Modesty for women and men

[johnnyjones]

I do not know; I am not a woman nor have I worn a thong. And there were things besides thongs mentioned in the post.

I would hesitate to guess the motives of people because I have not met all three billion persons to whom this discussion applies most directly.

I am glad to know that you are every woman on the face of this planet ever. It makes discussions about women much easier.

Maybe you should look into what the intent of wearing revealing clothes is. If you remain clueless, look into the advertising world. If it turns out the purpose of wearing such clothes is to stimulate a man (to buy a product) we now have something called intent to induce lust.

 

[Baelor]

Maybe you should look into what the intent of wearing revealing clothes is. If you remain clueless, look into the advertising world. If it turns out the purpose of wearing such clothes is to stimulate a man (to buy a product) we now have something called intent to induce lust.

I am considering the intent. I am challenging your statement on the basis that it is ridiculous.

Your argument can be summarized as follows:

Some women wear revealing clothes in order to stimulate men, therefore all woman all the time wear revealing clothes to stimulate men.

I hope that it is obvious why that is not a reasonable argument. I agree that women should not be wearing revealing clothes, but I would not be so unbelievable arrogant as to claim that I know the reason that each woman wears such clothing.

 

[nickiwool]

I’m gonna admit, I find it absolutely bizarre that these modesty thread always get so out of hand. I don’t really understand why its so difficult. Yes, it is always wrong when a man lusts after a woman. However it is also a matter of charity for a woman to not wear clothing that she knows is likely to lead men into sin. The same goes in reverse for women lusting after men and men’s choice of apparel. Of course it is wrong to judge the inent of a specific woman in wearing whatever it is that she is wearing. However, that doesn’t mean that certain clothing and fashion are generally speaking worn for a provocative purpose. That also doesn’t mean that certain clothing isn’t more of a stumbling block than others.

So, men and women must always strive for purity. They must also out of charity not wear something they know is going to be provacative. And finally, just as importantly, no one should judge any other person as to their intent in wearing specific clothing. I really don’t see how its any more complicated than these three things.

Ok this right here, this is what I mean by everything. All of his is exactly how I feel on the matter. I have no right to judge but I do think we all should try to stay away from certain things that can be provacative. I know how I felt wearing certain things but it’s true I am not everyone. As I’ve said in one of my past posts, I believe if it feels ok in my heart then it must be ok for me.

-Nicki

 

[severus68]

No one has has told anyone what they must wear. I have repeated that over and over. So far you have used incorrect biblical terminology, addressed nothing behind the motive for a woman wearing revealing clothes, misrepresented what I’ve said, and claimed I had no manners.

Your argument that only a man is responsible for what he thinks and does is shamefully weak.

You have been preaching your views of what women should not wear.

What biblical terminology did I use at all?

You have said enouugh about your assumption of a woman’s motive for wearing clothes you consider immodest.

So, that a man is not solely responsible for his thoughts and actions is your ‘strong’ argument? Do men have a special dispensation from God then?

 

[johnnyjones]

You have been preaching your views of what women should not wear.

What biblical terminology did I use at all?

You have said enouugh about your assumption of a woman’s motive for wearing clothes you consider immodest.

So, that a man is not solely responsible for his thoughts and actions is your ‘strong’ argument? Do men have a special dispensation from God then?

Take your views on modesty (or rather immodesty) up with the church. I have given you all the information I can.

 

[nickiwool]

I am confused now but let me explain that I have no issue with you having your own views and dressing the way you want. I cannot impose my views on anyone and neither should anyone else.

Thank you for your apology and I apologise if I have upset you.

I agree, I have no issue with you having your views either. I just know this one here is very important to me as a person. Perhaps because I came from one side to the other. Maybe that is why I see it so important to me. But, yes you are correct I cannot force someone to accept my view and live like me. That is not what I intended, I don’t wish to force anyone. I only shared my stories in hopes that maybe just maybe if there is someone out there that because of what I said decided to stand up for what they once believed in. I always felt it wrong back when I was a teen to dress and be how I had, But no one ever told me it was ok to be different and to fallow my heart. I guess that is my purpose here. In my heart dressing a certain way does not feel right. There may be others out there like me. Those are who I am trying to reach.

