Modesty for women and men

[DarkLight]

I think there’s a relevant distinction here between someone who is intentionally dressing to create sexual desire, and someone who is dressing in a way that happens to attract someone else. I know men who are turned on by the idea of a woman in gym clothes (like gym shorts and a tank top). Does that mean those are now immodest? I’m an outdoor runner - I’m not going to cover a bunch of skin up in the summer!

I do think there is a point to not judging others. It’s not that we can’t say certain things are wrong, but - we can disagree without casting blame. I have a friend that thinks all two-piece swimsuits are immodest. I personally think that a tankini is quite modest, even if some of my stomach is showing. (And yes, beach modesty is different from church modesty, which is different from evening-wear modesty…the point is to not draw improper attention.) But we don’t need to cast blame on each other for having a minor difference of opinion.

I will be honest - as a woman who came out of an abusive relationship, a large part of both my vulnerability and the damage afterwards came from teachings on modesty. I think we’ve created a culture in which we are constantly second-guessing women’s choices. There’s always something more you could have covered, some action that you could have done differently. I do think it has gotten to the point of blaming women for men’s actions. When I complain that a guy tried to harass me walking home from work, the first question shouldn’t be “what were you wearing?”!

I’ve actually seen what I’d call “immodest modesty” among certain Christian women. I think this is an issue of misunderstanding what modesty is. There’s a certain holier-than-thou attitude that crops up. I think we should not draw attention to our clothes…the woman who insists on wearing long skirts even when it’s clearly impractical may also be immodest in that regard.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Actually, women are not necessarily aware of the effect their clohing can have on men, even if they are fashion concious. Also true is the fact that many women honestly believe that what they are wearing is not leading others to sin. Yes this is not always the case, and yes there are many women that wear low-cut etc fashions specifically for the sake of leading others to sin. But it is not our place to judge what the intentions of a particular individual is based upon the kind of clothes they wear. Yes we can make some general statements, such as many women etc, but I would definitely hesitate to say most… And many of hose who do are not as fully culpable because often they have been raised insuch a way that they have come to believe this is the way life is, women wear provocative clothing to ‘get a man’. Trust me, women in that situation need your support and sympathy, not judgement.

 

[Baelor]

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.

I am not in a position to judge the mental state of three billion people, so I will not. I will say that most likely have a conception of formality (e.g. sweatpants v. cocktail dresses), but I cannot even claim that women in general care about fashion. On my college campus, I can assure you that most do not, or fail utterly if they do.

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.

But the fact that I need to be enlightened means that others may also need to be enlightened, which in turns means that they were not aware of the effect of their clothing on others, which itself in turn means that their motives were not immoral, contradicting what you stated previously.

Also, I love dealing with averages. Could you provide the quantified average that you are using?

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.

Prove it.

 

[OurBeloved]

---

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.

JPII’s Theology of the Body does not completely agree with you if that means anything to you

When a woman dresses immodestly and tempts a man, according JP II (and many others in the history of Church Tradition before him), the woman is to blame for tempting the man. She would have committed a sin regardless of whether the man who she had lead to temptation had acted on it or not.

If the man who was tempted had acted on his temptation, he too would have sinned as well.

So in a sense you are correct that it is a sin of pride. But it is a sin of pride on part of the woman to now admit that she sinned by leading the man to temptation. It is a sin of pride on the man to blame the woman if he had acted on that temptation. Both have sinned and both would commit a second sin in denying their responsibility for their sins.

That is what JP II and the Church teaches, in case you are interested.

 

[johnnyjones]

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.

Nicely said.

 

[OurBeloved]

I am not in a position to judge the mental state of three billion people, so I will not. I will say that most likely have a conception of formality (e.g. sweatpants v. cocktail dresses), but I cannot even claim that women in general care about fashion. On my college campus, I can assure you that most do not, or fail utterly if they do.

So considering you claim yourself that you are unable to judge the mental state of others (as you have stated above), how do you claim to have read the mind and intentions of all the students on your college campus, if I may ask?

But the fact that I need to be enlightened means that others may also need to be enlightened, which in turns means that they were not aware of the effect of their clothing on others, which itself in turn means that their motives were not immoral, contradicting what you stated previously.

Also, I love dealing with averages. Could you provide the quantified average that you are using?

The problem here is that you are assuming people are unaware of what needs to be private and what is indeed tempting to others. Since I feel that I can actually make judgement calls on the mental state of others, I will comfortably say that people are indeed aware of what is tempting to others. Our media makes sure that we are informed and goes to great lengths to describe how a certain pair of shorts are more sexually appealing than another. Girls and Women don’t simply wear clothes out of stupidity or ignorance but they do to get others sexually attracted to them or make others feel that they are sexually attractive. This is what our society promotes today.

