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

[Debora123]

*"Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness… There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest… Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person… The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person…” *

Ah yes, finally someone refers to an actual contemporary Vatican II pope on this issue. It’s about time. Thank you SO much.

I think what the late pope is trying to say here is that there is no specific “rule” for what is and is not modest. Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness
There is a time and a place for what is and is not appropriate. *There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest… *
And just because a man might look at a woman and appreciate the beauty of her body, does not mean that it is LUST, and therefore does not mean that it is sinful. The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general

I think that it is safe to say that it is completely ok for a women to wear shorts and a tank top on a hot day, and a bikini to the beach/pool. After all, this is just a matter of practicality. If she were to go overboard, and for example, buy a thong bikini, or wear shorts that clearly show more than just the legs, or wear a tank top that is down to the middle of the cleavage to where you can almost see the nipple, THEN that’s where we have a problem. Because that person is CLEARLY going out of her way to show off the private parts of her body when it is completely unnecessary and impractical. There’s a certain intent there, and people will pick up on it. *Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person… *

So finally, here is the truth. Thank goodness for Pope John Paul II. He has played such a crucial role in Catholicism during these times.

 

[C_S_P_B]

Debora123:

I think that it is safe to say that it is completely ok for a women to wear shorts and a tank top on a hot day, and a bikini to the beach/pool. After all, this is just a matter of practicality. If she were to go overboard, and for example, buy a thong bikini, or wear shorts that clearly show more than just the legs, or wear a tank top that is down to the middle of the cleavage to where you can almost see the nipple, THEN that’s where we have a problem. Because that person is CLEARLY going out of her way to show off the private parts of her body when it is completely unnecessary and impractical. There’s a certain intent there, and people will pick up on it. *Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person… *

Of course actions and intent are critical. Some women do act in a “flagrent” manner irrespective of their dress or have intent while seemingy acting prim and proper. Some men think whatever regardless of how a woman is dressed. No one gets a “free pass” but you have well defined what is “over-the-top.”

It really doesn’t work to be responsible for the potential or actual sins of others.

 

[spunjalebi]

I know I said I was done with this thread, and now that I’ve cooled off during since the creation of the last 5 or so pages, I think there needs to be certain things pointed out.

I hit a couple epiphanies since I last posted. The first one was when I was at a different church (for other and necessary purposes) and the pastor talked about the story of the Pharisees and Jesus, where Jesus pointed out that in their fine robes they were still hypocrites. I would like to know where in Catholic teaching, and also in the Bible, does it say that Christian need to don finery in order to go to church? So maybe certain t-shirts and jeans are inappropriate; I wouldn’t argue that jeans with rips and stains are inappropriate unless you came straight from a construction job, going to church. I want to know where this “suit and tie/nice dress” business came from. Seriously. Or are we just taking certain verses out of the Bible to justify what we are saying? If anyone wants to show up to church wearing a suit, by all means do so. But don’t pass judgment on others for not doing so. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s kind of like the head coverings thing. I have witnessed SO much judging when it came to headcoverings that people don’t realize it’s a matter of individual conviction. Just because I may wear a headcovering doesn’t mean the next woman who doesn’t is in sin. Sheesh.

And I want to know where this “modest clothing on a woman means no jeans or anything more than 2 fingerwidth’s breadth from the neck” business came from considering the fact that Vatican II has already passed and our late Pope JP II made generous and gracious strides to bring body issues back to a healthy yet Christian context. I see comments here at CAF in the board and user groups about how women are “dressing as men” because many of us like to wear jeans, pants, and t-shirts. The argument continues with how men shouldn’t dress like women. Tell me, really…don’t people realize how offensive these statements would be to people of other cultures? Honestly it’s issues like modesty which are discussed in this close-minded, hegemonic, ethnocentric viewpoint which really really grinds me. Since when has all of Christendom existed within the context of Caucasian, Westernized culture? Hmm?? And even people who are Christian and Caucasian wear items which many would consider “wrong”-- men in Scotland wearing kilts for instance, and Scotland happens to have a rather large Catholic faith population. Or as I’ve mentioned, what about people from Asian countries? Is wearing a shirwani just another effeminate item of clothing? Because I can tell you from experience, any Indian woman who calls that a dress and tries to wear it would get laughed at. There are times where I really wonder if people in the U.S. especially forget that they aren’t the only ones who exist, and don’t have the only culture that exists. And furthermore, many cultures consider US to be immodest, even with our long dresses!