I learned a lot from all of this though, I used to think it was a no brainer that we should be careful of how we dress in religion. That we all agreed on the subject. I must admit it was a shock at first. But, the world has changed very very much and we all have so much freedom that not all of us think what is ok is ok and vice versa. Society these days has really affected so much as Portrait had mentioned. Maybe I am old fashion, it shows in my earlier posts of how I love attire from ages ago haha. But, really I am not trying to force you or anyone that has your views to change. What you feel is what you feel you have every right to feel as you do, as I have every right to feel the way I do, see we both agree on that one .

NOTE: This right here I can mean toward anyone of you on the thread

And no no you have not upset me at all, I do thank you very much for caring I hope in no way I upset you or anyone else either. The toughest thing is trying to type and making it come out the way I am emotion wise. I am new to the site and do not wish to hurt anyone or say something I mean wrong. A friend in another thread had told me how sometimes we can sometimes type something and the other person reading will link in incorrect emotion to it. I hope that when reading my posts I do not hurt anyone’s feelings or come across as a harsh cruel person I really am not. When I type anything it really is in a cheerful, bubbly mood. As a kid I was always very hyper, happy and spunky, not much has changed haha. So please do not worry I have not been upset by anything you have said you had wrote in one of your posts, “We should see each other as a child of God” Just by that statement alone tells me your very caring and would never wish anything bad upon me or anyone.

Many Blessings,
-Nicki

 

[nickiwool]

I am not referring to anyone in particular or judging but making a comment that just because someone is an atheist does not make him evil and not all Catholics are good people.

Abortion is sometimes brought in on CAF threads on unrelated topics and it does not make sense, it should be on another thread. I would never agree that what some consider 'immodest dress" to be a topic on the same level of abortion.

Oh no I did not mean to implement that atheist’s can be evil. I said in an earlier post that a girl wishing to wearing a short skirt is not evil as I was not when I wore one. I am not calling anyone evil please please believe that. I only believe the devil is evil. I don’t think any person is evil either, I believe though that the devil can lie to us and make us do bad things, but again evil is the devil in my opinion.

I see what you mean by bringing in abortion on the wrong thread, I am sorry for doing so. It was honestly just as an example of what some of us find important. and how if you don’t consider attire as important then that is your opinion and that is ok, but if I see it just as important then it is ok for it to be as important to me. I guess I could have used another example of importance for the sake of the sensitivity of the subject. I do see them the same and figured they both should be no brainers and we would have all agreed on them, but that’s not the case. I can use the example of a different debate if it helps, chemical contraceptions. In the church I have found 90% of people (based on wiki) wish the pope would consider them. But, some people find it absurd that some would wish to use them knowing that they can or may cause an abortion. There’s a debate there. Again an example of something someone might find important but some not. Both sides have every right to speak out on it if they choose. No one can tell no one what to do in the case, but can hope to change some thoughts and to think deeply on them. I don’t know maybe I am just not good at giving examples haha, I am sorry and hope you understand what I mean by everything, I am only using my right to stand up for what I believe.

Many blessings,
-Nicki

 

[nickiwool]

Dear nickiwool,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Excellent contribution to the debate and may God bless you in your resolve to dress in a modest manner in accordance with Church and bible teaching.

Personal testimony like yours and ubcgirl’s earlier are very much needed in these sexually permissive times and can be much more weighty than a lot of discussion and argument.

Yes, you are quite right, it should be plain common sense that Catholic women adorn themselves modestly and seemly apparel, for our Church has consistently taught indecent attire is unbeffiting of those who profess religious faith. However, dear sister, much of contemporary Catholicism has been deeply influenced by the secular thinking of our times, so that you now have many modern day Catholics asserting that it is society that dictates what is modest or immodest as regards clothing, this irrespective of the fact that Western society is in a dire state of moral and cultural deterioration. In fact if you talk these days about either men or women dressing in modest apparel, then you are like to be dismissed as some fanatical Puritan prude, or at the least of having issues with overscrupulosity. Such is the unspiritual thinking with which we now have to contend with and it is so very sad that some professing Catholics, men and women, have no sense of shame and no pious recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety. Our clothing should be expressive of an interior modesty and chastity and a sober outlook upon life - in other words a Catholic outlook consistent with decency and a proper reserve.