So the women who dress immodestly today are indeed guilty of doing something immoral.

Prove it.

This is a clear indication that you are confusing things.

What you have to realize is that johnnyjones is not trying to prove that person X is sinning. He already knows person X is sinning when he looks at the woman and realizes that she is revealing her-self with the intent of appealing to the sexual faculties. Unless johnnyjones is an Enunuch he should have no problem realizing it when it happens.

On the other hand, the women herself can use what johnnyjones provides as feedback about her dress to try and tone down her clothing. Whats different in today’s society is that women would rather do the opposite. If someone finds their dress sexually appealing, once they find out, they would rather dress that way all the time. Our society promotes such things. Even our commercials are made to talk about how the clothes and other apparel are sexually appealing and therefore one should buy it. Women go buy them because they want to be sexually appealing i.e. tempt others (or for most, a particular person they are interested in).

So there is really nothing to prove. The Scripture and Church Tradition are both clear that whoever tempts the other is committing a sin. It is also clear that whoever acts on the temptation is also committing a sin.

What is given here is advice. You can either heed it or go on your merry way. The proof of the validity of the advice will be observed by the person when they get to heaven or if they disregarded it, when they got to hell.

I too was like you in college but what you will have to realize at some point in life is that not everything is about winning an argument. Sometimes it is worth our time to listen to what the other person is saying and argue with ourselves to formulate their answer to our own rigorous standards. But when we simply discard answers simply because they were not put forward to us in a way that does not meet our rigorous standards, sometimes we are the ones to loose. Especially when the other person is trying to help rather than win the argument. Just saying…

 

[Walking_Home]

JPII’s Theology of the Body does not completely agree with you if that means anything to you

When a woman dresses immodestly and tempts a man, according JP II (and many others in the history of Church Tradition before him), the woman is to blame for tempting the man. She would have committed a sin regardless of whether the man who she had lead to temptation had acted on it or not.

If the man who was tempted had acted on his temptation, he too would have sinned as well.

So in a sense you are correct that it is a sin of pride. But it is a sin of pride on part of the woman to now admit that she sinned by leading the man to temptation. It is a sin of pride on the man to blame the woman if he had acted on that temptation. Both have sinned and both would commit a second sin in denying their responsibility for their sins.

That is what JP II and the Church teaches, in case you are interested.

---

We cannot know the “intent” of another based on just the type of clothes a person wears.

 

[severus68]

I think there’s a relevant distinction here between someone who is intentionally dressing to create sexual desire, and someone who is dressing in a way that happens to attract someone else. I know men who are turned on by the idea of a woman in gym clothes (like gym shorts and a tank top). Does that mean those are now immodest? I’m an outdoor runner - I’m not going to cover a bunch of skin up in the summer!

I do think there is a point to not judging others. It’s not that we can’t say certain things are wrong, but - we can disagree without casting blame. I have a friend that thinks all two-piece swimsuits are immodest. I personally think that a tankini is quite modest, even if some of my stomach is showing. (And yes, beach modesty is different from church modesty, which is different from evening-wear modesty…the point is to not draw improper attention.) But we don’t need to cast blame on each other for having a minor difference of opinion.

I will be honest - as a woman who came out of an abusive relationship, a large part of both my vulnerability and the damage afterwards came from teachings on modesty. I think we’ve created a culture in which we are constantly second-guessing women’s choices. There’s always something more you could have covered, some action that you could have done differently. I do think it has gotten to the point of blaming women for men’s actions. When I complain that a guy tried to harass me walking home from work, the first question shouldn’t be “what were you wearing?”!

I’ve actually seen what I’d call “immodest modesty” among certain Christian women. I think this is an issue of misunderstanding what modesty is. There’s a certain holier-than-thou attitude that crops up. I think we should not draw attention to our clothes…the woman who insists on wearing long skirts even when it’s clearly impractical may also be immodest in that regard.

Well said.

I would just like to add that there is nothing wrong to dress to look attractive. It is natural for most men to feel attraction to women and vice versa. Then, it is a choice whether a man or woman chooses to lust over someone. Women dont have to dress dowdily or as puritans so as to ‘help’ men who give in to lust.

 

[OurBeloved]

---

We cannot know the “intent” of another based on just the type of clothes a person wears.

Yes, the point was not on whether I can make a judgement here. The point was on the objective reality that the woman who wears a dress that she is aware of causing temptation, is indeed committing a sin.

As for the issue of ‘intent’, one can make a good sound judgement given enough information. This should come as no surprise to you because we do this all the time in our criminal justice system.