If a woman wants to wear dresses only, skirts only, etc. by all means do so, don’t let anyone stop you. But please, don’t think that because other women don’t follow your guidebook for style means they are dressing like men and are immodest.

I was watching What Not To Wear with Stacy and Clinton (the hosts). And the person getting a style makeover actually was a female Episcopalian priest who made it obvious that being modest and dressing in a way that would not offend herself or project a poor image on the church was very important. The hosts told her that it was okay to have an appropriate style and to acknowledge that she was also a woman. As they said “You don’t have to dress like a hoochie-mama, you don’t have to flaunt it, but you can’t deny what’s there.”

A lot of comments from this thread have implied that women should deny what exists, yet they set out the dichotomy of wearing “feminine” clothing.

 

[Serap]

Thank you all so much for quoting JP II’s quotes on human sexuality and modesty. It was very enlightening and I appreciate it so so much!!!

It made so much sense and I realized that these modesty threads are always going to attract traditionalists who don’t accept Vatican II. That is a shame, b/c Pope JP II made so many beautiful strides to aid women and make them seem all the more beautiful and less shameful.

I understand things so much better now!!! :extrahappy: I was getting angry and personally offended b/c I was being made to feel that my beauty was somehow shameful and should be hidden (I sound so conceited right now LOL). Only on CAF will I admit it

It is so evident that Pope JP II loved women as much as Jesus did and I really believe that Jesus was writing to women using Pope JP II as a vessel. Jesus loved women; Jesus never shamed women or belittled them into creatures that caused near occassion of sin.

C S P B - or whatever your name is…also explained so much about men too!!! I volunteer at my church and bring my kids with me. I find that quite a few men (including married men) are attracted to me and CSPB explained things so eloquently. These men that find me attractive are probably looking at me as a whole person…a good mother, intelligent, educated, pretty, modestly dressed, but still very feminine. They are not lusting after me. Not one of them has EVER said anything disrespectful to me. A couple have, however, pulled my husband aside and told him that I am beautiful and that he is very lucky

I’m so glad that I stuck it out on this thread until I finally understood modesty and lust better.

THANKS THANK YOU THANKS THANK YOU

Moderator: Thanks for not closing this thread!!!

 

[spunjalebi]

Serap, don’t feel bad. I hardly do anything to attract attention-- in fact, I make all attempts to blend in, but when you live in the Midwest and have olive tan skin, and long dark hair it’s a little difficult. Yet when I would be at work, such as in retail and also at a front desk, men would tell me I was beautiful. It was rather embarrassing for me too…I could practically feel my face get red, and well most Asians don’t blush that much

Men are probably attracted to you because you seem like such a strong, put-together women. My husband always tells me that men won’t admit it, but they find intelligence and assertiveness (NOT aggressiveness, there’s a difference there folks) attractive and if you’ve got a pretty face and nice body, it’s even more icing on the cake. By no means does being naturally attractive=sin.

I think there needs to be a fair balance of appreciating beauty and the body, and understanding when the body needs to be covered in order to respect it.

I do think it’s funny when people go off about women not dressing feminine or modest because they don’t wear dresses and skirts, yet people also don’t seem to realize that dresses and skirts are meant to highlight what is feminine on a woman’s body. I hardly wear dresses. After my wedding day (I wore a dress) people later on commented to me about how my boobs were so huge and how they couldn’t believe they were so big. I couldn’t believe people kept looking there, instead of the ornate embroidery and lace on my dress. :dts: I even went out of my way to pay extra money for the alterations people to put straps on my dress and adjust it so it covered more skin.