God bless and keep up the good work.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Thank you for your warm words The greatest thing about all of this is, we can be forgiven. I can change who I was and have another chance to spend the rest of my days and live the way I believe God want’s me to live. I wish we all had the same understandings but it is not so anymore. Times have changed and we all have different views. Just like siblings bicker, us siblings of God bicker among each other. In hopes that we don’t actually hurt anyone in the process. But one thing that brings us together is that we all believe in the same father and I guess that’s what matters most.

Many Blessings,
-Nicki

 

[Portrait]

I agree. Let us not conflate prematurely authentic Catholic teaching with the content of the posts of anyone on this thread.

Correct, and this is the best way to approach modesty, as something independent of the lust of others. In other words, modesty is a virtue per se, not only because of charity toward others vis-a-vis lust.

But this cannot be the sole justification or even main justification for modesty, else it is conceivable that there are circumstances in which parading around naked is acceptable because it does not promote lust in others. If only heterosexual women existed, would it be morally acceptable for them to walk around naked?

Where does the Church dictate what specifically is modest or immodest? Where are the official guidelines of attire in the CCC?

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

Our sanctified common sense, dear friend, ought to inform us if we are attired inappropriately and in a manner which trespasses the boundaries of propriety. Provided that there has been no loss of the moral sense our clothing choices will be in conformity with Catholic teaching respecting modest apparel. The problem today in Western culture is that there has, since the 1960’s, been a tragic loss of the moral sense among many Catholics, which has resulted in catastrophic errors of prudential judgment in relation to modest vesture.

We cannot drive a wedge between standards modesty and sexual desire and neither does Sacred Scripture or the Church. Indeed, the whole raison d’etre for being clad in modest attire is man’s tendency to impure thoughts on account of concupiscence. Nevertheless, dear friend, I agree that modesty is a virtue by itself, just so long as we remember that it must be expressed in our clothing choices.

There cannot ever be circumstances where walking about unclad in public could be acceptable, because that would be a revealing of that which ought to be concealed - our ‘intimate centre’. If the sight of naked flesh did not incite lust then St. Paul’s exhortation for women to adorn themselves modestly and in seemly apparel would have been both superfluous and irrational. As I said previously, the chief reason for dressing modestly is because of our fallen estate and the presence of evil desire. Since the Fall man has always be inclined to lust after a woman and so God ensured that the first pair well covered (Gen. 3: 21), so as to reduce lustful desire and neutralize its strength. Devout men and women have been doing the same ever since and it is this that explains St. Paul’s counsel in I Tim. 2: 9.

The Church, dear friend, does not need to spoon feed the faithful as to what constitutes modest or immodest clothing because our Catechism gives sufficient guidance for those who are endowed with a well-formed conscience. Thus, for example, we know that a mini-skirt cannot reasonably be called modest attire by Catholic standards of decency because it unveils to the gaze of others that which should remain hidden (CCC, para.2521). The problem today, alas, is that there has been a tragic loss of moral sense among the faithful and this is why you have interminable arguments as to what constitutes a well-formed conscience. Many have, even unwittingly, succumbed to the moral relativisim of our decadent times and so are really ignorant as to what a well-formed conscience is and how it functions. This would never have happened had they had a well-formed conscience to begin with. This sad state of affiars is a combination of poor catechesis, parental neglect as regards discipline and conformity to the world, but that is a debate for another time and another place.

Time for me to wind up for the day as supper time is fast approaching. God bless, dearly beloved friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Our sanctified common sense, dear friend, ought to inform us if we are attired inappropriately and in a manner which trespasses the boundaries of propriety. Provided that there has been no loss of the moral sense our clothing choices will be in conformity with Catholic teaching respecting modest apparel.

