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

[BlueShadow123]

I personally think it depends on the occasion, and the weather and your age. If you think of adam and eve days, they only had clothes to hide their private parts, but im sure it wasn’t necessarily considered immodest. In todays world it seems that we’re in a mixture of modesty and immodesty. In america you tend to see more skimpy clothes whereas in the middle east you tend to see people covering up their bodies more. I think it also had to do with weather. I don’t see anything wrong with a tank top and shorts in the summertime, and i see nothing wrong with a sweater with jeans in the winter. As long as you are not showing off your body for others to lust after and you dress with respect, you’ll be good to go. I noticed a post about beaches… Well, I know many christians who wear bikinis at the beach so I don’t know if its immodest or not? As for nude beaches, yea… I wouldn’t do that. But what if you lived alone and your house was on the beach and nobody was there to see you? Do you think it would be wrong to go nude then? Is it wrong to wear less clothes in the house? No, i think its in public when you are around people, you need to respect your body and have high-standards for yourself.

 

[Serap]

On another note, there are more photomodel girls where I live than I could count. There’s some sort of upscale spa in the building where my apartment is, and these girls are around all the time. I feel sorry for them, seeing them wearing those “dresses” that are really just shirts and barely cover their underwear. They are all stunningly beautiful, walking Barbie dolls, and in a way stunningly insecure. I look to their faces, and that’s what I often see. Insecurity. They are about the age of my niece, and I know it would break my heart to see my niece dressed like that. It breaks my heart to see these girls dressed the way they are. I feel like approaching them, and telling them, “Little sister, you are precious. There’s more to you than your body. Jesus came into this world, and died for you. That’s how precious you are.”

I agree wtih you here. I also see many pretty young things wearing clothes to entice men and then they get upset when they are treated with a lack of respect. I feel bad for them b/c I’ve been there. Being a very pretty girl is actually very lonely. Most men think of you as a sex toy and the marrying type won’t go near you b/c they think the girl is out of their league.

If these women learned to tone down their dress, they would be treated with more respect and perhaps that marrying type would muster the courage to approach her. Evem when a pretty women tones down her dress, she is still (unfortunately) viewed as a sex object b/c youth and beauty is very desirable to men.

Believe it or not, life is very very difficult for pretty women. It’s a different cross to bear, but it’s still a big cross.

…a different perspective from someone who’s lived it…

 

[spunjalebi]

I’ve lurked around this thread since I made my last response but haven’t engaged for obvious reasons

There were a few things I wanted to touch on and introduce.

First, I do agree that God’s standard never changes. He does expect modesty from women AND men. Modesty isn’t just a nice rule or suggestion, it’s a Biblical virtue that everyone should follow. I believe we are all in agreement.

Secondly, I really don’t like where some of the “blame women” was going. Doesn’t the Bible say that ultimately we’re all responsible for our own transgressions? If I make the choice to look at a nicely muscled guy and drool over him, isn’t that my own fault? I can’t say “but he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt that showed off his muscles, I can’t help it!” Unless my eye motor control goes out on me, I can always cast my eyes downward, no matter how much I am cornered. Similarly, aren’t we also responsible for maintaining the standard of modesty, instead of always passing it off onto women? The post about the dress code where a woman should not wear anything lower than “2 fingers breadth” from her neck is rather ridiculous. Styles of dress have changed yes, but in no way does that imply that modesty is out of the window! However some have seemed to suggest that unless women are dressing like that, all Hell’s going to break out.

I also find the comments regarding women having to dress modestly for their husbands a little…odd. If you are at home, shouldn’t you be able to dress whoever you please? Not to be TMI, but if it weren’t for the cooler weather my area tends to have, my husband would probably prefer me to wear a skimpy tank top with tiny shorts all the time This does not mean he disrespects me, but it actually means that (gasp) he finds me attractive! And as his wife I should want to garner that kind of attention from my own husband. I mean, heaven forbid I dress a little sexy just to please him in the privacy of our own home! And goodness sakes, if we ever go out to a fancy dinner and I wear something a tad lower cut because he likes it. My husband is also not very demanding in how I dress, as long as I don’t run around with my fanny practically hanging out, among other things.

