Men please answer honestly

[chevalier]

I will say that the daily cleavage is eye-popping.

Not to mention the see-through dresses in daytime routine wear.

Hellllooooo!

I guess we can reassure our female readers that that kind of thing is not what makes us want to spend time with a woman? I believe the more often we say this the better.

 

[kenofken]

Yes, OP, it IS ok to be old fashioned, because you should be who you are. If that’s your true self, you don’t need our permission or reassurance to do so. On the other hand, I do so love the “disrespectable” women and spend a good part of my life cultivating their interest. But that’s my true self. (I don’t expect I would find much reassurance for that on this august forum, so I will not trouble to ask)!

 

[SarahR]

Well gentlemen,

After reading most of these posts, when you encounter a woman you consider to be classless, unattractive (due to her speech or manner of dress), revolting or offensive, I hope you will still treat her as a beloved child of God (perhaps one who has gone a bit astray). These girls/women benefit from good men showing them a glimpse of their dignity. If you’re doing so already, thank you.

God bless.

 

[joe_cool]

Well gentlemen,

After reading most of these posts, when you encounter a woman you consider to be classless, unattractive (due to her speech or manner of dress), revolting or offensive, I hope you will still treat her as a beloved child of God (perhaps one who has gone a bit astray). These girls/women benefit from good men showing them a glimpse of their dignity. If you’re doing so already, thank you.

God bless.

Of course. It’s never okay to treat someone as anything other than a brother or sister… what I meant is that it breaks my heart to see so many women act in a manner that degrades themselves, and then honestly have no idea as to why they cannot find “a good guy”. That said, regardless of ANY opinion I may hold for myself… it’s not really my job to pass judgment or push my opinion on others… because my opinion doesn’t amount to any more than a hill of beans. There’s plenty in my own life that could do with amendment long before I even consider the notion of telling others how to amend theirs. I was merely responding to someone who wanted to know what I thought, personally, on several matters.

I think the important thing to keep in mind here is that we are all sinners, and hence are all equally worthless. As such, if we’re going to bother feeling any particular emotion towards another… it should be love.

-Joe

 

[LittleDeb]

Since men have been asked for opinions I will post my husband’s point of view.

He says that people spend waaaaaay too much time deciding what *other *people should and should not do when it doesn’t have any bearing on morality or not. My husband was attracted to the Church because of all the good things She teaches on the beauty and dignity of women. He says if he sees a woman “dressed wrong” or God forbid, nursing her baby and he gets squeamish then *HE *needs to properly order his thoughts. It is *his *problem first and foremost.

So here is me again:

The idea that there is a defined way that women *should *dress is what caused the problem in the first place. Where are the “men should dress a certain way” threads? Clothing is supposed to be something to protect us from the elements. It is supposed to be a way to express ourselves so we don’t all have to wear flour sacks.

That there is an idea that breast-feeding must be done a *certain *way to be acceptable is one of the deepest roots to the problem! If the milk successfully gets into the baby’s tummy, then it is done correctly. The idea that children must be fed on a schedule was one of the original roots of the contraception mentality. Bottles, pacifiers and scheduled nursing can often cause an early return to fertility, hence secular society’s “need” for contraception. Breast-feeding nearly got lost in the 50s when the puritan mentality began to take over. The idea that babies need to eat “discreetly” and away from others is a very modern idea, one never *ever *supported by the Church.

I spent years trapped at home because of my concerns over other people’s needs and sensibilities. I am normally a DD. They grew to a G while nursing my son. Each one was larger than his head. I did nothing to earn them, they just came with my genetics. My first child was very ill with allergies. Breast-feeding was his *only *option. I pumped as a back-up in case I ever got ill, but he was so weak that he couldn’t take a bottle well. Getting him to eat at all was very difficult. But boy, could I produce! He couldn’t stand having a cloth over his head. And my breasts are way too large to nurse “modestly;” whatever that means. I can show cleavage in a turtle-neck. You don’t see us nursing in public because you have made us prisoners.

I am a costume designer and seamstress. One of my specialties is helping women who have very large breasts to finally be able to wear clothes they can feel comfortable in. (I am small compared to many of my customers. My neighbor is an H.) But nursing tops for the exceptionally large are still not possible. There is no way to latch on in one.