Common sense tells me that abortion is wrong, but I can also justifying it on another basis. Thus, common sense is touching on something deeper. Furthermore, what I am to do if someone disagrees with me on attire? I, for example, feel that women should not show any part of their bodies at all, dressing like this when in the presence of others. Another may disagree. How does one know whether the standards for modesty he possesses are based on common sense or a disordered perspective?

We cannot drive a wedge between standards modesty and sexual desire and neither does Sacred Scripture or the Church.

So modesty should not be valued per se, because you are approaching it from a utilitarian perspective.

Indeed, the whole raison d’etre for being clad in modest attire is man’s tendency to impure thoughts on account of concupiscence. Nevertheless, dear friend, I agree that modesty is a virtue by itself, just so long as we remember that it must be expressed in our clothing choices.

And that is why I asked you the question I did, and would appreciate an answer: a group of heterosexual females would not be sinning by being naked together in private, nor would a group of homosexual males be sinning by being naked together in private.

Along the same lines, because I do not feel sexual attraction and am male, a woman being naked in my presence would not be sinning, because there is no possibility of concupiscence, which, as you pointed out, is the raison d’etre of modest attire. Is this the line you are arguing?

The Church, dear friend, does not need to spoon feed the faithful as to what constitutes modest or immodest clothing because our Catechism gives sufficient guidance for those who are endowed with a well-formed conscience.

I agree.

Thus, for example, we know that a mini-skirt cannot reasonably be called modest attire by Catholic standards of decency because it unveils to the gaze of others that which should remain hidden (CCC, para.2521).

If I were to ask you what should remain hidden, what would you answer? And if I asked you to convince me why those things should remain hidden, how would you do so?

If the only way to determine this is through a well-formed conscience, then you are saying that the Church has a teaching on modesty that extends to no other aspect of morality of which I have heard.

 

[johnnyjones]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

Our sanctified common sense, dear friend, ought to inform us if we are attired inappropriately and in a manner which trespasses the boundaries of propriety. Provided that there has been no loss of the moral sense our clothing choices will be in conformity with Catholic teaching respecting modest apparel. The problem today in Western culture is that there has, since the 1960’s, been a tragic loss of the moral sense among many Catholics, which has resulted in catastrophic errors of prudential judgment in relation to modest vesture.

We cannot drive a wedge between standards modesty and sexual desire and neither does Sacred Scripture or the Church. Indeed, the whole raison d’etre for being clad in modest attire is man’s tendency to impure thoughts on account of concupiscence. Nevertheless, dear friend, I agree that modesty is a virtue by itself, just so long as we remember that it must be expressed in our clothing choices.

There cannot ever be circumstances where walking about unclad in public could be acceptable, because that would be a revealing of that which ought to be concealed - our ‘intimate centre’. If the sight of naked flesh did not incite lust then St. Paul’s exhortation for women to adorn themselves modestly and in seemly apparel would have been both superfluous and irrational. As I said previously, the chief reason for dressing modestly is because of our fallen estate and the presence of evil desire. Since the Fall man has always be inclined to lust after a woman and so God ensured that the first pair well covered (Gen. 3: 21), so as to reduce lustful desire and neutralize its strength. Devout men and women have been doing the same ever since and it is this that explains St. Paul’s counsel in I Tim. 2: 9.

The Church, dear friend, does not need to spoon feed the faithful as to what constitutes modest or immodest clothing because our Catechism gives sufficient guidance for those who are endowed with a well-formed conscience. Thus, for example, we know that a mini-skirt cannot reasonably be called modest attire by Catholic standards of decency because it unveils to the gaze of others that which should remain hidden (CCC, para.2521). The problem today, alas, is that there has been a tragic loss of moral sense among the faithful and this is why you have interminable arguments as to what constitutes a well-formed conscience. Many have, even unwittingly, succumbed to the moral relativisim of our decadent times and so are really ignorant as to what a well-formed conscience is and how it functions. This would never have happened had they had a well-formed conscience to begin with. This sad state of affiars is a combination of poor catechesis, parental neglect as regards discipline and conformity to the world, but that is a debate for another time and another place.