And also, why are we addressing this in a vacuum? Sometimes I look at these issues and feel bad for immigrants coming here from other countries where their clothing choices could be seen as “not manly” or “not modesty” enough. If we look at traditional Middle Eastern clothing, to the Westernized eye it looks like a lot of the men’s outfits are “dresses” when in reality they are not. This is an issue that really, REALLY gets me because I don’t think we realize how much of a stumbling block this can become. To speak more specifically from an ethnic viewpoint, many people who emigrate and share my ethnicity are often confused as to what “modest” in this country means. This isn’t even including the “male dress” and “female dress” part either. For the former, in India as a woman wearing the traditional dress is considered modest-- even if your shoulders are showing or a little bit of your stomach shows. It’s considered modest because you are wearing the traditional dress, unlike Westernized clothes which are often perceived as anti-ethnic, ethnocentric, and immodest. So imagine a Catholic Indian couple from India (there are a few who go to my church) come to the U.S. and are under the impression that a shirwani is just fine for a guy and a sari, lehenga, or salwar is appropriate for a woman. However, when you throw the modesty (from our standards) view into it, where does that leave the woman? And let’s throw the “male/female dress” part into now— if we are going to say that all things pants-like are for men only, and a woman wearing them is sinning-- and all things dress-like are for women only, and a man wearing them is sinning-- perhaps the best course of action for this poor couple would to just stroll around naked! Then the entire issue would be moot. This is also a huge stumbling block for Christian converts-- should a convert from a different ethnicity be expected to change their traditional dress simply because they are Christians? Doesn’t that sound awfully familiar to what Native Americans experienced at one time?

Those things being said, I also don’t believe it’s respectful for a woman or a man to dress immodestly in a way that shows off their intimate areas. If I wear a short skirt that shows off a lot of leg, then I need to be mature enough to admit that I might be wearing what I am to get attention. That may not necessarily sit well with people, but why else would you wear such a thing? I’m also going to mention a caveat here-- there are certain fashions which at first glance may seem immodest but in light of today’s fashions which involve layering upper and lower body-- wearing a miniskirt can be modest. I’ve seen many young women at my school wearing skinny jeans with skirts and miniskirts, or wearing leggings with miniskirts and it doesn’t attract the attention wearing a miniskirt by itself would. Just as wearing a spaghetti strap tank top can be modest-- if you are wearing it as part of an ensemble where you are layering a shirt or sweater over it, or a camisole underneath it. There are also ways to dress which is appropriate for the weather-- this past summer, believe it or not I wear pants and short-sleeved t-shirts, and not a single tank top or spaghetti strap or halter top. I chose to make careful decisions about the kinds of fabrics I purchased. It was funny because the people I worked with would wear jean shorts and complain about sweltering, yet I wore lightweight fabric pants and didn’t feel the heat get trapped by my clothing.

In the end I have found that this issue is usually motivated by the same things-- either someone wants another person to take responsibility for their lack of inaction and lack of control, or it’s about control.

 

[Serap]

I’ve lurked around this thread since I made my last response but haven’t engaged for obvious reasons

There were a few things I wanted to touch on and introduce.

First, I do agree that God’s standard never changes. He does expect modesty from women AND men. Modesty isn’t just a nice rule or suggestion, it’s a Biblical virtue that everyone should follow. I believe we are all in agreement.

Secondly, I really don’t like where some of the “blame women” was going. Doesn’t the Bible say that ultimately we’re all responsible for our own transgressions? If I make the choice to look at a nicely muscled guy and drool over him, isn’t that my own fault? I can’t say “but he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt that showed off his muscles, I can’t help it!” Unless my eye motor control goes out on me, I can always cast my eyes downward, no matter how much I am cornered. Similarly, aren’t we also responsible for maintaining the standard of modesty, instead of always passing it off onto women? The post about the dress code where a woman should not wear anything lower than “2 fingers breadth” from her neck is rather ridiculous. Styles of dress have changed yes, but in no way does that imply that modesty is out of the window! However some have seemed to suggest that unless women are dressing like that, all Hell’s going to break out.

I think some people just over-analyze this issue to the point of being rediculous.

You made some good points.

 

[spunjalebi]

Serap, one thing that I have noticed about this issue is that it’s difficult for people to take what I consider a “common-sense moderate” approach, as you have in this thread. Either people take the extreme swing that the OP has introduced, or it’s the other extreme swing which tends to involve radical feminism blaming patriarchy for the problems.

 

[mommamaree]

Thank you spunjalebi and Serap for keeping the moderate approach alive in this thread. I agree with both of you.
Today, 8 months pregnant, I wore a maxi dress layered with a wide-strapped tank top. Most women would not wear the tank top, but I like the extra bosom coverage. I went out to lunch today and while stopping in the restroom, I happened to get a full-length glimpse of my appearance in the mirror. I stopped and laughed to myself, thinking about this thread. Here is what went through my mind:
Wearing a dress: Good
Wearing straps instead of sleeves: Bad
Dress is long: Good
Dress is definitely showing off my pregnant shape (which isn’t half bad IMHO): Bad
Layering for modesty: Good
Still see a shadow of cleavage peeping out of top of dress: Bad
Then, “Aw, who cares. I look like a lady and a very pregnant married woman. I don’t care what anyone else thinks!”
And then I left the bathroom with a smile on my face.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well, I must admit I haven’t read every post here, but I think that people who urge women to be modest mainly to avoid being an occasion of sin to men are missing the point. Women (and men) should be modest to show respect for themselves, and also to please God. So while I totally agree with dress codes for Mass, my main reasoning for that is to show respect to God, not because the guy in the pew behind you might wind up staring at your behind instead of the Eucharist. Modesty is a virtue in and of itself, not just because lack of modesty could cause a brother (or sister) to stumble.

