Modesty for women and men

[Portrait]

If the point of traditional values is to avoid a self destructive cycle then it often fails. Also, I never said it is damaging to all women, but it can and has been damaging to some. Which is why I think its important to make sure to include it in the discussion so that others reading this aren’t led down that path.

(sorry for posting again by the way… I guess I kind of assumed that since you had already replied to Baelor more than once that you had missed my earlier post. I don’t want to come across as though I am harassing you.)

Dear thewanderer,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The problem is, dear sister, that we either resort to traditional values as a benchmark on what constitutes decorous clothing, or we take are cue from the prevailing culture, which at the present time is in a dire state of moral deterioration and which has completely lost its way, morally speaking. It is the provocative style of clothing so common today that is truly damaging to a woman and her dignity, because it invites men to view her as a mere assemblage of body parts, rather than focusing upon her personhood. Displaying and emphasizing her attractions is demeaning to her and will, at length, cause her to loose all self-respect as a woman. Please note I am not saying that a woman should not make herself attractive, but there is a huge difference in looking attractive and looking seductive and women know the difference and so do we men.

What we need to remember is that it was to the Catholic Church and not secular godless society that God entrusted the supernatural wisdom to discern what constitutes a spiritual danger as regards soul destroying customs, including immodest clothing. It is for this reason that we should look to the collective wisdom and moral sense of the faithful in times past, which will not lead us astray. On the contrary that good and wholesome wisdom will not only aid us in our spiritual formation, but protect us from making catastrophic errors of prudential judgment with respect to our clothing choices. It is sheer folly to want to walk away lightly from traditional values and look to our decadent contemporary society for what it deems to be modest or immodest. This is not the *modus operandi *of an authentic Catholicism which always highly esteems traditional values and the moral sense of the faithful out of which they evolved.

It is frequently asserted nowadays that because the Magisterium has not issued some official proscription against unseemly garments such as the mini-skirt or tightly-fitting jeans, then it is a case of dublis libertas (where a doubt exists freedom should be granted). This, I will concede, sounds plausible at first but it is, notwithstanding, fundamentally flawed reasoning, for it arrogantly ignores the extrinsic tradition of the Church and the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning that tradition as true and trustworthy. Moreover, this mindset also results in moral relativism as it has no trustworthy benchmark with which to turn for guidance, only contemporary society and conflicting individual opinion. It should be manifestly obvious that this is not the way for a Catholic to proceed as he will be all at sea as to what constitues modest clothing and even why it is immodest. Alas, all too many Catholics have fallen into this uncertainty and confusion, simply because they have stubbornly refused to repair to traditional values for enlightenment and spiritual direction.

It does rather seem, if these boards are anything to go by, that many modern Catholics have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice that makes very little demand upon them in terms of sanctity and separation from the godless world and its vulgar fashions. Catholics today seem always to be asking what they can get away with and how much they can embrace the world and still remain in good standing with the Church. This certainly appears to be case as regards clothing, as indeed with other things.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

I have said this a lot of times on this thread. If you want to learn traditional values, you turn to the homilies of Pope’s, Bishops, Priests or even grandparents or parents from a time where modesty was a core value or you ask an elderly person you know who is from such a time.

As I told you once, the fact that you are unable to locate the information required does not mean it does not exist.

I question the possibility of finding it at all. How can one identify whether modesty is a core value, and how can one identify the time at which modesty ceases to be a core value of a society? How can one identify at what points the Church was speaking in line with traditional values? How can one identify which subcultures in the past were operating with modesty as a core value?

Why is this so difficult? If you are someone who is from the West like me, all you need to do is go to a time period before the sexual revolution where society decided to get rid of modesty as a core value.

Proof that that was the turning point. Proof that people in general at that time operated with modesty as a core value. Proof that the Church offered opinions on exactly what garments were modest and which were immodest.

Let us return to that point. Shoulder-revealing garments would be…A) Modest, or B) Immodest.

In this case you do know how the rocket i.e. modesty works. It is suppossed to not cause temptation to others so it is based on experiences of persons. Thus, it makes sense to believe in the collective conclusions and standards drawn and refined through centuries of collective experiences rather than what is gathered in your own short life time.

Baelor:

If you want to make the leap of faith that humanity is not risk-averse and will therefore always border on the edge of the modest-immodest boundary, if you want to make the leap of faith that the judgment of individuals in the aggregate is accurate, if you want to make the leap of faith that individuals are able to accurately identify the correct judgments of others, if you want to make the leap of faith that all factors that went into creating the “traditional values” were based on the correct methodology and ideology, if you want to make the leap of faith that the premises upon which all societies were operating were correct, be my guest.

The point being made here however is that “This is how society operates, if you want to deny that, you should deny every bit of knowledge that you have that was not through first hand experience”.