We must all remember that the Church is for everyone. Women who behave in “unacceptable ways” are our patients!! They need our love and compassion. They need us to speak right to them and not turn away. So-called “Feminazis” are deeply injured women. Many are molestation and rape survivors. The so-called “men” in their lives have not been real men! They are the original ones who found breast-feeding “gross.”

I beg you all here. If you find yourself looking at a woman and thinking, “She should cover up,” please remember one thing: before the Fall, we were naked without shame. Shame about the human body is a product of the serpent in the garden. I pray for the intercession of Pope John Paul II that we can all see the nuptial meaning of the body as a very beautiful thing.

 

[joe_cool]

The idea that there is a defined way that women *should *dress is what caused the problem in the first place. Where are the “men should dress a certain way” threads? Clothing is supposed to be something to protect us from the elements.

Not at all.

I’ll start. I have two fedoras, a Borsalino, and a Selentino. On my desk is a pack of brass collar stays. I wear braces and button-up shirts. I know that braces should button. I know what french cuffs are, and that they don’t just belong on tuxedos. I’m getting ready to have some fitted shirts made because I don’t like the quality of Arrow shirts any more. I need new shoes, and they will come from Allen Edmonds.

I think that it quit being acceptable to walk around with a button-up shirt unbuttoned in high school. I have yet to find an acceptable occasion to wear shorts. I think every man should own at least four suits and two jackets. Clip-on ties should be banned.

And no, I’m neither rich, nor particularly well-off… and I’m under 30.

Do I intend to impress anybody? No. My only intention is to respect myself enough to not dress like a slouch.

I’m just heading off the whole “men are hypocrites” thing.

 

[LittleDeb]

Not at all.

I’ll start. I have two fedoras, a Borsalino, and a Selentino. On my desk is a pack of brass collar stays. I wear braces and button-up shirts. I know that braces should button. I know what french cuffs are, and that they don’t just belong on tuxedos. I’m getting ready to have some fitted shirts made because I don’t like the quality of Arrow shirts any more. I need new shoes, and they will come from Allen Edmonds.

I think that it quit being acceptable to walk around with a button-up shirt unbuttoned in high school. I have yet to find an acceptable occasion to wear shorts. I think every man should own at least four suits and two jackets. Clip-on ties should be banned.

And no, I’m neither rich, nor particularly well-off… and I’m under 30.

Do I intend to impress anybody? No. My only intention is to respect myself enough to not dress like a slouch.

I’m just heading off the whole “men are hypocrites” thing.

Actually, I don’t think men are hypocrites at all. As a costume designer, I love the above list. However, we are an avid camping family. It would be impractical for my husband to wear his Knights of Columbus Tux while fishing.

Interesting that of all that I posted, that this part stood out to you

As a costumer, I have researched the history of clothing styles. The modern day necktie has some of the weirdest roots you can imagine.

My *point *is that fashion changes. “Modesty” is subjective. (Think of the many eras where cleavage was normal but the ankles and the elbows were taboo.) The standard ladies’ dress from most eras had a whole lot more to do with accessibility than modesty. The many layers of petticoats and hoop-skirts were added in both self defense, and just plain opulence.

Men are *not *hypocrites. That word, as you probably know, is often used incorrectly anyway. Real men and real women are the foundation for *objective *modesty. Pope John Paul II wrote so much on the Scriptural understanding of the complementarity of men and women. The answers to it are written on our very bodies. Many people try to say to “cover the differences” as the definition of modesty. Why then do we cover the derriere?

Pope John Paul II had much better definitions of modesty than any of us can make up.

 

[NoxSineStellae]

Deb, bless you for your post. ALL of it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well gentlemen,

After reading most of these posts, when you encounter a woman you consider to be classless, unattractive (due to her speech or manner of dress), revolting or offensive, I hope you will still treat her as a beloved child of God (perhaps one who has gone a bit astray). These girls/women benefit from good men showing them a glimpse of their dignity. If you’re doing so already, thank you.

God bless.

Custody of the eyes.

Continuous prayer.

Smile. But don’t ask for a date.

 

[chevalier]

Since men have been asked for opinions I will post my husband’s point of view.