And speaking of two sides of the coin, this reminds me how boys are sometimes told to control their sexual urges toward women in order to treat women with respect, but they are not actually told that chastity is a virtue for them, too. Hence the old-fashioned double standard where boys understood that while they shouldn’t treat “good girls” lustfully, but that it was fine for them to have sex with “bad girls” (or even prostitutes) in order to “sow your wild oats” before settling down with a “good girl”. (This reasoning is obvious in the “tradition” of a bachelor party involving a groom and his friends ogling strippers, or even paying for sexual favors…of course, the “feminist” response to that was to start having bachelorette parties where the bride behaves in a similar manner…which I think was totally missing the point, too.) And I know that some men have taken the “good girl/bad girl” concept so far that they teach their fellow men that once you marry the good girl, you shouldn’t expect your wife to want or enjoy sex because “good girls don’t”, and that so it’s ok to step outside the marriage to satisfy your sexual urges, too.

Now, I do know this isn’t what the Catholic Church actually teaches, I know the Church teaches that both men and women should hold to the same standards of sexual morality. So, while a woman shouldn’t go to Mass dressed like a streetwalker, neither should a man go to Mass with, say, pants that are so loose they droop down to his knees or show the “plumber’s crack”. I think that men as well as women are “temples of the Holy Spirit” who need to treat their bodies with respect. Doing so, as I mentioned above, is honoring God.

ETA: Comment re bachelor and bachelorette parties.

 

[spunjalebi]

And speaking of two sides of the coin, this reminds me how boys are sometimes told to control their sexual urges toward women in order to treat women with respect, but they are not actually told that chastity is a virtue for them, too. Hence the old-fashioned double standard where boys understood that while they shouldn’t treat “good girls” lustfully, but that it was fine for them to have sex with “bad girls” (or even prostitutes) in order to “sow your wild oats” before settling down with a “good girl”.

Um…

THANK YOU!!!

 

[spunjalebi]

Wearing a dress: Good
Wearing straps instead of sleeves: Bad
Dress is long: Good
Dress is definitely showing off my pregnant shape (which isn’t half bad IMHO): Bad
Layering for modesty: Good
Still see a shadow of cleavage peeping out of top of dress: Bad
Then, “Aw, who cares. I look like a lady and a very pregnant married woman. I don’t care what anyone else thinks!”
And then I left the bathroom with a smile on my face.

I can definitely appreciate the tongue-in-cheekness view of your response and I’m glad to see that you’ve got a good attitude about it. Unfortunately not all women do especially with this issue and I think this near…obsession…adds to the burden that many young Christian women already have in terms of their body. It gets to the point where what they are doing is not “enough.” They could be wearing a dress but it may not be “enough” because it only drops to the knee, they could be wearing a shirt but because it’s short-sleeved or sleeveless, that’s not “enough.” There’s a lot of self-body hate with young women and I don’t think the poor perspectives which have been expressed in earlier pages of this thread are really helping.

Yes, the body is sacred and a temple and because of that we should take care of it and treat ourselves with respect that is befitting. Sometimes the way people dress are truly innocent mistakes, but isn’t it at least our responsibility to gently remind them and guide them in the right direction? I remember once working with a preteen girl who wanted to go out wearing tiny little shorts. Imagine how her ideas toward modesty would be if I had treated her with the brashness that some have shown instead of gently reminding her that our bodies are special and because of that, we need to be careful about how we dress to show that we have respect. At the time, she changed into more appropriate clothing and I also remember at a work review, my supervisors mentioned that the mother was impressed with the way I handled modesty issues. She’s a teenager now and I’d like to think that she’s carried what I taught her because I taught her using a loving and mature Christian attitude, instead of one with Puritanical madness.

 

[Serap]

I can definitely appreciate the tongue-in-cheekness view of your response and I’m glad to see that you’ve got a good attitude about it. Unfortunately not all women do especially with this issue and I think this near…obsession…adds to the burden that many young Christian women already have in terms of their body. It gets to the point where what they are doing is not “enough.” They could be wearing a dress but it may not be “enough” because it only drops to the knee, they could be wearing a shirt but because it’s short-sleeved or sleeveless, that’s not “enough.” There’s a lot of self-body hate with young women and I don’t think the poor perspectives which have been expressed in earlier pages of this thread are really helping.

Yes, the body is sacred and a temple and because of that we should take care of it and treat ourselves with respect that is befitting. Sometimes the way people dress are truly innocent mistakes, but isn’t it at least our responsibility to gently remind them and guide them in the right direction? I remember once working with a preteen girl who wanted to go out wearing tiny little shorts. Imagine how her ideas toward modesty would be if I had treated her with the brashness that some have shown instead of gently reminding her that our bodies are special and because of that, we need to be careful about how we dress to show that we have respect. At the time, she changed into more appropriate clothing and I also remember at a work review, my supervisors mentioned that the mother was impressed with the way I handled modesty issues. She’s a teenager now and I’d like to think that she’s carried what I taught her because I taught her using a loving and mature Christian attitude, instead of one with Puritanical madness.