Time for me to wind up for the day as supper time is fast approaching. God bless, dearly beloved friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

You are saying all that I was saying it a much more eloquent way.

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

Our sanctified common sense, dear friend, ought to inform us if we are attired inappropriately and in a manner which trespasses the boundaries of propriety. Provided that there has been no loss of the moral sense our clothing choices will be in conformity with Catholic teaching respecting modest apparel. The problem today in Western culture is that there has, since the 1960’s, been a tragic loss of the moral sense among many Catholics, which has resulted in catastrophic errors of prudential judgment in relation to modest vesture.

We cannot drive a wedge between standards modesty and sexual desire and neither does Sacred Scripture or the Church. Indeed, the whole raison d’etre for being clad in modest attire is man’s tendency to impure thoughts on account of concupiscence. Nevertheless, dear friend, I agree that modesty is a virtue by itself, just so long as we remember that it must be expressed in our clothing choices.

There cannot ever be circumstances where walking about unclad in public could be acceptable, because that would be a revealing of that which ought to be concealed - our ‘intimate centre’. If the sight of naked flesh did not incite lust then St. Paul’s exhortation for women to adorn themselves modestly and in seemly apparel would have been both superfluous and irrational. As I said previously, the chief reason for dressing modestly is because of our fallen estate and the presence of evil desire. Since the Fall man has always be inclined to lust after a woman and so God ensured that the first pair well covered (Gen. 3: 21), so as to reduce lustful desire and neutralize its strength. Devout men and women have been doing the same ever since and it is this that explains St. Paul’s counsel in I Tim. 2: 9.

The Church, dear friend, does not need to spoon feed the faithful as to what constitutes modest or immodest clothing because our Catechism gives sufficient guidance for those who are endowed with a well-formed conscience. Thus, for example, we know that a mini-skirt cannot reasonably be called modest attire by Catholic standards of decency because it unveils to the gaze of others that which should remain hidden (CCC, para.2521). The problem today, alas, is that there has been a tragic loss of moral sense among the faithful and this is why you have interminable arguments as to what constitutes a well-formed conscience. Many have, even unwittingly, succumbed to the moral relativisim of our decadent times and so are really ignorant as to what a well-formed conscience is and how it functions. This would never have happened had they had a well-formed conscience to begin with. This sad state of affiars is a combination of poor catechesis, parental neglect as regards discipline and conformity to the world, but that is a debate for another time and another place.

Time for me to wind up for the day as supper time is fast approaching. God bless, dearly beloved friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

---

As I said to you before --“Portrait”. It is Pride. It is Pride in a man – that does not allow the work of Grace – to purify the lust from his mind and heart. Pride keeps the concupiscent/lustful man – in that state. It is much easier to “bank” on “concupiscence” – pointing the finger at a woman – than to let go of Pride – and work towards cleansing ones heart and mind.

 

[johnnyjones]

I am considering the intent. I am challenging your statement on the basis that it is ridiculous.

Your argument can be summarized as follows:

Some women wear revealing clothes in order to stimulate men, therefore all woman all the time wear revealing clothes to stimulate men.

I hope that it is obvious why that is not a reasonable argument. I agree that women should not be wearing revealing clothes, but I would not be so unbelievable arrogant as to claim that I know the reason that each woman wears such clothing.

When I said to look into the issue of intent I’m not sure why you just focused on the women we agree wear clothes for a stimilating effect on men.
Could you come to some sort of logical conclusion, or even a guess as to why this other portion of women wears revealing clothes. Could some of them just be oblivious to what the’re wearing and have no concept of sex appeal. I suppose a small twilight zone portion may be unaware of their femininity.

Young women are often admonished about their apparel by mothers and fathers. I wonder what that stems from? Your right, you can rarely say “all” with everything. But even a high percentage would not be irrelevant, right. As always, many women are not Christian or interested in the moral code of their particular affiliation, so buried inhibitions play a role.

Sometimes when a subject is devoid of absolutes we go with what proponderance of evidence there is to be drawn from. Based on advertising, the history of seduction, the make up of a man, the obvious elevation of exposed flesh, the admitted purpose of the apparel and common sense of the instilled spirit we can make a fair asessment.