He says that people spend waaaaaay too much time deciding what *other *people should and should not do when it doesn’t have any bearing on morality or not. My husband was attracted to the Church because of all the good things She teaches on the beauty and dignity of women. He says if he sees a woman “dressed wrong” or God forbid, nursing her baby and he gets squeamish then *HE *needs to properly order his thoughts. It is *his *problem first and foremost.

Debbie, your husband’s view is noble but taking it to an extreme would bring the risk of tolerating any sort of behaviour (maybe short of actual physical contact or verbal abuse) on the part of others and blaming ourselves, as beholders, when something sits wrong with us. That’s not necessarily true because as some behaviours that don’t involve physical assault or verbal aggression can still be right or wrong (objectively) and it would make no sense denying that objective right or wrong, good or bad value of some behaviour. For example, spitting buble gum out on the ground is wrong. Cursing is impolite. Dressing provocatively is not good and for more reasons and more important ones.

 

[chevalier]

(I’ll be talking a bit more generally here, it shouldn’t be read as my writing 3 pages of text in response to a single paragraph taken out of one post.)

The idea that there is a defined way that women *should *dress is what caused the problem in the first place. Where are the “men should dress a certain way” threads? Clothing is supposed to be something to protect us from the elements. It is supposed to be a way to express ourselves so we don’t all have to wear flour sacks.

First of all, please don’t be offended by this, but there’s a lot of difference between wearing flour sacks and wearing feminine clothing that isn’t sexually provocative.

It’s not fair to bring up the burkha whenever someone says there’s a problem with big cleavage or with a tight cut (e.g. 1-2 sizes too small).

You mention expressing oneself. What does provocative clothing express? High sex drive and desire for intercourse, possibly fast? Okay, this isn’t a wrong thing, everybody feels it from time to time and so on, but do we have to wear it on our sleeves? Or it can express sexual openness, less than stringent sexual ethical standards and willingness to engage in premarital or extramarital sex. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Same as someone dressed in police uniform will be addressed as “officer” and inspire people to hit the brakes, a woman who is dressed like she’s looking for partners for sex will be perceived as a woman who is looking for partners for sex. And just in case, I’m not talking about accidental wardrobe malfunctions or such matters as one button up or down or an inch here or there. I’m talking about the overall *vibe *and not so much the amount of skin shown as the parts of the body it draws attention to. And by drawing attention to certain body parts, I mean the act of drawing attention, not an unintended result.

Speaking of, it’s one thing if something is unintended or if the result can really be blamed on lustful audience (e.g. some men will always lust after a pretty woman), but a whole different thing if the *purpose *of the given clothing style or clothing item is to reveal or underline sexually relevant body parts with such an intensity as to break the viewer’s resistance. It doesn’t even matter to what extent that intended result is achieved. What’s the real problem is the *intent *here. The intent to cause someone to lust is sinful. With full knowledge and consent, looking at someone *in order to lust after that person *(Matt. 5:28) is a mortal sin. Intending that others commit that sin while looking at us (and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a progressive man with pro-feminist views or an old-fashioned fundamentalist-leaking man with a mysoginist streak… in fact, it doesn’t even have to be a man, it can be another woman, one suffering from same sex attraction, what matters is intending to cause that person to lust) can be a serious sin, possibly mortal with full knowledge and consent.

Now possibly rarely does the typical person who wants to “sexy it up” form the precise intent or have the full knowledge and consent to “qualify” for a mortal sin, but even if venial, it isn’t a trivial thing. Even if not a sin at all for subjective reasons in the person who acts that way, it’s still a problem. It’s something that shouldn’t happen, not a right of the individual.

Naturally, the same applies to men who dress or act in a particular way in order to affect women. If you want to make her recognise you as attractive… probably no sin except maybe vanity. If you want to make her recognise your masculine value and want to marry you or get to know you and see if she will marry you, well, what kind of sin can that be? Obviously, it’s even a good thing. On the other hand, if you want to *bypass *her conscious choices (so that her sex drive will rule her instead of her reason) or give her opportunity to fantasise about you sexually, then it’s the same mortal sin. And yes, some men do mind the way they dress or even act around women.