I’ll have to use this approach with my daughter one day. If she’s about to leave the house wearing something immodest (12 years down the road ), I’ll sit down with her and explain why she should change her dress to something more modest, but still make her look beautiful and feminine.

As to my son, yes, chastity should be taught to them too. They should respect good girls and “bad” girls. I only question the term “bad” girls, b/c most of the “bad” girls I have met have just been extremely unhappy and insecure and they are stuck in a rut. Many of them were not taught self-respect in the home and I find it very difficult to judge them.

The same goes to prostitutes. I just feel a great deal of sadness for them. They are trapped in a life that is full of abuse.

However, if I see a regular woman over 27 dressed immodest, then I think they should know better. I dressed immodestly at times in my early 20’s b/c I was broken from my childhood. I always remember how I was when I see a young girl dressed like I once did.

I try very hard to hold judgement b/c I have met some wonderful girls that others would have looked down on.

Oh and the pregnancy body…oh boy…am I glad that’s over!!!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

As to my son, yes, chastity should be taught to them too. They should respect good girls and “bad” girls. I only question the term “bad” girls, b/c most of the “bad” girls I have met have just been extremely unhappy and insecure and they are stuck in a rut. Many of them were not taught self-respect in the home and I find it very difficult to judge them.

The same goes to prostitutes. I just feel a great deal of sadness for them. They are trapped in a life that is full of abuse.

Hi Serap, I agree with you, that is why I used quotes around “good girls” and “bad girls”. Some of the comments I have read about immodest women really do make it sound like they are all immoral temptresses purposefully enticing men to lust after them for their own sick jollies. And unfortunately, women as well as men can engage in this kind of unfair stereotyping. As I understand it, that is how many Muslims view women, and that is why they are so strict with clothing standards for women.

Now, I’m not saying that some women don’t dress a certain way on purpose. A prostitute certainly dresses a certain way to send a certain message (though as many prostitutes are desperate runaways, suffering from drug addiction, etc, perhaps this mitigates their culpability). I’ve also known women who will do things like go to bars in revealing clothing and flirt with men there, using their sexuality to get men to pay for their drinks, etc. Or, say pull down their shirt to show cleavage if they are pulled over by a male police officer, hoping this will help persuade the cop to downgrade the traffic ticket to a warning. That kind of behavior is certainly sinful. But I don’t think that, say, a teenage girl who shows up to Mass in a “slipdress” is purposefully trying to entice men to lust after her. She might innocently think, “I know I have to dress up for Mass, so I’ll wear this dress that all my friends loved at that party I went to last weekend.” Such a girl would best be served by gentle correction, not browbeating.

It reminds me of when I was a teenager, and my mother told me I should go buy a hostess gift when visiting a friend at her house. So I went and got a bag of breakfast pastries sloppily wrapped in cellophane. My mother was very upset and told me such a gift was not appropriate and showed disrespect. I think she thought of “appropriate” as, say, a formal gift basket, cookies packed in a tin, or a bouquet of flowers. I got upset, too, because I just didn’t understand why what I did was so wrong. Now, this kind of thing was rather unusual for me and my mother, usually we got along. But I think sometimes people assume some kind of ill intention, or at least willful negligence, when there is none.

 

[spunjalebi]

What I don’t understand is why the OP would be so threatened by women wearing decent and modest looking summer shirts, shorts, and sleeveless shirts to church or in general. Unless you’re going to a special church at the Vatican (where one should expect more modest dress codes) why is it such a big deal?

Whatever happened to modesty of the heart? It doesn’t matter how much of a sandbag I dress into to make myself modest, if I think I am better and holier than thou art because of my modesty, I’m better off just strolling around in a miniskirt without leggings.

 

[Serap]

What I don’t understand is why the OP would be so threatened by women wearing decent and modest looking summer shirts, shorts, and sleeveless shirts to church or in general. Unless you’re going to a special church at the Vatican (where one should expect more modest dress codes) why is it such a big deal?

Whatever happened to modesty of the heart? It doesn’t matter how much of a sandbag I dress into to make myself modest, if I think I am better and holier than thou art because of my modesty, I’m better off just strolling around in a miniskirt without leggings.

I agree with you to an extent. I think that dressing in a mini skirt with no leggings is kinda more icky than a woman wearing a veil thinking she’s holier than thou.

Of course, it depends on the age of the girl b/c sometimes young girls don’t realize how they look.