I find a lot of this debate quite scary…it shows how some people fail to acknowledge the current world we live in. In real life, I have never met a Catholic who was anti-Vatican II and thought women should only be allowed to wear dresses and skirts, yet I’ve met many Protestants who believed that’s all women should be allowed to wear, and you were still under the authority of your father or any man even if you were on your own living as an adult well over the age of 21, but were unmarried. Do these threads just happen to attract certain types of people or something?

 

[edwest2]

The current world we live in is grossly immodest and has established a bad precedent. The calendar has nothing to do with reality. What? When the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, do you think knowledge or wisdom poured into anybody’s head? I don’t think so.

The Church has established certain standards and we should abide by them at all times. Period. I’m not going to follow what society regards as “acceptable” today.

No more trips to the beach.

Certain magazines are right out.

And most television programs are right out.

I think Catholics should wake up to the fact that we have been gradually taught by the media over the last 40 years that immodest dress and behavior are perfectly acceptable. They are not.

God bless,
Ed

 

[CountrySinger]

Do these threads just happen to attract certain types of people or something?

Yes they do. Scary types of people. Even the most innocent statement can set them off. Like this:

I wore a Brad Paisley concert t-shirt and baggy jeans while running errands.

Just wait, I will be condemned to Hell. Or be told I’m not truly Catholic. Or have a Catechism thrown at me.

 

[Serap]

The current world we live in is grossly immodest and has established a bad precedent. The calendar has nothing to do with reality. What? When the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, do you think knowledge or wisdom poured into anybody’s head? I don’t think so.

The Church has established certain standards and we should abide by them at all times. Period. I’m not going to follow what society regards as “acceptable” today.

No more trips to the beach.

Certain magazines are right out.

And most television programs are right out.

I think Catholics should wake up to the fact that we have been gradually taught by the media over the last 40 years that immodest dress and behavior are perfectly acceptable. They are not.

God bless,
Ed

Yes, but I believe that none of us here are dressing immodestly. Like pope JP II said: not to expose skin as such to degrade the body. I highly doubt that any of us are doing this.

All of us agree that society has been erroded of it’s integrity, but we are not taking part in it. I would agree that most of us ARE dressing modestly who are active in this thread.

I had a woman on this thread accuse me of being proud of being sleazy for wearing a halter top and fitted pants to a NYE party. All of my body parts were covered…no cleavage, no lines, no nothing…just the shape of my body was exposed and parts of my shoulder and the top of my back. I think a line has to be drawn where people become too scrupulous and judgemental.

 

[Iheartcoffee]

I think that the manner in which clothes are worn has a lot to do with their modesty. There are styles of pants that are inherently female (think women’s slacks and women’s jeans) and there are “skirts” that are male such as kilts. I realize a kilt is not a skirt because I am part Scottish myself, but let’s be honest, it is skirt-like and yet no one has deemed it cross-dressing.

I don’t think that being modest means we have to throw out our culture’s fashions completely. Honestly, I think t-shirts and jeans, while a bit sloppy, are a wonderful thing because it is something that young people can wear and fit in while keeping covered! I think Christians are called to Christianize society and this means embracing the parts of society that fit within our morals such as promoting jeans and a t-shirt as proper attire for going to the grocery store. Christians have “Christianized” societies this way for centuries through making a pagan festival into All Hallows Eve and putting Christmas and Easter right in during pagan festival times in order to inject Christianity without completely blindsiding the culture.

Rather than abandoning pants and going to some kind of Amish attire, let’s take what is popular and modest in society (like t-shirts) and put Christian messages on them.

 

[Debora123]

The current world we live in is grossly immodest and has established a bad precedent. The calendar has nothing to do with reality. What? When the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, do you think knowledge or wisdom poured into anybody’s head? I don’t think so.

The Church has established certain standards and we should abide by them at all times. Period. I’m not going to follow what society regards as “acceptable” today.

No more trips to the beach.

Certain magazines are right out.

And most television programs are right out.

I think Catholics should wake up to the fact that we have been gradually taught by the media over the last 40 years that immodest dress and behavior are perfectly acceptable. They are not.

God bless,
Ed

Interesting. I wonder why JPII never mentioned this when he was writing about modesty? And this certainly isn’t the impression I got from him on the subject. I like his better.

