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

[RachelKH]

women are weaker in body, men are weaker in withstanding temptations – this is what my priests and other male spiritual leaders have told me

doesn’t seem fair at all

it is what it is

 

[stccp]

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.

God does not change. What was true in the 17th century is just as true in the 20th or 21st. Remember what Our Lady said at Fatima in 1917. Many fashions will be introduced that will greatly offend Our Lord. ---- More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason. It seems to me that most of the objections to my post have one common element - PRIDE.

Would I be correct in assuming then that your are saying that you have no interest in helping men avoid sin? Perhaps the following quote from an old Catholic Girls guide would help.

The name of this particular book is “Hail Holy Queen, a Book of Prayer and Counsel for Catholic Girls and Women, the Roman Missal for Sundays”, by Fr. Charles J. Callan and Fr. John A. McHugh. They wrote the following:

“If the standards of morals in a country or age is low, you may be sure that it is because the women of that country or age are lax in their morals; for women, being naturally more virtuous than men, are looked up to by men as models in matters pertaining to modesty and purity. This is why the Church is so insistent that women be modest in their dress.” Pg 3

“A woman should never lose respect for her own body, for it is the work of God; it is the instrument and companion of her soul and the temple of the Holy Ghost, destined for future glorification.” Pg. 53

“A woman may not be expensively dressed, or wearing the latest “fad” clothing. She may not have those attractions which are most admired by the world; but if she has the virtues of modesty and purity, she has something that money cannot buy, a treasure which will outlast all the fading glitter of the world.” Pg.53

 

[stccp]

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.

Dear Miss Linda:

Thank you for your excellent reply and additional source of information. God bless

 

[stccp]

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!

Dear Serap. Have you considered the possibility that you have an incorrect understanding of the word “judging”. I am not judging interior motives, only external, objective actions.

Do you understand the difference between judging and admonishing? See below. My post is based upon the first three Spiritual Works of Mercy: admonish the sinner; instruct the ignorant and counsel the doubtful.

The Spiritual Works of Mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in spiritual necessities (CCC #2447), those being focused on getting a soul to Heaven. The seven Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

1. Admonish the sinner
2. Instruct the ignorant
3. Counsel the doubtful
4. Comfort the sorrowful
5. Bear wrongs patiently
6. Forgive all injuries
7. Pray for the living and the dead

When it comes to the subject of modesty and women’s dress, there is much ignorance and doubt as to what the Church has always taught. This is because, for the last 40 years, the shepherds have been silent on this subject.

 

[spunjalebi]

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.

It’s funny you mention that, because many of those dresses were also low-cut and showed cleavage

Everyone is responsible for their behavior to themselves, and to others. If a woman wears tight and revealing clothes in full personal knowledge that by doing so, she will cause men to look at her in order to let their imaginations run wild, she’s at fault. But a woman who dresses modestly and respectfully is not responsible for the man ogling her and wonders what she looks like underneath.

This topic is so ridiculous sometimes. The Bible clearly instructs us to treat each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. If you’re treating men like your brothers you wouldn’t parade around showing your goods, and if you’re a man treating women like your sisters, you wouldn’t be treating them like eye candy. It’s not just Biblical, but it’s also common sense. We don’t need trite rules from centuries afar to tell us what we would be doing. And we certainly don’t need to be condemning every woman who wears pants, jeans, and modest shorts either.

You’re right God doesn’t change, but it seems the way we have interpreted His Word to further our own agendas sure has.

 

[The_Bucket]

Stop with the insane use of logic and common sense there spunjalebi. It’s distressing and un-Biblical.

Or something.

Oh yeah, and if we men couldn’t move beyond our most primitive desires, why have we constructed grand civilizations, even created rules directly athwart them (Peace & Truce of God, for instance, and our modern law of course). You’d think the only thing we’d be doing is sitting slackjawed gazing at women like it’s a meat factory and pouncing whenever we could.

Ridiculous.

 

[EasterJoy]

There are also two sides to the “respect” coin, but both are covered in vanity.

Exposure of skin to sun is the normal means by which the body makes vitamin D. God intends for both women and men to at least have their bare arms exposed to the sun some of the time. Our health suffers if we don’t: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11804019

Besides, I don’t think one would find that men are more respectful of women in cold climates than in island cultures. It isn’t just how much one covers. It is how it is done and what men are taught concerning what particular clothing is meant to convey.

I don’t find it problematic that women have this part of their skin or that part of their skin covered. I find it problematic that both women and men in our culture are taught to select their clothing so as to be “sexy”.