 

[mommamaree]

One point I’d like to make, since there have been several references to prostitutes, is that most prostitutes (dare I say all of them?) are not choosing a life of prostitution. Perhaps many people here have heard about the victory in court against Craigslist? Craigslist had a sexual services section on its website, and young women and girls who were kidnapped and sold were being advertised on Craigslist. This is just one of the most recent ways that prostitution was being done in our society. Anybody heard of the movie “Taken” with Liam Neeson? It tells a cautionary tale about what has been known to happen to lots of young women traveling abroad, many of whom are never seen again alive.
Prostitutes are usually not independent entrepreneurs. They are usually slaves, who have been forcibly addicted to drugs (that is, forced to take addictive drugs so that they become addicts who are easier to control). They are also frequently beaten and raped by their pimps. The Catholic Church has spoken to this issue. I remember reading something a few months ago that addresses how most prostitutes are sexual slaves and rape/abuse victims. The essay discusses how the prostitute herself likely has reduced or no culpability, because in fact, every time her sexual services are used, she is being raped. It is not consensual, it is forced sexual services, oftentimes extremely violent, and the money earned is not hers, but goes directly to her pimp.
So we should not really have any reason to discuss the motives of prostitutes in this thread, especially since their primary motive is most often survival. Rather, we would do better to discuss why otherwise free and healthy women and young ladies would deem it appropriate to dress like a prostitute, because it really would appear to others that they are advertising themselves as such. We need to lovingly confront this whenever we see it, and remind these ladies of their pricelessness and irreplacibility and how when they advertise, there will be many men who will believe what they see and will assume that those ladies are easy or loose (or whatever adjective is common these days to describe women of easy virtue). We wouldn’t want people to take advantage of these improperly dressed females. :nope:
Anyway, I don’t want to take this thread too far OT. I just had to mention how being a prostitute is vastly different from dressing like one. Just my :twocents:

 

[masha]

I’ve lurked around this thread since I made my last response but haven’t engaged for obvious reasons

There were a few things I wanted to touch on and introduce.

First, I do agree that God’s standard never changes. He does expect modesty from women AND men. Modesty isn’t just a nice rule or suggestion, it’s a Biblical virtue that everyone should follow. I believe we are all in agreement.

Secondly, I really don’t like where some of the “blame women” was going. Doesn’t the Bible say that ultimately we’re all responsible for our own transgressions? If I make the choice to look at a nicely muscled guy and drool over him, isn’t that my own fault? I can’t say “but he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt that showed off his muscles, I can’t help it!” Unless my eye motor control goes out on me, I can always cast my eyes downward, no matter how much I am cornered. Similarly, aren’t we also responsible for maintaining the standard of modesty, instead of always passing it off onto women? The post about the dress code where a woman should not wear anything lower than “2 fingers breadth” from her neck is rather ridiculous. Styles of dress have changed yes, but in no way does that imply that modesty is out of the window! However some have seemed to suggest that unless women are dressing like that, all Hell’s going to break out.

I also find the comments regarding women having to dress modestly for their husbands a little…odd. If you are at home, shouldn’t you be able to dress whoever you please? Not to be TMI, but if it weren’t for the cooler weather my area tends to have, my husband would probably prefer me to wear a skimpy tank top with tiny shorts all the time This does not mean he disrespects me, but it actually means that (gasp) he finds me attractive! And as his wife I should want to garner that kind of attention from my own husband. I mean, heaven forbid I dress a little sexy just to please him in the privacy of our own home! And goodness sakes, if we ever go out to a fancy dinner and I wear something a tad lower cut because he likes it. My husband is also not very demanding in how I dress, as long as I don’t run around with my fanny practically hanging out, among other things.

And also, why are we addressing this in a vacuum? Sometimes I look at these issues and feel bad for immigrants coming here from other countries where their clothing choices could be seen as “not manly” or “not modesty” enough. If we look at traditional Middle Eastern clothing, to the Westernized eye it looks like a lot of the men’s outfits are “dresses” when in reality they are not. This is an issue that really, REALLY gets me because I don’t think we realize how much of a stumbling block this can become. To speak more specifically from an ethnic viewpoint, many people who emigrate and share my ethnicity are often confused as to what “modest” in this country means. This isn’t even including the “male dress” and “female dress” part either. For the former, in India as a woman wearing the traditional dress is considered modest-- even if your shoulders are showing or a little bit of your stomach shows. It’s considered modest because you are wearing the traditional dress, unlike Westernized clothes which are often perceived as anti-ethnic, ethnocentric, and immodest. So imagine a Catholic Indian couple from India (there are a few who go to my church) come to the U.S. and are under the impression that a shirwani is just fine for a guy and a sari, lehenga, or salwar is appropriate for a woman. However, when you throw the modesty (from our standards) view into it, where does that leave the woman? And let’s throw the “male/female dress” part into now— if we are going to say that all things pants-like are for men only, and a woman wearing them is sinning-- and all things dress-like are for women only, and a man wearing them is sinning-- perhaps the best course of action for this poor couple would to just stroll around naked! Then the entire issue would be moot. This is also a huge stumbling block for Christian converts-- should a convert from a different ethnicity be expected to change their traditional dress simply because they are Christians? Doesn’t that sound awfully familiar to what Native Americans experienced at one time?

I love this post!
Thank you for your thoughtful response and your understanding!