So when a 19 year old goes to the store and buys the most revealing outfit she can find to wear to the party that the guy she is interested in will attend, she has the intent to sexually appeal to his faculties. That is a sin and is a judgement one can make pretty easily if you are close enough.

A more important thing to keep in mind is that even if we were unable to judge, the tempting quality of the dress does not loose its effect. So someone is very much entitled to (and even obligated to) walk up to her and tell her why her dress is inappropriate. The bigger problem here is that our society views this the opposite way. We would rather encourage that dress and the woman who gets informed about how too sexually appealing it is would rather wear it more often ‘to get the guy’ or just ‘get guys’.

 

[OurBeloved]

Well said.

I would just like to add that there is nothing wrong to dress to look attractive. It is natural for most men to feel attraction to women and vice versa. Then, it is a choice whether a man or woman chooses to lust over someone. Women dont have to dress dowdily or as puritans so as to ‘help’ men who give in to lust.

So if I understand you correctly, it is ok for a woman to tempt a man? I find this inconsistent with teachings of the church because temptation here is present regardless of whether the man who observes her has a high degree of self control or not.

The highly self-controlled man might not given in to the temptation but the temptation is present nevertheless and far as Theology is concerned, the woman would be sinning.

By your reasoning, it was not evil of the Devil to tempt Christ or even us human beings because if we are self-controlled, temptation doesn’t matter. But as we saw in the Garden of Eden, God didn’t just blame the human beings but also cursed the Devil too.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, the point was not on whether I can make a judgement here. The point was on the objective reality that the woman who wears a dress that she is aware of causing temptation, is indeed committing a sin.

As for the issue of ‘intent’, one can make a good sound judgement given enough information. This should come as no surprise to you because we do this all the time in our criminal justice system.

**So when a 19 year old goes to the store and buys the most revealing outfit she can find to wear to the party that the guy she is interested in will attend, she has the intent to sexually appeal to his faculties. **That is a sin and is a judgement one can make pretty easily if you are close enough.

A more important thing to keep in mind is that even if we were unable to judge, the tempting quality of the dress does not loose its effect. So someone is very much entitled to (and even obligated to) walk up to her and tell her why her dress is inappropriate. The bigger problem here is that our society views this the opposite way. We would rather encourage that dress and the woman who gets informed about how too sexually appealing it is would rather wear it more often ‘to get the guy’ or just ‘get guys’.

---

Seems like --you are speaking out of both sides of the mouth. Again – neither you are I are in a position to know the “intent”. For all we know – buying that dress – to her is just a way of being attractive – and not to cause anyone to salivate.

 

[OurBeloved]

---

Seems like --you are speaking out of both sides of the mouth. Again – neither you are I are in a position to know the “intent”. For all we know – buying that dress – to her is just a way of being attractive – and not to cause anyone to salivate.

If she wants to be sexually attractive to someone or many others, that is a sin. And any man who is not eunuch can make a good judgement of a dress whether it is sexually appealing or just attractive.

I also do not understand your fixation with a suppossed inability to judge intent. Is it, or is it not true that our criminal justice system (and those in almost any part of the world) makes judgements and decisions about the intent of the accused and even accusers?

 

[thewanderer]

So if I understand you correctly, it is ok for a woman to tempt a man? I find this inconsistent with teachings of the church because temptation here is present regardless of whether the man who observes her has a high degree of self control or not.

The highly self-controlled man might not given in to the temptation but the temptation is present nevertheless and far as Theology is concerned, the woman would be sinning.

By your reasoning, it was not evil of the Devil to tempt Christ or even us human beings because if we are self-controlled, temptation doesn’t matter. But as we saw in the Garden of Eden, God didn’t just blame the human beings but also cursed the Devil too.

I realize I’m somewhat speaking for severus here, but I don’t see how that is what he is saying at all!!! Dressing so that one looks ‘pretty’ or ‘attractive’ is not the problem. dressing so that one is ‘sexy’ is. There is a HUGE difference. I somehow doubt that Severus68’s definition of looking attractive is one that amounts to inciting lust.

 

[OurBeloved]

I realize I’m somewhat speaking for severus here, but I don’t see how that is what he is saying at all!!! Dressing so that one looks ‘pretty’ or ‘attractive’ is not the problem. dressing so that one is ‘sexy’ is. There is a HUGE difference. I somehow doubt that Severus68’s definition of looking attractive is one that amounts to inciting lust.

Ok, I wasn’t really interested on the degree of attraction in Serverus’ claim but more so on the claim that temptation seems to be irrelevant as long as the man is self-controlled. I was merely pointing out that such a position did not make theological sense.