Consider these dresses, from 1892:


Notice that while very little skin is left showing, the feminine features are exaggerated by the use of corsets (which, if faithfully worn, were often harmful to the women’s internal organs) and padding on the backside. Obviously, what one covers isn’t the whole story.

And yes, in the evening the necklines plunged. Don’t forget that high necks and gloves were as often meant not so much to be modest for the “public”, but also to keep skin snowy, luscious-looking, and wealthy for evening events…when one’s pastor would be nowhere to be seen. Showing skin during the day came about when wealthy women took on outdoor leisure and tans were seen as “healthy-looking”, rather than a sign that a woman’s family couldn’t afford enough farm hands to get the work done. " Do not stare at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has burned me. My brothers have been angry with me; they charged me with the care of the vineyards: my own vineyard I have not cared for. Song 1:6There have even been periods when women took arsenic in order to make their skin particularly pallid.

There is a huge middle ground between making a woman’s body indistinguishable under a billowing pile of clothing and making choices in fabric, cut, and drape which are precisely defined to inflame desire or coveteousness of other people in one’s own culture. How much money is spent every year with the goal that we, male and female, will feel good about ourselves on account of our ability to tempt others to covet either our bodies, our spouses’ bodies, or our bank accounts? We look in the mirror and want to see an object of desire, and usually we don’t want that desire to “only” be in our spouses. We want the whole world to either want to have us or else want to be us. If we don’t, that is good…but someone in the advertising world will see that as a failure.

This is what I mean by the coin having two sides: We are always told that modesty is about protecting men from lust, but modesty is not only about women keeping men from impure thoughts. It is about rejection of all sorts of vanity and vain competitions. If you dress not in a way that a man would notice but in a way that you calculate will make your friends green with envy or even that will make Heaven hold you up as a good example to them, do not think you are practicing modesty!

I think the rule is this, then: If your clothing would be reasonably likely to make another person think a thought that starts with “I want”, then dial it down at least a notch. Modesty, by definition, does not aim to provoke envy, lust or coveteousness. Pride, or vanity, aims for those things. Rather, our grooming and dress should give the impression that we care about others and value them, not that we’re trying to impress them, compete with them, or seduce them. Slovenly dressing may not be seductive, but it is not necessarily virtuous, either. It just says, “You aren’t worth the effort.” That is not modesty, either.

I think that defines the line between being provocative and merely being well-groomed. Having said that, there is always going to be some prudence required in deciding to what degree a) exposure of skin, b) falsification or vulgar suggestion of what is left unexposed, and c) the combination of exposure and falsification that is made possible with make-up crosses that line.

 

[EasterJoy]

women are weaker in body, men are weaker in withstanding temptations – this is what my priests and other male spiritual leaders have told me

doesn’t seem fair at all

it is what it is

Men are weaker in withstanding tempations? What hogwash! It makes one wonder if the priest’s female penitents have been doing thorough examinations of conscience. Men and women show off different things in order to seduce their friends into envying them and the opposite sex into coveting them, and differ in what they want out of their successes in that department. They don’t differ in being prone to attempts at seduction, or in self-indulgently falling for it.

Women are weaker in body? Only in power. Broadly speaking, women far exceed men in endurance, and are less prone to death at every stage of life, even before birth. That is what is, for what it is worth, which isn’t that much.

We are to make allowances for the weaknesses in others, which we all have, and avoid temptation, which we are all prone to. There are only gender differences in the particulars.

 

[Serap]

God does not change. What was true in the 17th century is just as true in the 20th or 21st. Remember what Our Lady said at Fatima in 1917. Many fashions will be introduced that will greatly offend Our Lord. ---- More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason. It seems to me that most of the objections to my post have one common element - PRIDE.

Would I be correct in assuming then that your are saying that you have no interest in helping men avoid sin? Perhaps the following quote from an old Catholic Girls guide would help.

The name of this particular book is “Hail Holy Queen, a Book of Prayer and Counsel for Catholic Girls and Women, the Roman Missal for Sundays”, by Fr. Charles J. Callan and Fr. John A. McHugh. They wrote the following:

“If the standards of morals in a country or age is low, you may be sure that it is because the women of that country or age are lax in their morals; for women, being naturally more virtuous than men, are looked up to by men as models in matters pertaining to modesty and purity. This is why the Church is so insistent that women be modest in their dress.” Pg 3

“A woman should never lose respect for her own body, for it is the work of God; it is the instrument and companion of her soul and the temple of the Holy Ghost, destined for future glorification.” Pg. 53

“A woman may not be expensively dressed, or wearing the latest “fad” clothing. She may not have those attractions which are most admired by the world; but if she has the virtues of modesty and purity, she has something that money cannot buy, a treasure which will outlast all the fading glitter of the world.” Pg.53

You are acting like a Pharisee. I just don’t like judgemental attitudes. You look at other women and think you are better…bottom line. Is that not true? Be honest about it.