 

[Debora123]

I find a lot of this debate quite scary…it shows how some people fail to acknowledge the current world we live in. In real life, I have never met a Catholic who was anti-Vatican II and thought women should only be allowed to wear dresses and skirts, yet I’ve met many Protestants who believed that’s all women should be allowed to wear, and you were still under the authority of your father or any man even if you were on your own living as an adult well over the age of 21, but were unmarried. Do these threads just happen to attract certain types of people or something?

Oh my gosh, I KNOW!! I have never in my LIFE met any catholic like some of the people I have come across with on this forum… especially on this board. I was completely dumbfounded when I saw all of this. It’s been really disappointing.

And SERAP, I totally get what you mean about “feeling bad.” As a women I felt pretty degraded too when i read some of the things some people were saying on here. I felt like they were trying to tell me my body was “too wrong” or “too sinful” to the point where I had to cover it all up and give up doing many of the things I love - such as enjoying the heat, feeling beautiful/attractive, sun bathing, going swimming, playing sports… having a LIFE! I am glad JPII sees us women as actual human beings instead of a bunch of “occasions of sin” walking around.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Deborah, I wouldn’t worry about it. =/ People are too uptight about this.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Anyway, I am actually pleased Joseph L. Varga, that you clarified your earlier remarks. I had gotten the impression from you earlier that you thought the Vatican dress code should indeed be applied to every day life. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

Oops, ToeInTheWater, sorry for creating confusion. I was only interested in the dress code when visiting Catholic churches, but I wasn’t clear enough in my posts. I started to realize that confusions can easily arise regarding inside church vs. outside in the everyday life, when I read Mrs. BingoBoy’s post.

Now, St. Peter’s Basilica, the hundreds of churches in Rome that belong to the Diocese of the Bishop of Rome (Pope = Bishop of Rome), and the Catholic churches across Italy and Europe always had a dress code, and they always enforced it. If they didn’t enforce it, it was simply because they couldn’t afford to put guards and enforcers at their entrances. So, that’s a given. But why did Pope Benedict expand this dress code to the Vatican City, recently in July 2010? I don’t have an answer, but I found something that could explain, at least in part, why he did it - please see the bolded parts in the following news article:

independent.ie/world-news/europe/vatican-under-fire-over-new-rules-on-modesty-2275737.html

THE Vatican was criticised after taking action against tourists wearing skimpy clothes.

Tourists entering St Peter’s Basilica have long been required to dress modestly, but yesterday the Swiss Guards – the Pope’s security force – appeared to have extended the rules to the entire Vatican City state.

The guards drew aside men in shorts and women with uncovered shoulders and short skirts to tell them that they were not dressed properly.

Some female visitors bought shawls and scarves from hawkers, while a few men had to go to nearby shops to buy long trousers. Others were refused entry altogether.

…

The tough dress code also applied to Romans using the Vatican’s pharmacy, supermarket and post office.

Adherence to the strict dress code has frayed tempers in the past – especially when the summer temperatures soar.

Stall-holders have always managed to make a living through the sale of paper pants and shirts --** turning St Peter’s Square into an giant open-air changing room.**

It is not entirely unheard of for the precincts to be turned into something of a battle zone as fraying nerves give way and the language becomes anything but holy.

Landmarks

Rome’s policemen have also been out in force to ensure tourists don’t cool their feet in the Trevi Fountain and other landmarks.

At the Vatican, authorities have erected signs showing no one can enter the basilica with bare legs and bare shoulders. Guards, neatly dressed in shirts and ties, patrol the entrances.

There had been some confusion as to when the code had to be obeyed. Some thought that the dress code only applied when the Pope was at home.

It is not only the Vatican, but the diocese of Rome and its hundreds of churches, that require what authorities consider ‘appropriate’ dress. But unlike the Vatican, most of the churches cannot afford guards, and they have become cool refuges for the barely-clad.