 

[masha]

One point I’d like to make, since there have been several references to prostitutes, is that most prostitutes (dare I say all of them?) are not choosing a life of prostitution. Perhaps many people here have heard about the victory in court against Craigslist? Craigslist had a sexual services section on its website, and young women and girls who were kidnapped and sold were being advertised on Craigslist. This is just one of the most recent ways that prostitution was being done in our society. Anybody heard of the movie “Taken” with Liam Neeson? It tells a cautionary tale about what has been known to happen to lots of young women traveling abroad, many of whom are never seen again alive.
Prostitutes are usually not independent entrepreneurs. They are usually slaves, who have been forcibly addicted to drugs (that is, forced to take addictive drugs so that they become addicts who are easier to control). They are also frequently beaten and raped by their pimps. The Catholic Church has spoken to this issue. I remember reading something a few months ago that addresses how most prostitutes are sexual slaves and rape/abuse victims. The essay discusses how the prostitute herself likely has reduced or no culpability, because in fact, every time her sexual services are used, she is being raped. It is not consensual, it is forced sexual services, oftentimes extremely violent, and the money earned is not hers, but goes directly to her pimp.
So we should not really have any reason to discuss the motives of prostitutes in this thread, especially since their primary motive is most often survival. Rather, we would do better to discuss why otherwise free and healthy women and young ladies would deem it appropriate to dress like a prostitute, because it really would appear to others that they are advertising themselves as such. We need to lovingly confront this whenever we see it, and remind these ladies of their pricelessness and irreplacibility and how when they advertise, there will be many men who will believe what they see and will assume that those ladies are easy or loose (or whatever adjective is common these days to describe women of easy virtue). We wouldn’t want people to take advantage of these improperly dressed females. :nope:
Anyway, I don’t want to take this thread too far OT. I just had to mention how being a prostitute is vastly different from dressing like one. Just my :twocents:

Momma Maree
Good point! I appreciate your sympathy for the girls (and guys) who are so often utterly abandoned by society. It fits in really well with your screen name too, thanks for being a spiritual momma to these poor kids.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

stylelist.com/2010/07/30/vatican-city-new-dress-code/

Vatican City Enforces ‘Hypocritical’ New Dress Code
by Erin Donnelly
Posted Jul 30th 2010 at 3:20PM
Watch those hemlines and bare arms, ladies! Photo: Getty Images

The Vatican’s Swiss Guards are now cracking down on tourists sporting shorts, skirts, and exposed shoulders throughout the entire Vatican City State, the Telegraph reports.

Though previously the Pope’s guards had only insisted on conservative dress for those entering St. Peter’s Basilica – even First Lady Michelle Obama donned a black veil while visiting last summer – the new code reportedly also applies to the Vatican’s pharmacy, post office, and grocery store.

Inappropriately dressed visitors have been denied entry or been forced to buy shawls and long pants, according to the paper.

Yikes. We’re all for being respectful, but we have a hard time accepting fashion critiques from guards dressed like colorful court jesters.

The widespread crackdown has reportedly been met with charges of hypocrisy considering the ongoing accusations of misconduct surrounding the Catholic Church.

“Given all the scandals the Church has been involved in, what possible right can it have to be preaching about the morality of sleeveless dresses?” one woman told the Telegraph.

huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/vatican-dress-code-new-ru_n_665158.html

**Vatican Dress Code: New Rules Annoy Visitors **
First Posted: 07-30-10 12:27 PM | Updated: 08- 2-10 02:50 PM

The Vatican has imposed a dress-code for the Holy City aimed at scantily-clad tourists, according to the Daily Mail.

Visitors to St. Peter’s Basilica have long been told to cover-up, but the dress-code is now extended to St. Peter’s Square (the border between Rome and Vatican City), and prohibits bare shoulders, skirts above the knee and shorts.

This week, guards have started pulling aside men in shorts and women with bare shoulders and told they were not dressed appropriately. Some women are being told to buy shawls and scarves (a genius move for upping income in the area, if we might say) and men were told to buy pants nearby.

Maria, an Italian visitor, called the Vatican out to the Daily Mail: “Given all the scandals the Church has been involved in, what right can it have to be preaching about the morality of sleeveless dresses?”

snarkerati.com/celebrity-gossip/rihanna-banned-from-catholic-church-for-dress-code/

September 30th, 2009 - Written by Roberta
Rihanna Banned From Catholic Church For Dress Code

Rihanna was in Venice over the weekend to attend her manager’s wedding when she decided to stop at Saint Mark’s Basilica in the Piazza San Marco.

She was turned away from the historic church, due to what she was wearing, which was a tight dress that showed off her shoulders along with a leopard print bra.

The church has rules that state that the patrons must wear clothing that covers their shoulders and legs. Not letting that stop her, RiRi went to the nearest restaurant and borrowed some tablecloths and wore them over her shoulders.

gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/catholic-church-lays-down-dress-code-1.185765

Catholic church lays down dress code
The Archdiocese of Manila has issued a dress code that calls on the faithful to present themselves in formal and more conservative attire when attending mass, a local paper said.