 

[EasterJoy]

You are acting like a Pharisee. I just don’t like judgemental attitudes. You look at other women and think you are better…bottom line. Is that not true? Be honest about it.

Correct more explicitly. Please find where stccp explicitly said “I am better than that” or “this choice makes a person this kind of person” rather than “this is wrong” or “this fault leads to this sin” (which does not imply that the sin is always the result of that fault)

Let’s review what constitutes an inappropriately judgemental attitude.

“This act is sinful” is not a judgemental attitude, if the act objectively violates justice, charity, or that kind of thing. The Lord taught a lot about what was a sin and what wasn’t.

“This act is wrong, I have been given the job of deciding whether you committed it and to sentence based on how much you are culpable, and this is your penalty”: appropriate act of judgment

“These are my boundaries, what is acceptable or not, and these are the consequences for violating those boundaries” Assuming the boundaries are reasonable and within the jursidiction of the person: Appropriate act of judgement

“This act has bad consequences and we should encourage people to avoid it”: while the premise may be flawed, that would would be the problem. The mere act of talking in this manner is not an inappropriate act of judgement.

“This person is less than me because of his/her actions”: inappropriately judgemental

“If you would do this, you are a bad person”: inappropriately judgmental

“I only have to know what you did to know your heart”: inappropriately judgemental

“I only have to know what side of a question you are on to know what your agenda is and why” inappropriately judgemental

 

[EasterJoy]

Boldface mine:

You are acting like a Pharisee. I just don’t like judgemental attitudes. You look at other women and think you are better…bottom line. Is that not true? Be honest about it.

Based on your conclusion that you know what she thinks about other women because she says their behavior is objectively wrong, I would say that it is your attitude that is inappropriately judgmental. At least, I don’t see anywhere where she said that she was better than other women. Since you have to say “is that not true?” I don’t think you have direct evidence of what you’re accusing her of, either.

Please either correct where her standards are too strict, and explain why, or find where she directly exhibits a judgemental attitude, and point that out.

And please, can we quit with the Phariee epithet? It is really over-used.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I can put up with a lot, as long as I’m not cornered in. On the street, on the beach, at the supermarket I will look the other way, or stare at the floor. At the workplace, people will usually wear lab coats or other protective clothing - not really easy to make a fashion statement, while wearing a heavy chemical-resistant rubber apron. When watching TV - hey, I’ve got a real good remote control!

I only start to panic at church. If someone comes and sits right in front of me, dressed in a way that’s distracting to me, I will stand up and move somewhere else. I’m only sorry for the priest. He can’t run out of his own church.

 

[EasterJoy]

…not really easy to make a fashion statement, while wearing a heavy chemical-resistant rubber apron. …

And those close-toed shoes that you can wear all day while standing on an industrial floor are very fetching, too!

Come to think of it, this may explain a lot of the “fashion sense” on display at American Chemical Society meetings…

The problem with conditions that make it hard to dress provocatively is that they also make it harder to please the fashion police who insist that women must also always dress in a manner that is sufficiently “feminine.” I suppose they’d be OK with slacks hidden under a knee-length lab coat. (As if any of the female chemists I know would care two figs if they were OK or not!)

Speaking of respect for women, the ACS is famous among conventions as having attendees with such a low likelihood to frequent prostitutes that some of the red light districts essentially go on vacation when the ACS is in town. The chemists and chemical engineers don’t want to miss out on the beers after the talks are over, where they can hear about the really new science, instead of the old stuff that makes it into the talks. That’s what gets them excited, male and female alike.

Which brings to mind a joke:
Q: Why did the chemist get himself a mistress?
A: Because then he could tell his wife his was with his mistress, tell his mistress he was with his wife, and he could spend that much more time in lab!!!

 

[Samantha79]

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.

Well, the Church seemed to have no problem canonizing St Gianna Beretta Molla a few years ago and there are photos of her wearing sleeves above the elbow and GASP…ski pants!!!

 

[Samantha79]

Dear Miss Linda:

Thank you for your excellent reply and additional source of information. God bless

So, in light of this, was the Church in error by canonizing a female doctor that we have photos of in a dress with sleeves above her elbows and even wearing ski pants? St Gianna Beretta Molla??

Seriously people, I have never encountered such self-righteous opinons as those that pertain to what “women should wear”! How about men and women ALL go back to Biblical times and wear tunics and togas? Would that end the debate or would someone feel the need to start complaining that women were immodest because they stepped out of their home and their eyes were visible? Or they were wearing sandals and their big toe was visible?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Q: Why did the chemist get himself a mistress?
A: Because then he could tell his wife his was with his mistress, tell his mistress he was with his wife, and he could spend that much more time in lab!!!