If anyone still has a problem seeing this, please imagine feeding someone viagra or some other stimulant without his knowledge… would that be fine? Maybe in some marital situations yes (let’s not go there), but not on a date, let alone a friendly visit or business meeting. And certainly it wouldn’t be okay to serve everyone in the room with a spiked drink. Certain stylistic choices (clothing and other matters of appearance) have basically the same effect–same substances, same effect, same intended goal.

I will be saying something obvious (or which should be obvious), but it’s logically impossible to intend to cause certain results and then blame it on accidents, laws of nature, man’s fallen nature etc. Of course, a girl who wore a flirty dress to give men a little faster pulse is just flirting and is not the person to blame if some man starts running sexual imagery through his mind. But what purpose does cavernous cleavage in today’s fashion serve? Certainly not air conditioning. What purpose does wearing 1-2 size too small sizes serve? Certainly not comfort (in fact, it can be unhealthy, too).

 

[chevalier]

That there is an idea that breast-feeding must be done a certain way to be acceptable is one of the deepest roots to the problem!

Yes, but it is a problem that there is an idea that any way of doing it is fine.

If the milk successfully gets into the baby’s tummy, then it is done correctly.

I have to disagree. As I said before, I have no problem and am not offended, grossed out or in any other way negatively affected by breast-feeding. In fact, it makes me think about the Holy Family.

However, examples like some people described, e.g. full frontal nudity, in your face and just because there is an excuse, that’s a wrong way to act and just because the milk does get successfully to the baby’s tummy, it doesn’t make it right. If I were to compare that to anything, I would compare it to people who believe they don’t need clothes indoors or at least in their own houses and it’s fine to open doors in underwear.

The idea that babies need to eat “discreetly” and away from others is a very modern idea, one never ever supported by the Church.

Modesty has always been supported by the Church in everything, including in execution of whatever rights we may have or in fulfilling legitimate needs of ourselves and others. Making in-your-face statements to shock others and simply so that they have to bear it (which, to my mind, appears to be the probable cause of the extreme displays some people talk about) is not a Christian attitude.

Another example is getting or seeking medical help. This trumps “modesty concerns” but doesn’t remove them altogether. For example, the fact that it’s fine to remove outer clothes for a doctor doesn’t mean that underwear is optional. The fact that rescue teams can undo a couple of buttons to provide heart massage doesn’t mean it’s fine to rip the victim’s shirt apart in public. The argument that the outer garment must be refused or that things shouldn’t get in the way of heart massage does not provide justification for *such *extremes. The same goes for breast-feeding. It’s fine as it is, it’s not fine to make a show of it.

 

[chevalier]

My *point *is that fashion changes. “Modesty” is subjective. (Think of the many eras where cleavage was normal but the ankles and the elbows were taboo.) The standard ladies’ dress from most eras had a whole lot more to do with accessibility than modesty. The many layers of petticoats and hoop-skirts were added in both self defense, and just plain opulence.

I agree that “taboo areas” change, but this doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant (if we go to a culture where calves are considered sexual stimuli and they want us to wear high socks, we should) and it’s a whole different thing altogether when someone picks precisely the taboo area to bare.

In our culture there’s basically an imperative to bare the taboo areas, which is an apparent inconsistency. In our culture, cleavage would make no point if it weren’t taboo.

Speaking of cleavage, in some old-fashioned circles, there will indeed be quite a lot of cleavage on modestly behaving women, ladies even. This is rare but happens. But usually, the clothes they wear are easy to tell from the modern stuff that screams “sex!”, whereas the old-fashioned clothes, even with big cleavage (e.g. ball dresses), don’t.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Since men have been asked for opinions I will post my husband’s point of view.

He says that people spend waaaaaay too much time deciding what *other *people should and should not do when it doesn’t have any bearing on morality or not. My husband was attracted to the Church because of all the good things She teaches on the beauty and dignity of women. He says if he sees a woman “dressed wrong” or God forbid, nursing her baby and he gets squeamish then *HE *needs to properly order his thoughts. It is *his *problem first and foremost.

So here is me again:

The idea that there is a defined way that women *should *dress is what caused the problem in the first place. Where are the “men should dress a certain way” threads? Clothing is supposed to be something to protect us from the elements. It is supposed to be a way to express ourselves so we don’t all have to wear flour sacks.