By Barbara Mae Dacanay, Bureau Chief
Published: 23:30 June 25, 2007

Manila: The Archdiocese of Manila has issued a dress code that calls on the faithful to present themselves in formal and more conservative attire when attending mass, a local paper said.

In a circular sent to parish priests on Sunday, Father Godwin Tatlonghari, assistant minister of the archdiocese’s Ministry of Liturgical Affairs (MLA), said a new dress code was being imposed following complaints from worshippers that the slack dress sense of some was proving to be disturbing, the Star said.

Male Catholics should wear “long-sleeved polo shirts, collared shirts, or t-shirts paired with either slacks or jeans”, the circular directed, advising against wearing caps, basketball jerseys, tank tops, and shorts to church.

Women were told to stick to dresses, long gowns, or collared blouses as against spaghetti-strap tops, tank tops, short skirts, skimpy shorts and sleeveless shirts with plunging necklines, the MLA stipulated.

Carefully crafted

Corporate attire and school uniforms are also allowed inside the church, the MLA said, adding that the guidelines were “carefully crafted” in deference to requests from thousands of conservative people and priests.

“They usually cite the increasing number of people who come to church to attend Mass or other liturgical functions garbed in a way that disrespects the sanctity of the House of God and the sacredness of the liturgical celebration,” Tatlonghari said.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24797

New Mass dress code seen as reasonable to some, unacceptable to others
7/24/2007
UCANews (www.ucanews.com)
MANILA, Philippines (UCAN) – Women are refraining from wearing shorts and clothes with plunging necklines to church, but others believe people should dress as they please, despite Manila Archdiocese’s new guidelines on proper Mass attire.

Lanelyn Carillo, a 30-year-old office worker, says she became “conscious” of the way she dresses for Mass after seeing a poster outside the church showing what is and what is not “appropriate attire.”

She told UCA News on July 5 after Mass at Saint John the Baptist Church in Quiapo, downtown Manila, she used to go to Mass in jeans and a shirt, but she carefully picked a top with sleeves on that Sunday. “I believe the guidelines will strengthen” the respect Filipinos have for a “holy place,” she added.

Posters outside the church list and illustrate “proper attire” for Mass. Other parishes in the archdiocese have displayed the posters since June 19 when its Ministry for Liturgical Affairs (MLA) gave the guidelines to priests.

Men are asked to wear collared shirts with sleeves, and jeans or slacks, but caps, sports jerseys and shorts are “improper.” For women, collared blouses, dresses, skirts, “corporate or office attire or school uniforms” are advised.

The list also provides examples of “improper” attire for women at church – blouses with spaghetti straps or tank tops, miniskirts or skimpy shorts, sleeveless dresses or those with revealing necklines.

In Carillo’s view, there is “nothing wrong” with dressing up “the way you want yourself to be seen by others,” though such “freedom” has limits.

On July 6 at Our Lady of the Abandoned Church in Marikina City, east of Manila, 64-year-old Lito Limbo criticized the dress code as an “unacceptable” imposition. “What is in the person’s heart is more important,” he told UCA News. Limbo also expressed concern that the dress code would lead to a further “decline” in the number of churchgoers.

The Church’s National Filipino Catholic Youth Survey of 2002 described most Filipino Catholic youths as “nominal Catholics.” Some 44.9 percent of Catholic Filipinos aged 13-39 reported “seldom practicing their faith,” and up to 3.8 percent said they “never practice their faith.” The survey defined “nominal Catholics” as people living their faith in a “personal way,” such as by praying or doing good deeds, yet “very seldom” going to church for Mass.

But Tonton Casado, an MLA program assistant, told UCA News on July 19 that parishioners asked the MLA in June to issue guidelines on proper Mass attire.

Priests shared the feedback of parishioners at archdiocesan clergy meetings before deciding to draft the guidelines. Father Godwin Tatlonghari, MLA’s assistant minister, issued a circular letter containing the guidelines on June 19 to parish priests, chaplains and shrine rectors in the archdiocese.

According to the circular, parishioners themselves had asked priests to take note of the “increasing number” of people attending Mass and other church functions “garbed in a way that disrespects the sanctity of the House of God and the sacredness of the liturgical celebration.”

Corazon Yamsuan, Manila Archdiocese’s communications director, told UCA News on July 13 that the liturgical ministry did not discuss sanctions, such as refusing Communion or entry to churches. “Parishes may choose to just talk individually to those who are not in proper attire, but only to remind them,” Yamsuan said. The guidelines were issued as a “reminder” to churchgoers about the “proper attitude” or “disposition” in church and at Mass, she explained.

The media have discussed questions about penalties parishioners may face.

In Cebu City, 565 kilometers (about 350 miles) southeast of Manila, Monsignor Esteban Binghay told reporters that pastors tend to be “considerate” about how people dress depending on their situation. If the church is near a park or public place, he said, people understandably come to Mass dressed for a picnic.