In my world, when the peak is coming, it usually looks something like this:

View attachment 8275

You know what’s funny, I initially wrote about how nobody wears open-toe shoes at my workplace, but then I deleted it because I was afraid someone’s going to get really offended that I want to dress women in burqas…

…such as this one:

View attachment 8274

 

[vera_dicere]

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.

.

This is spot on!

A few months back I went with a friend who was getting married, into a bridal dress store. The dresses were very, very revealing, ie. no sleeves, plunging neck lines. When my friend asked for a more “modest” dress, the assisstant handed her a book of weddign dresses for “larger” women, the dresses in that were far from flattering and looked more like a shaggy tent! My friend was most distressed, and it was like that in all the shops she went into. Mind you, some of the larger lady dresses were also far from modest or appropriate.

I think she ended up getting her dress custom made by a friend.

 

[EasterJoy]

In my world, when the peak is coming, it usually looks something like this:

View attachment 8275

You know what’s funny, I initially wrote about how nobody wears open-toe shoes at my workplace, but then I deleted it because I was afraid someone’s going to get really offended that I want to dress women in burqas…

…such as this one:

View attachment 8274

I haven’t seen a chromatogram in so long, it’s like looking at prom pictures!

I get sweaty and claustrophobic just looking at that suit. It looks like a portable version of the Gulf Coast in summer. I’d rather be trapped in a glove box.

 

[Serap]

I am passing judgement I guess b/c I think most of you are acting self-righteous and like Pharasees. At least I am admitting that I am making judgements on you for acting superior and smug.

Shame on all of you who act so self-righteous.

I am a sinner; I sin everyday; I am prideful, selfish, and impatient. YOU too are sinners; YOU too sin everyday. How dare you point fingers and say “I’m not judging, it’s just wrong.” You ARE judging.

Wake-up and be proper Christians! Why are these threads even started in the first place

 

[RMW]

There are also two sides to the “respect” coin, but both are covered in vanity.

Exposure of skin to sun is the normal means by which the body makes vitamin D. God intends for both women and men to at least have their bare arms exposed to the sun some of the time. Our health suffers if we don’t: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11804019

Besides, I don’t think one would find that men are more respectful of women in cold climates than in island cultures. It isn’t just how much one covers. It is how it is done and what men are taught concerning what particular clothing is meant to convey.

I don’t find it problematic that women have this part of their skin or that part of their skin covered. I find it problematic that both women and men in our culture are taught to select their clothing so as to be “sexy”.

Consider these dresses, from 1892:

Notice that while very little skin is left showing, the feminine features are exaggerated by the use of corsets (which, if faithfully worn, were often harmful to the women’s internal organs) and padding on the backside. Obviously, what one covers isn’t the whole story.

And yes, in the evening the necklines plunged. Don’t forget that high necks and gloves were as often meant not so much to be modest for the “public”, but also to keep skin snowy, luscious-looking, and wealthy for evening events…when one’s pastor would be nowhere to be seen. Showing skin during the day came about when wealthy women took on outdoor leisure and tans were seen as “healthy-looking”, rather than a sign that a woman’s family couldn’t afford enough farm hands to get the work done. " Do not stare at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has burned me. My brothers have been angry with me; they charged me with the care of the vineyards: my own vineyard I have not cared for. Song 1:6There have even been periods when women took arsenic in order to make their skin particularly pallid.

There is a huge middle ground between making a woman’s body indistinguishable under a billowing pile of clothing and making choices in fabric, cut, and drape which are precisely defined to inflame desire or coveteousness of other people in one’s own culture. How much money is spent every year with the goal that we, male and female, will feel good about ourselves on account of our ability to tempt others to covet either our bodies, our spouses’ bodies, or our bank accounts? We look in the mirror and want to see an object of desire, and usually we don’t want that desire to “only” be in our spouses. We want the whole world to either want to have us or else want to be us. If we don’t, that is good…but someone in the advertising world will see that as a failure.

This is what I mean by the coin having two sides: We are always told that modesty is about protecting men from lust, but modesty is not only about women keeping men from impure thoughts. It is about rejection of all sorts of vanity and vain competitions. If you dress not in a way that a man would notice but in a way that you calculate will make your friends green with envy or even that will make Heaven hold you up as a good example to them, do not think you are practicing modesty!

Thank you, EasterJoy for injecting reason and a charitable attitude into a thread which has heretofore sorely lacked both.
God bless you!