Some tourists do come prepared, pulling out pants and shirts from backpacks and changing in St Peter’s Square, often prompting cat calls. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

• Nick Squires in Rome

Irish Independent

St. Peter’s Basilica, together with St. Peter’s Square, is a pilgrimage site. People travel there to pray in front of the thomb of St. Peter the Apostle, and to meet the Pope and receive his Papal Blessing. The Pope gives his annual “Urbi et Orbi” blessing on the pilgrims gathered on St. Peter’s Square, from the window of his apartment. When Pope John Paul II was dying in his apartment, with a breathing tube inserted down his trachea, thousands of pilgrims were praying on St Peter’s Square, below the windows of his apartment. It’s all happening on St. Peter’s Square. Popes have used St. Peter’s Square to meet the pilgrims there, and to bless them there. Pope John Paul II was shot and almost died on such an occasion (May 13, 1981). St. Peter’s Square is a place where the sacramental life of the Church takes place, it’s a place for pilgrimage and prayer, and it’s totally gross to use it as a “changing room”, to change in and out of shorts, tank tops, and whatnot. Maybe, expanding modest dress code to the whole Vatican city had to do something with restoring decency and decorum on St. Peter’s Square, and creating again a milieu free of distractions for the pilgrims who travel there. The rights of the pilgrims, their opportunity to be able to exercise their religious life and religious practice free of distractions simply trumps any other considerations at a pilgrimage site.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

First of all, thank you to all who brought JP II into the discussion.

“Very often, a woman does not regard a particular way of dressing as shameless . . . although some man, or indeed many men, may find it so” (p. 189).
Karol Wojtyla, *Love and Responsibility *
Women long to be loved and noticed as who they are as a person–our true value–as many of you pointed out. But JP II also stresses that when women dress immodestly it is hard for her to be accepted and seen in this way. In other words, wearing a bikini to the beach or a mini skirt to the mall, I may be deliberately eliciting a sexual reaction to my body. We women need to choose what we wear carefully. I can go swimming, hiking, do the things I love, etc, but when I choose modesty in dress, I am protecting who *I * am as well as not wanting to be seen as an “object of pleasure” by those around me. I want to be seen to my core, a book to be read, a flower to be admired, all those things. And people will see that represented in my dress. But when most of my body is exposed–save a few parts–is my person-hood going to be noticed as JP II said…or just my flesh?

You are all beautiful–inside and out! Remember that! And if you take anything from this thread, let it be God calling you to step out of yourself and really think about how your dress is affecting your everyday life with others, and with yourself. God bless each and every one of you!

Also, please try to stay charitable in everything you say! :grouphug:
(We don’t want to scare people away! )

Therese

 

[Serap]

When I was in Florence, I was given a paper outfit to wear to cover my shorts when entering Maria di Fiori cathedral. I was definitely not dressed immodestly, but I was dressed inappropriately to enter this beautiful church.

Shorts are not immodest (as long as they cover up modestly), but showing up at a wedding in shorts would be inappropriate.

I also do not feel that bikinis are immodest at the beach (as a poster just mentioned) as long as they cover the body appropriately. I think the separation needs to be made between modesty and what’s appropriate.

I personally now feel uncomfortable in a bikini b/c I just had my second baby and so I currently have a very feminine one piece. I however, do not look at other women wearing bikinis (at the beach) as though they are pieces of meat or immoral. I asked my husband today if he thought bikinis were immodest at the beach and he laughed at me saying of course not.

If a woman is beautiful, she’s beautiful no matter what swimsuit she wears. Should I get angry with her for being beautiful and blame her for men looking at her? Of course not. God made her that way and if a beautiful woman wears a bathing suit; bikini or one piece; men are going to look at her and admire her beauty. She is not immodest if she is wearing an appropriate one piece OR two piece. If she is not walking with swagger, then she is also acting modest. She is just beautiful.

However, a string bikini that barely covers the bum and breasts would be immodest b/c this woman is going out of her way to show off her body in an immodest fashion. If she’s walking with swagger, then her actions are immodest also.

I think this is what our late pope JP II is implying. It’s about the woman making the effort to show appropriate amounts of skin and acting modestly.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I think the separation needs to be made between modesty and what’s appropriate.

Most definitely that separation should be made. But many times, modesty and appropriateness go together as well as immodesty and inappropriateness.

I think this is what our late pope JP II is implying. It’s about the woman making the effort to show appropriate amounts of skin and acting modestly.

Now, Serap, you said “appropriate amounts of skin”…what do you mean by that? I never said shorts are immodest so long as they have the appropriate length. I never said bathing suits were immodest so long as they have an appropriate cover over your body.

Let’s focus on bikinis. Bikini’s are never modest–that’s not my opinion. They are meant to expose a lot of skin and this crosses the lines of both modesty and appropriateness for just a fun day sitting by the water. Nobody needs to see a young woman at the beach in intimate wear like that–intimate wear that should only be worn in a dressing room as you’re changing your clothes. I don’t know about your husband, but my dad along with my brothers and close guy friends all know good and well what’s going off in their brains when they see a woman in a bikini pass by–and most of us women witness their reaction. Another thing JP II pointed out. It’s human nature.

JP II was talking about sexual shame. A woman in a bikini can be beautiful but does that mean she should be walking around with (and you must admit it) A LOT of skin exposed–the exposure at which can make her subjected to a sexual reaction to her body? If that’s the kind of beauty she’s looking to be admired for on the beach, then maybe she should read JP II’s book. Her beauty can also be admired if she wore a long flowing sun dress; only this time she is less likely to be seen as an “object of pleasure” as I said before.

I am not judging women who wear bikinis. Some women just don’t know. I’m not judging men who watch women in bikinis. Some men just don’t know. But we know. And that’s why we haven’t given up on this thread yet…at least that’s why I haven’t (even though I’ve been very upset by some of the comments made.) Souls are on the line here. And yes, there is no official Church doctrine on what is right for women to wear, but there is plenty of doctrine on what sin is.

God bless

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Not only does it restrict our lives (by keeping us from as much as going for a run on a hot day, or swimming), but it gives us the impression that our bodies are nothing but occasions of sin, and it gives men the impression that looking at a woman and being attracted to her God given beauty is lustful, when in reality, it isn’t lustful at all. It is the first step to the process of bringing new life into the world. And it is a great thing.

Hi BingoBoy (or BingoBoy’s wife)

JP II talked a lot about how beautiful pro-creation is–as well as how beautifully made man and woman are. But he did not say or promote the idea of taking what should be shared in the privacy of a husband and wife’s bedroom and exposing that for the world to see. Some dress does that–and some Christians agree with this dress. I’m sure you’ll find in my posts and many others posts, there is a line of decency that is to be drawn and is key in many of the late pope’s works. He connects not only love but responsibility.

Modest dress does not have to “restrict” our lives either. I run. I swim.

God bless–and welcome!

 

[Ailina]

This thread makes me laugh. Women in Afghanistan are covered from head to foot to the point of invisibility, yet are the least respected women on the planet.

Some people look for any excuse to disrespect women.

 

[Serap]

This thread makes me laugh. Women in Afghanistan are covered from head to foot to the point of invisibility, yet are the least respected women on the planet.

Some people look for any excuse to disrespect women.

Thank you! Amen to that!!!

 

[Serap]

Let’s focus on bikinis. Bikini’s are never modest–that’s not my opinion. They are meant to expose a lot of skin and this crosses the lines of both modesty and appropriateness for just a fun day sitting by the water. Nobody needs to see a young woman at the beach in intimate wear like that–intimate wear that should only be worn in a dressing room as you’re changing your clothes. I don’t know about your husband, but my dad along with my brothers and close guy friends all know good and well what’s going off in their brains when they see a woman in a bikini pass by–and most of us women witness their reaction. Another thing JP II pointed out. It’s human nature.

Sorry, but the above IS your opinion. All of the above is YOUR opinion.

Let’s not make bad use of semantics to allow your opinions to come across as “fact”. That is misleading.

Do you have the “opinion” also that speedos are immodest too for men? So if a man is swimming in the Olympics in a Speedo, is he immodest? Why can’t he wear boxers???