That there is an idea that breast-feeding must be done a *certain *way to be acceptable is one of the deepest roots to the problem! If the milk successfully gets into the baby’s tummy, then it is done correctly. The idea that children must be fed on a schedule was one of the original roots of the contraception mentality. Bottles, pacifiers and scheduled nursing can often cause an early return to fertility, hence secular society’s “need” for contraception. Breast-feeding nearly got lost in the 50s when the puritan mentality began to take over. The idea that babies need to eat “discreetly” and away from others is a very modern idea, one never *ever *supported by the Church.

I spent years trapped at home because of my concerns over other people’s needs and sensibilities. I am normally a DD. They grew to a G while nursing my son. Each one was larger than his head. I did nothing to earn them, they just came with my genetics. My first child was very ill with allergies. Breast-feeding was his *only *option. I pumped as a back-up in case I ever got ill, but he was so weak that he couldn’t take a bottle well. Getting him to eat at all was very difficult. But boy, could I produce! He couldn’t stand having a cloth over his head. And my breasts are way too large to nurse “modestly;” whatever that means. I can show cleavage in a turtle-neck. You don’t see us nursing in public because you have made us prisoners.

I am a costume designer and seamstress. One of my specialties is helping women who have very large breasts to finally be able to wear clothes they can feel comfortable in. (I am small compared to many of my customers. My neighbor is an H.) But nursing tops for the exceptionally large are still not possible. There is no way to latch on in one.

We must all remember that the Church is for everyone. Women who behave in “unacceptable ways” are our patients!! They need our love and compassion. They need us to speak right to them and not turn away. So-called “Feminazis” are deeply injured women. Many are molestation and rape survivors. The so-called “men” in their lives have not been real men! They are the original ones who found breast-feeding “gross.”

I beg you all here. If you find yourself looking at a woman and thinking, “She should cover up,” please remember one thing: before the Fall, we were naked without shame. Shame about the human body is a product of the serpent in the garden. I pray for the intercession of Pope John Paul II that we can all see the nuptial meaning of the body as a very beautiful thing.

I really appreciated reading this post!

 

[LittleDeb]

I actually agree with you more than I think you realize, Chev.

Everything you point out is an impassioned plea, though. Nothing gives an objective standard. There are some beautiful works of art depicting Our Lady nursing the Christ Child. Based on what you have posted, these depictions are vulgar or inappropriate. My favorite is a sculpture depicting Mary holding a squirmy baby with a fully exposed breast. (Mary was a real mother!)

My point is that something becomes taboo *precisely *because of the loss of respect for the body. In the “culture of calves” they have lost respect for what the natural design of the calf is intended to do.

A breast is designed to feed a baby.

The so-called “trampy” clothes are completely cultural and completely subjective. If you had posted all of the above with an objective standard then I would have completely agreed with you. In fact, I do agree that clothing worn with the *intention *to titillate is very inappropriate. (It doesn’t matter if we are talking about men’s clothing or women’s. Same point applies.) I disagree however as to what exactly *defines *that. I have been stuck wearing clothes “2 sizes too small.” I gained weight unexpectedly. They were modest to begin with, yes, but with my large bust I am sure there are those who found them “inappropriate” due to their snugness. My neighbor would have to wear a tent to not be too snug.

The contents of this thread have been entirely *subjective *opinion. The OP was seeking only opinion. There was not even an effort to discern an objectivity. I joined because of how badly women have been represented here.

 

[RHC]

On the subject of breastfeeding…I’ll throw in my two cents…

I breastfed both of my children. I am not a small-chested woman, but I did manage to breastfeed my children in very public places (San Antonio’s Riverwalk comes to mind) without exposing the breast…or my whole chest.

There are solutions to most of the difficulties with breastfeeding. My DS did not like blankets on top of him. So I found the lightest blanket possible and held it off of his head. My DD didn’t care…each child is different.

In my opinion, both sides of this cover-or-not debate need to remember Christian charity. It is charitable on the part of the nursing mother to not whip out her breast to the full view of everyone any time she is breastfeeding. I certainly didn’t want to be attracting attention to my breasts when my children were nursing; I’m a mother, not a call girl. Now, on the other hand, it is charitable of men (and women) to not stare or make a huge fuss if Baby pushes the blanket up and you see a bit more skin than you’d like. I had one guy stare at me like he was hoping to see through the blanket; it was rude, and I glared at him until he looked away.

