible. When the two tendencies are combined, it makes for a very strong reproductive system… the advantage of sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual.

So then women would need more than just looks to be fully attracted, they need to know a man’s personality, his intellect and even yes, his skills and ability to make money (or kill wild animals and build shelters as the case may be). Men don’t. But if you think women don’t need the looks to be there, you’re out of your mind. Women aren’t giving ugly guys a second look because they assume bad genes in looks, bad genes in everything else.

And please, again, this is purely from a subconscious and evolutionary perspective. But the argument is, of course, that men can’t move past that. That the “split second” determines their attitude towards a woman. Why can’t men move beyond their primitive reactions but women can?
Because that is the way men are designed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top