That is a false dilemma. One can have various sources of knowledge, for example:

1. Revealed knowledge (once one accepts it)
2. Reason
3. Empiricism

Your determination that “this is how society operates” has not been determined or accepted, and you yourself admit that it is the result of 3), but have not provided any corroboration outside of your own individual experience.

I am simply questioning the validity of your claim.

So as a philosophical position, there is nothing wrong with taking your route as long as you do it consistently. What we have here is you picking and choosing what you like and support you from experiences of others in different academic fields while rejecting the methodology it-self.

Really? Where have I done that?

There is nothing to prove really, it is an observation. If you observe a different method of knowledge propagation in society, then you are welcome to enlighten us which would prove me wrong anyway.

I did. You addressed not a single one of the issues, which would normally be fine, but you did not even answer the follow-up either.

Baelor:

If you want to make the leap of faith that humanity is not risk-averse and will therefore always border on the edge of the modest-immodest boundary, if you want to make the leap of faith that the judgment of individuals in the aggregate is accurate, if you want to make the leap of faith that individuals are able to accurately identify the correct judgments of others, if you want to make the leap of faith that all factors that went into creating the “traditional values” were based on the correct methodology and ideology, if you want to make the leap of faith that the premises upon which all societies were operating were correct, be my guest.

I think you need to take more initiative in your life to prove me wrong rather than take the weak approach of saying “you don’t have a proof so you must be wrong”. I might not have proof but I might still certainly be right

I am not trying to prove anything. You simply made a claim that society operates in a particular way, but you refuse to demonstrate that fact conclusively or to acknowledge it as a certainly fallible observation until this point.

The proposed methodology is for the average person today who would still have access to traditional values that can be obtained by Elders (which could be in homilies of Pope’s, Bishops, Priests, or advice from ones own parents, grandparents etc). If you are cut-off from all these possibilities, I do sympathize with you but pray to God that you will meet someone from whom you may be able to learn the traditional values. All that matters for this discussion however is that you agree that we have to turn to traditional values as our best option. That to me is the contention of this discussion.

So, let us do so:

In fact, let us assume all those things for the purposes of this post. Now,

1. Make “traditional values” governing dress concrete

1. Identify the dress that results from “traditional values”

1. Answer both issues laid out in my last post, neither of which has been identified as incorrect or problematic.

 

[Barbra67]

Matthew (5:3)
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[Baelor]

Let me repeat my query in case what I am actually seeking has been lost.

OurBeloved, this is mainly for you, in case you do not actually understand what I am saying due to inattentive or incorrect reading of my posts, my own lack of clarity, or some other reason.

There is no doubt from me that traditional values correctly inform judgment on a wide variety of moral matters. Modesty is no exception. Thus, one should look to traditional values in order to know what is modest.

That was not, however, the subject of my interest. I know how to determine if my dress is modest: I may look to traditional values and will know, if my outfit reflects traditional garb, that it is modest.

I am interested in determining a criterion that can distinguish between modest and immodest clothing. Thus, if my outfit does not bear a significant resemblance to traditional garb, I must determine whether it is modest or not. This may seem trivial, but it is not. Some persons find pants of any kind inherently immodest, for example.

Thus, the issue in question is determining a methodology that can judge each article of clothing as modest or immodest.

There are three outcomes that I perceive as possible:

1. This question is irrelevant and should neither be asked nor answered.
2. The methodology theoretically exists but is unknown/we do not have the tools to develop it.
3. The methodology is currently extant and discernible.

Either of these outcomes is acceptable to me.

The problem is that it is not clear to me that traditional values, which was provided as an answer to my query, is a satisfactory one. I listed some issues with this methodology earlier; none has been addressed. Additionally, no one has actually provided the methodology with traditional values. Looking at what Popes had to say is helpful, but does not exhaust every possible, and even prolonged thought will not yield cases that were simply not addressed. For example, is showing a square inch of flesh above the knee inherently immodest? What about an inch of boob? Is showing the hair permissible? The eyes? The nose? How many toes may one show?

Rephrased, in what way, if any, may one determine at a concrete level the distinction between modest and immodest?

Looking to traditional values offers the following problems:

If you want to make the leap of faith that humanity is not risk-averse and will therefore always border on the edge of the modest-immodest boundary, if you want to make the leap of faith that the judgment of individuals in the aggregate is accurate, if you want to make the leap of faith that individuals are able to accurately identify the correct judgments of others, that is, determining whether something is sexually attractive to others or not, if you want to make the leap of faith that all factors that went into creating the “traditional values” were based on the correct methodology and ideology, if you want to make the leap of faith that the premises upon which all societies were operating were correct, be my guest.