The heart of the issue is Christian charity. We all have a responsibility to be charitable towards each other. Nursing mothers should not have to be sequestered until weaning; breastfeeding is beautiful, natural and God-given. But, in the spirit of charity, nursing mothers should remember their brothers in Christ who don’t need the distraction of a breast flopped out for all the world to see. So, a little discretion is in order. Likewise, men are visually attracted to women; this is not evil. However, men should think of their sisters in Christ and, in the spirit of charity, look away if a bit too much is showing when they are nursing. Again, discretion is warranted.

There are passionate opinions on this topic, but charitable consideration of each other always is a winning plan.

 

[samovila]

As for breastfeeding, I do agree it can be done very modestly. I think I was asking more about men’s possesiveness. How they like to be with their wives but they don’t want another man looking at her. And also, I think I was referring more to the type of woman who do it immodestly and expect the whole world to cater to their babies schedule. not sure if I am saying this right. But more to the effect that rather than respecting there is a time and place for everything, mom’s think their babies schedule dictates everything.

I’m very fortunate that my husband is very supportive of breast feeding our kids whenever and wherever they need to eat. You bring up an interesting point about his not wanting another man to look at me. He was always cautious when we were out together to sit or stand near me when I nursed our babies in such a way as to be a barrier so that others wouldn’t be able to see what I was doing. I felt very honored that he hovered over me in such a protective way.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m very fortunate that my husband is very supportive of breast feeding our kids whenever and wherever they need to eat. You bring up an interesting point about his not wanting another man to look at me. He was always cautious when we were out together to sit or stand near me when I nursed our babies in such a way as to be a barrier so that others wouldn’t be able to see what I was doing. I felt very honored that he hovered over me in such a protective way.

My husband is that way, too. If anybody got too creepy with staring, he would commence the ‘stare-down’ until the offensive gawker looked away, and he typically positions his torso so as to block the view of others during the moments when I am trying to get the baby to latch on or when the baby is done and I am putting my shirt back together. Truth be told, however, he is probably more comfortable about my breastfeeding in public than I am. I am extremely modest, and get very upset about ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ (whether due to babies or not), and I tend to be the one to ask him for a shield or for assistance.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We all know that women have bosoms. That fact is referred to “in the literature” and has been for as many thousands of years as we have had writing.

Cleavage normally refers to open display of naked flesh. Has nothing to do with clothed bosoms or breast feeding.

 

[kristie_m]

On the subject of breastfeeding…I’ll throw in my two cents…

I breastfed both of my children. I am not a small-chested woman, but I did manage to breastfeed my children in very public places (San Antonio’s Riverwalk comes to mind) without exposing the breast…or my whole chest.

There are solutions to most of the difficulties with breastfeeding. My DS did not like blankets on top of him. So I found the lightest blanket possible and held it off of his head. My DD didn’t care…each child is different.

In my opinion, both sides of this cover-or-not debate need to remember Christian charity. It is charitable on the part of the nursing mother to not whip out her breast to the full view of everyone any time she is breastfeeding. I certainly didn’t want to be attracting attention to my breasts when my children were nursing; I’m a mother, not a call girl. Now, on the other hand, it is charitable of men (and women) to not stare or make a huge fuss if Baby pushes the blanket up and you see a bit more skin than you’d like. I had one guy stare at me like he was hoping to see through the blanket; it was rude, and I glared at him until he looked away.

The heart of the issue is Christian charity. We all have a responsibility to be charitable towards each other. Nursing mothers should not have to be sequestered until weaning; breastfeeding is beautiful, natural and God-given. But, in the spirit of charity, nursing mothers should remember their brothers in Christ who don’t need the distraction of a breast flopped out for all the world to see. So, a little discretion is in order. Likewise, men are visually attracted to women; this is not evil. However, men should think of their sisters in Christ and, in the spirit of charity, look away if a bit too much is showing when they are nursing. Again, discretion is warranted.

There are passionate opinions on this topic, but charitable consideration of each other always is a winning plan.

:clapping: