It's summer now. How much would you show your body?

[daeve]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m starting to have trouble discerning who is dead serious and who is making a joke.

But I’m still not wearing a hat unless my head is cold or my hair is dirty.

 

[BiologyBrain]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m starting to have trouble discerning who is dead serious and who is making a joke.

But I’m still not wearing a hat unless my head is cold or my hair is dirty.

I’m with you!

 

[SophieG]

I gotta ask–why all the hostility towards hats? I love hats! They keep you cool and shade your face in a way sunglasses can’t.

 

[lovemysix]

I gotta ask–why all the hostility towards hats? I love hats! They keep you cool and shade your face in a way sunglasses can’t.

Because of the hat hair I have after wearing one!!

 

[CB_Catholic]

I gotta ask–why all the hostility towards hats? I love hats! They keep you cool and shade your face in a way sunglasses can’t.

Nothing at all wrong with hats, and the hostility isn’t against the hats. It’s against the idea that if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she is being immodest.

When I grew up, (showing my age here), women wore hats to Church and just about anywhere else when they dressed up. Veils or mantillas for Church were rare in this part of the country, although scarves were popular. And the hats were often big and fancy, with decorations and feathers, flowers, etc. Kind of defeated the idea of modesty, because many women were rather vain about their hats. My Grandfather used to tease my Grandmother about her hats–he called them “salad bowls”, because they were that big, and always had some sort of vegetation on them. That kind of changed somewhere in the late 50’s or 60’s, if I recall correctly, when the pillbox and chapel veils became popular.

 

[daeve]

I am barely 5’ tall, and I look like a mushroom in most hats, and a gnome in the rest of them. They make my hair flat when I take them off, and I just don’t want to wear one. On those rare occassions I’ve been in Hawaii, Florida or the Bahamas, I happily wore a nice straw hat I bought back in about 1978. And I’ll wear it again if I ever get the chance to go to one of those places again. I wore a chapel veil or a beanie to Mass in grade school.

When my sister was about 3 or 4 and I was 4 years older, we were walking down the street to the market, which was across the street from the church. She wanted to go inside and say hi to Baby Jesus – the gorgeous Infant of Prague doll that had all these wonderful outfits. It was in a recessed glass case just inside the door of the church. She was insistent and the only thing I could think of to put on our heads were big dried leaves I picked up off the ground. I think that must color my attitude toward wearing a chapel veil now. I can remember seeing people with kleenex on their heads at Mass. My hair is a lot more respectful and reverent than a dried up maple leaf or a crumpled kleenex.

 

[BirdandBee]

Lobster,

Are you a teetotaler?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

If you are drawn to sin by looking at these attires then you are not a normal man… and society would not function if there were only men like you.
First thing to do is to learn to admire instead of lusting. And stop looking at the woman body as a sexual obejct.
I think saint Mary would have no problem with the shown attires… they celebrate the woman figure and there is nothing wrong with that per se…

skin of a young healthy woman would attract any man…this dosent make me abnormal it makes me human, its in my nature. Good thing I have pictures of saints and good role models too look at rather then these clothes that were made to show off women attributes. But hey, you can make excuses all you want, but Mama Mary (the most Pure Virgin) would not be okay with that style, it is inapropriate.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

I disagree w/ you very thoroughly! My mom, dad, husband, and fellow church members, while they may not be saints in any book, all think these articles of clothing are appropriate for summer wear. My mom & dad raised me to be aware of exposing too much skin than is appropriate for the situation. I tend to cover myself more than other girls my age - always have. As I said previously, there is nothing inherently immodest about those articles of clothing displayed on those pages. They can be worn immodestly if improperly fitted, altered, and/or worn in inappropriate settings (although that last is harder to judge). My main point is that in general, its not the clothes themselves that are immodest - its how they’re worn & presented by the wearer.

Well yeah, I can also wear a mini skirt myself but as long as I have pants that cover them nobody will know!

I’m not entirely sure what you meant by my God-given beauty making it ok. If it was an insult of some sort, puh-leaze! If it was in reference to my previous post where I indicate God gave us bodies so we can show His blessings, ok. Whatever, else you could have meant is beyond my comprehension right now.

Yes I was refering to your other post where you were making an excuse for wearing inappropriate attire because God bestowed beauty on you lol…funny kinda.

 

[BiologyBrain]

skin of a young healthy woman would attract any man…this dosent make me abnormal it makes me human, its in my nature. Good thing I have pictures of saints and good role models too look at rather then these clothes that were made to show off women attributes. But hey, you can make excuses all you want, but Mama Mary (the most Pure Virgin) would not be okay with that style, it is inapropriate.

So do the paintings of Eve naked attract you? What about the ones of Madonna nursing baby Jesus w/ her entire breast bared? What about the ones where the various female saints are wearing torn clothing showing their skin?

I’m hoping that its in the presentation, not just the skin. To think its normal for skin to attract a man to lust seems to me like relativism to the utmost! It also screams of blaming someone else for your own weakness. To a point, you’re right. There’s nothing wrong with admiring what God created - whether clothed fully or not. The problem comes in requiring the opposite sex to cover themselves completely so you can avoid your problems.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Yes I was refering to your other post where you were making an excuse for wearing inappropriate attire because God bestowed beauty on you lol…funny kinda.

I wasn’t making an excuse for wearing inappropriate b/c I think God bestowed beauty to me personally. I was making a reference to the fact that we are all created in His image and should be proud of it - regardless of our body-type. To intentionally hide our bodies beyond an appropriate level seems to me to be smacking God in the face and saying He didn’t know what He was doing when He designed our bodies. I never said anyone should wear inappropriate clothing. I mentioned that a saint could wear little but still hold themselves where all everyone could see was their inner beauty & God-given holiness. Its in the presentation as much (if not more) than the clothing itself.

 

[GraceDK]

skin of a young healthy woman would attract any man…this dosent make me abnormal it makes me human, its in my nature. Good thing I have pictures of saints and good role models too look at rather then these clothes that were made to show off women attributes. But hey, you can make excuses all you want, but Mama Mary (the most Pure Virgin) would not be okay with that style, it is inapropriate.

Yes. and skin of a handsome young male would be attractive for me to look at. I am human too, but it does not mean I want men to cover up in burkhas. I can admire their handsomeness instead of lusting at them.
Like an atheist friend of mine said: “My principle is: if it isn’t yours, then don’t look at it with desiring eyes”. He was no rigid person, he was not preoccupied with making rules for others… It was that simple for this non-religious man and I think his simple virtue was far more advanced than many of the Catholic men on these boards who have not learned how to have a natural relationship to their own sexuality but are so afraid of any female figure than they call even normal attire sinful and tempting…
And NO. Do not take the Holy Mother of God as your hostage. What you describe here is your own taste and subjective oppinion… You can make all the excuses you want… But its nothing more, nothing less. Deal with it.

 

[MissMichal]

I grew up Mormon, and I had an aunt who always said “no pits, ****, or belly buttons.” Mormons, as you may know, wear temple garments, which come almost to the knee and have little sleeves, and their clothes have to cover them. While I’m no longer Mormon (thank God), a good idea is a good idea. So, my idea of essential modesty is being covered at least to right above the knee, with no cleavage or middriff showing, and short sleeves. This standard, IMHO, applies to men as well as women.

I do also wear a headcovering, anything from a wide headband to a long scarf, on most days about town and always at Mass. However, I consider that a devotion and not a modesty essential, and should be discussed separately.

In practical terms, my typical summer dress is a t-shirt with jeans, capris, or a long gypsy skirt. At work, I wear a polo or oxford shirt with long khakis, capris, or a long knit skirt. I haven’t laid my hands on a swimsiut yet this year, but I anticipate wearing a modestly cut one piece suit with board shorts or a shorty wetsuit.

Pax,
-S-

 

[lobster]

Wow, this is starting to heat up…the steam is building…

Wait a minute…isn’t that how you cook a lobster?

No, I believe boiling water is the usual method.

 

[lobster]

The problem comes in requiring the opposite sex to cover themselves completely so you can avoid your problems.

Not at all. The problem is that some of the women find moral justification in presenting themselves however they like and leave it to others to fend for themselves. Not only would that be a mistaken notion, it also (and probably more importantly) seems to lack due regard in a matter of Christian charity toward others.

 

[lobster]

Lobster,

Are you a teetotaler?

No, though this Lobster does not imbibe.

Why do you ask?

 

[srlucado]

Not at all. The problem is that some of the women find moral justification in presenting themselves however they like and leave it to others to fend for themselves.

That’s a valid point, but it’s not the one you were making earlier.

So you’re now saying that women *don’t *have to completely hide themselves? That only some women, those who deliberately dress provocatively, are the problem?

I’m just trying to understand what your specific point is, because all I’ve gotten from you up to now is the sort of abject misogyny I’d expect from a radical Muslim, not a shellfish.

 

[lobster]

That’s a valid point, but it’s not the one you were making earlier.

So you’re now saying that women *don’t *have to completely hide themselves?

Well, yes if you look back, you can see that I agreed I was probably mistaken in that it is not “black and white” and there is a wide range of opinion on what is/is not acceptable dress. Is it wrong to have the humility to accept the arguments of others? I am not at all convinced however that women can be free to show no regard for others in how they present themselves, believing that if someone has a problem with sin, that is their problem. One poster here is very adamant that that is a benevolent attitude to have. I completely disagree.

I’m just trying to understand what your specific point is, because all I’ve gotten from you up to now is the sort of abject misogyny I’d expect from a radical Muslim, not a shellfish.

I do apologize if I came across that way. Sometimes shellfish tend to present extreme examples (is a do-rag really that extreme anyway ), it is because they tend to live in shells themselves.

 

[GraceDK]

That’s a valid point, but it’s not the one you were making earlier.

So you’re now saying that women *don’t *have to completely hide themselves? That only some women, those who deliberately dress provocatively, are the problem?

I’m just trying to understand what your specific point is, because all I’ve gotten from you up to now is the sort of abject misogyny I’d expect from a radical Muslim, not a shellfish.

oh dear…

 

[BiologyBrain]

Not at all. The problem is that some of the women find moral justification in presenting themselves however they like and leave it to others to fend for themselves. Not only would that be a mistaken notion, it also (and probably more importantly) seems to lack due regard in a matter of Christian charity toward others.

I don’t really think any one here has posted that they present themselves how ever they like w/o considering their own modesty and those around them. What most people have been saying is that there are differences between us all in our opinions of modesty. We should all present ourselves modestly, but we can do so dressed in various styles of clothing. We are all responsible primarily for ourselves, although there is an element of needing to respect others as well. However, if we cover up anything that anyone could consider ‘immodest’ we wouldn’t even be allowed to wear sandals, show our eyes, etc. There are extremes that should not be the norm.

If I’m dressed modestly, even in a 2 piece swim suit, and present myself modestly (no leg spawling, provocative motions, etc) then I’m doing my best to preserve my modesty as well as those around me. However, if someone lusts after me simply b/c of any skin that’s showing, its not my sin - its theirs for lusting. As long as I am trying to be modest (in clothing & presentation), I am within my limits/duty. At least that’s my point & my stance.

I prefer to be covered more than most women my age and always have. However, that doesn’t necessarily make me more modest than other women my age. It may even make me more vain than them since some of my concern is based on vanity.