He also said that some laborers, especially in the construction industry, work even on Sundays and want to attend Mass. He said undershirts and shorts may seem “improper” in one context but are alright in another. He stressed that improper dress could “distract” the congregation but is not sinful.

Msgr. Cayetano Gerbolingo, Cebu cathedral’s administrator, told UCA News that he favors giving parishioners “fatherly advice” and cautions priests against “humiliating” Massgoers.

---

Republished by Catholic Online with permission of the Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News), the world’s largest Asian church news agency (www.ucanews.com).

 

[Serap]

Joseph,

Unfortunately, no matter how much you bark and post this information, people are going to continue to dress in a way that you don’t like (to mass).

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

ucanews.com/2010/09/20/colombo-cathedral-enforces-strict-dress-code/

Colombo, Sri Lanka

**Colombo cathedral enforces dress code **
Published Date: September 20, 2010

By ucanews.com reporter, Colombo

Priests at St Lucia’s Cathedral in Colombo are insisting that young women cover their heads while at Mass.

The move is part of a drive to have churchgoers dress appropriately during religious ceremonies.

Many Catholics have complained that churchgoers in Colombo turn up for services in short skirts, halter tops, low cut blouses and shorts.

In a recent Sunday homily, Father John Paul Vinoth, an assistant parish priest at the cathedral, said that modest dressing would help create an atmosphere that is more “conducive to a spiritual experience.”

Appropriate dress in church is as important as flowers, decorations and incense in creating the right setting, he said. “It is essentially preparing a devotee for coming to church,” Father Vinoth added.

Meanwhile, the administrator of the Madhu Marian shrine has also appealed to pilgrims to dress modestly.

“Modest dress is beginning to disappear,” said Father Anthony Victor Sosai, who is also vicar general of Mannar diocese.

The shrine follows traditional Catholic norms and customs on dress, Father Sosai said, noting that Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim places of worship have enforced a strict dress code for centuries.

Laypeople have also expressed concern over declining dress standards.

“Who is going stop these abuses in churches?” asked Lawrance Gonsalvaz Coonghe, a senior Catholic reporter.

ucanews.com/2009/01/12/calls-for-women-to-cover-up-at-cathedral/

**Calls For Women To Cover Up At Cathedral **
Published Date: January 12, 2009

The clothing some young women wear to Mass at Colombo´s main Catholic Church is attracting attention, judging by the messages on the notice board asking them to dress more modestly.

Women cover their heads during while receiving communion at St. Lucia’s Cathedral in Colombo on Dec. 28, after priests called for more modest attire for Massgoers.

Father Tony Martyn, appointed parish priest of St. Lucia´s Cathedral in 2006, says Sunday Mass there has become something of a women´s fashion parade. This may have silent admirers, but it definitely has others frowning.

“Modesty is a virtue not limited to conduct, gestures, language, reading and thought, but also to clothing,” Father Martyn told UCA News at the end of December.

“Here they (people) meet God,” the priest said.

Three priests at the cathedral and some parishioners complain that some young women come to church in revealing short skirts, halter tops and low-cut blouses. This creates an unpleasant atmosphere, sets a bad example for youngsters and distracts many people, especially young men, they maintain. They also say little was done about the situation in the past.

Since November, however, some parishioners have distributed head veils free of charge to women, especially the young, to be worn during church services. Women traditionally wore a head covering to church, but the practice has slipped.

Meanwhile, the cathedral notice board shows pictures of modest dress as well as signs parishioners have put up calling on women to dress modestly and all parishioners not to dress extravagantly. Some signs appeal to parents to educate children about this. “Begin early,” one said.

“Though it is not an alarming situation, I am embarrassed by the harsh criticism from parishioners about the growing immodest dress in the church,” Father Martyn said.

According to Father Anthony Joseph, an assistant priest at the cathedral, the slipping dress standards have prompted people to compare Catholics with Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, who tend to dress more modestly for worship.

Women cover their heads during while receiving communion at St. Lucia’s Cathedral in Colombo on Dec. 28, after priests called for more modest attire for Massgoers.

Father Joseph cited Saint Paul´s admonition against extravagant dress in his First Letter to Timothy.

A retired school principal, who gave her name as Rasamma, said she believes many women are ready to listen to what is being suggested, that the way some dress is making it hard for others to concentrate on praying. Still, she emphasized that the church is leaving women free to dress as they wish.

Father Joseph too sees at least some success with the unofficial cover-up campaign.

He estimates that now about 90 percent of Tamil women cover their heads with a veil or the cloth of their sari when they receive Communion, instead of 20 percent earlier, while women attending the Sinhalese and English Masses have yet to follow suit. Besides the veils distributed free for Mass use, stacks of black and white veils are available for purchase at a rosary stall for 150 rupees (US$1.50) each.

More than 5,000 catholics attend the five Sunday Masses at the cathedral — three in English and one each in Sinhalese and Tamil.