But as for the matter of difference between attractive vs sex appeal, I agree with you 100%.

 

[Walking_Home]

If she wants to be sexually attractive to someone or many others, that is a sin. And any man who is not eunuch can make a good judgement of a dress whether it is sexually appealing or just attractive.

I also do not understand your fixation with a suppossed inability to judge intent. Is it, or is it not true that our criminal justice system (and those in almost any part of the world) makes judgements and decisions about the intent of the accused and even accusers?

---

When the person is accused of committing an actual crime. What you are leading to – is arresting someone – just because “they look a certain way”.

 

[OurBeloved]

---

When the person is accused of committing an actual crime. What you are leading to – is arresting someone – just because “they look a certain way”.

You are missing the point.

I am asking the following from you

You propose : “We can never judge intent”

I am saying that WE CAN make a reasonably judgement of intent because we do that all the time even in criminal justice courts.

So the point here is that we can judge intent and that your position of ‘‘we are unable to judge intent’’ is invalid.

 

[thewanderer]

If she wants to be sexually attractive to someone or many others, that is a sin. And any man who is not eunuch can make a good judgement of a dress whether it is sexually appealing or just attractive.

I also do not understand your fixation with a suppossed inability to judge intent. Is it, or is it not true that our criminal justice system (and those in almost any part of the world) makes judgements and decisions about the intent of the accused and even accusers?

Yes, with enough information it is possible to make a very good guess as to what the intent of a person is. The problem is that simply knowing what clothes a woman is wearing is just not enough information to know what the persons intent is. There has to be much else included. I can tell you from personal experience that a woman is NOT always fully aware of the effect her clothing is going to have on others. Because of this the fact it is true that just because someone is wearing a particular garment which incites lust in many men **does not necessarily mean **that that person has a bad intention. Having been on the wrong end of this situation in the past, it is a lot easier than some people would assume.

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, I wasn’t really interested on the degree of attraction in Serverus’ claim but more so on the claim that temptation seems to be irrelevant as long as the man is self-controlled. I was merely pointing out that such a position did not make theological sense.

But as for the matter of difference between attractive vs sex appeal, I agree with you 100%.

from looking over his post I’m pretty sure he was not trying to say that women are not responsible in any instance. Instead he was talking about an instance where a woman dresses in an attractive (as opposed to sexy) manner and claiming that if a man lusts after this woman it is not her fault. In other words, its fine for women to wear attractive clothing.

 

[Walking_Home]

You are missing the point.

I am asking the following from you

You propose : “We can never judge intent”

I am saying that WE CAN make a reasonably judgement of intent because we do that all the time even in criminal justice courts.

So the point here is that we can judge intent and that your position of ‘‘we are unable to judge intent’’ is invalid.

---

Again – you are talking of an actual crime. Only God knows the true intent – of someone buying clothes at a store.

 

[OurBeloved]

Yes, with enough information it is possible to make a very good guess as to what the intent of a person is. The problem is that simply knowing what clothes a woman is wearing is just not enough information to know what the persons intent is. There has to be much else included. I can tell you from personal experience that a woman is NOT always fully aware of the effect her clothing is going to have on others. Because of this the fact it is true that just because someone is wearing a particular garment which incites lust in many men **does not necessarily mean **that that person has a bad intention. Having been on the wrong end of this situation in the past, it is a lot easier than some people would assume.

Yes, I agree with you. Which is why I am also pointing out that the problem here is that when informed that they are wearing something sexually appealing, the social culture tends to make them want to wear it more rather than discourage it.

There are also many clothes and apparel that are advertised and promoted as sexually appealing. You see 19 year old girls line up to get that stuff. In this case, the intent is more clearer, at least as a parent I would presume.

But you also bring up a good point. Most times today, grown women fall in to this error out of ignorance. The major reason for this is the failure of our culture to build a healthy degree of personal sensitivity (as JP II calls it) in us. In-fact, the opposite seems to be the case where we are called to bear out as much as possible. So in such a case, we can make a good judgement that women in our society are unaware of how to be modest.

Even after considering the above however, if you are a parent for an example, and your child is dressing a certain way, you should be able to make a pretty good judgement call on the intent. And regardless of the intent, you should be in a position to inform them about the problem with the dress.

Woman who dress in a bad way in general, even without bad intent, send a message about themselves to an attentive person. That message is that I am a woman who is either

1. Unaware of how to dress modestly – Problematic
   or
2. Love to dress in a sexually appealing way – Problematic
   Since both of the above cases are problematic, I don’t think the ‘intent’ factor should be any comfort to us Christians.