 

[johnnyjones]

---

As I said to you before --“Portrait”. It is Pride. It is Pride in a man – that does not allow the work of Grace – to purify the lust from his mind and heart. Pride keeps the concupiscent/lustful man – in that state. It is much easier to “bank” on “concupiscence” – pointing the finger at a woman – than to let go of Pride – and work towards cleansing ones heart and mind.

If a woman outright said she is purposely wearing a tight mini skirt because she wants men to look at her would she be sining? If in her heart she wants to create temptation, is that sining? If your answer is no, you have a version of Christianity I’m unfamiliar with.

 

[Baelor]

When I said to look into the issue of intent I’m not sure why you just focused on the women we agree wear clothes for a stimilating effect on men.

I did not. I stated specifically that I have no way of judging the motive of every woman who wears revealing clothing.

Could you come to some sort of logical conclusion, or even a guess as to why this other portion of women wears revealing clothes. Could some of them just be oblivious to what the’re wearing and have no concept of sex appeal.

Yes. And that is not unreasonable. Before reading modesty threads on CAF, I had no idea that men really were that easily lustful, and I am myself male. So I can totally understanding why a woman would be unaware of this.

I suppose a small twilight zone portion may be unaware of their femininity.

Or wear it because they like the style, or it is more comfortable for them, etc. I can attest to this – the most comfortable bottoms I have ever warn have been long underwear, and those are definitely revealing, if you get my drift.

 

[severus68]

Take your views on modesty (or rather immodesty) up with the church. I have given you all the information I can.

Why should I take my views up with anyone? You are the one preaching here. I did not solicit information from you.

 

[Walking_Home]

If a woman outright said she is purposely wearing a tight mini skirt because she wants men to look at her would she be sining? If in her heart she wants to create temptation, is that sining? If your answer is no, you have a version of Christianity I’m unfamiliar with.

---

It is still a man’s choice – to look upon the woman with lust. To say otherwise – would be the rejection of the freedom/freewill- to do otherwise.

 

[johnnyjones]

I did not. I stated specifically that I have no way of judging the motive of every woman who wears revealing clothing.

Yes. And that is not unreasonable. Before reading modesty threads on CAF, I had no idea that men really were that easily lustful, and I am myself male. So I can totally understanding why a woman would be unaware of this.

Or wear it because they like the style, or it is more comfortable for them, etc. I can attest to this – the most comfortable bottoms I have ever warn have been long underwear, and those are definitely revealing, if you get my drift.

Women are not “unaware” of what they put on or how it looks on them.They are more conscious of fashion then one could imagine. Of course you can always find a select amount that don’t fit a category but we are dealing in averages. The fact that you didn’t know men were that lustful may mean you need to be enlightened. I do not say that mockingly. It goes to the heart of observation.

My friend, woman know when they are showing enough of their breasts or too little of them. Bottom line, if they are dressing for temptation, they are at fault. THE MAN DOES NOT HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WOMAN FOR THE WOMAN TO BE “GUILTY” OF SIN. She just has to have intent, and that intent is prevalent.

 

[johnnyjones]

---

It is still a man’s choice – to look upon the woman with lust. To say otherwise – would be the rejection of the freedom/freewill- to do otherwise.

What if the man doesn’t look? Does that free the woman from sin if her intent was to tempt?

 

[thewanderer]

---

It is still a man’s choice – to look upon the woman with lust. To say otherwise – would be the rejection of the freedom/freewill- to do otherwise.

Why does the suggestion that women can be guilty of dressing immodestly make you assume that he is implying that men are not guilty? Of course men are responsible for their sins. But that doesn’t mean that women don’t have a role to play as well. Like I said before, I don’t get why it’s so hard to accep that both must take responsibility for their own actions. While I realize this analogy is not perfec I’m gonna throw it out there anyway. If a recovering alcoholic lapses and starts drinking again, it is of course his fault, but if someone knowing he is an alcoholic encourages him to drink then thy also have to accept responsibility for that. Each must accept responsibility for their own actions. Tempting others to sin is not ok.