 

[thewanderer]

Dear thewanderer,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The problem is, dear sister, that we either resort to traditional values as a benchmark on what constitutes decorous clothing, or we take are cue from the prevailing culture, which at the present time is in a dire state of moral deterioration and which has completely lost its way, morally speaking. It is the provocative style of clothing so common today that is truly damaging to a woman and her dignity, because it invites men to view her as a mere assemblage of body parts, rather than focusing upon her personhood. Displaying and emphasizing her attractions is demeaning to her and will, at length, cause her to loose all self-respect as a woman. Please note I am not saying that a woman should not make herself attractive, but there is a huge difference in looking attractive and looking seductive and women know the difference and so do we men.

What we need to remember is that it was to the Catholic Church and not secular godless society that God entrusted the supernatural wisdom to discern what constitutes a spiritual danger as regards soul destroying customs, including immodest clothing. It is for this reason that we should look to the collective wisdom and moral sense of the faithful in times past, which will not lead us astray. On the contrary that good and wholesome wisdom will not only aid us in our spiritual formation, but protect us from making catastrophic errors of prudential judgment with respect to our clothing choices. It is sheer folly to want to walk away lightly from traditional values and look to our decadent contemporary society for what it deems to be modest or immodest. This is not the *modus operandi *of an authentic Catholicism which always highly esteems traditional values and the moral sense of the faithful out of which they evolved.

It is frequently asserted nowadays that because the Magisterium has not issued some official proscription against unseemly garments such as the mini-skirt or tightly-fitting jeans, then it is a case of dublis libertas (where a doubt exists freedom should be granted). This, I will concede, sounds plausible at first but it is, notwithstanding, fundamentally flawed reasoning, for it arrogantly ignores the extrinsic tradition of the Church and the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning that tradition as true and trustworthy. Moreover, this mindset also results in moral relativism as it has no trustworthy benchmark with which to turn for guidance, only contemporary society and conflicting individual opinion. It should be manifestly obvious that this is not the way for a Catholic to proceed as he will be all at sea as to what constitues modest clothing and even why it is immodest. Alas, all too many Catholics have fallen into this uncertainty and confusion, simply because they have stubbornly refused to repair to traditional values for enlightenment and spiritual direction.

It does rather seem, if these boards are anything to go by, that many modern Catholics have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice that makes very little demand upon them in terms of sanctity and separation from the godless world and its vulgar fashions. Catholics today seem always to be asking what they can get away with and how much they can embrace the world and still remain in good standing with the Church. This certainly appears to be case as regards clothing, as indeed with other things.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I think the bolded part is where we disagree. I do not see these as the only two options. We should look to the past to learn what wisdom we can from it, but we must always be careful to remove the folly from the wisdom. Therefore we do not just accept that which is old because it is old, but we carefully examine it to remove the good from the neutral and bad, so that the wisdom from other cultures can be purified and become even more worthwhile. The Church seeks the Truth. No one culture has anything completely right, which is why the church will always be countercultural, it must always point out to each culture where it falls short. So, as I have said before, while I have great respect for the past and the wisdom to be found in other cultures, I am not going to accept something unquestioningly simply because it is old. If I were to do that it is likely that I would fall into errors that that previous culture was subject to. So wee must do our best to discern the Truth, with the hellp of the Church and constant prayer. That is my position.

And yes, I agree that the much of the clothiing worn today is actually degrading to women, just as I believe many standards from the past were. Each society has its own downfalls, which is why we must carefully examine them to come to the Truth.

 

[Baelor]

Any of these outcomes is acceptable to me.

Typo.

 

[Portrait]

Let me repeat my query in case what I am actually seeking has been lost.

OurBeloved, this is mainly for you, in case you do not actually understand what I am saying due to inattentive or incorrect reading of my posts, my own lack of clarity, or some other reason.

There is no doubt from me that traditional values correctly inform judgment on a wide variety of moral matters. Modesty is no exception. Thus, one should look to traditional values in order to know what is modest.

That was not, however, the subject of my interest. I know how to determine if my dress is modest: I may look to traditional values and will know, if my outfit reflects traditional garb, that it is modest.

I am interested in determining a criterion that can distinguish between modest and immodest clothing. Thus, if my outfit does not bear a significant resemblance to traditional garb, I must determine whether it is modest or not. This may seem trivial, but it is not. Some persons find pants of any kind inherently immodest, for example.

Thus, the issue in question is determining a methodology that can judge each article of clothing as modest or immodest.

There are three outcomes that I perceive as possible:

1. This question is irrelevant and should neither be asked nor answered.
2. The methodology theoretically exists but is unknown/we do not have the tools to develop it.
3. The methodology is currently extant and discernible.

Either of these outcomes is acceptable to me.

The problem is that it is not clear to me that traditional values, which was provided as an answer to my query, is a satisfactory one. I listed some issues with this methodology earlier; none has been addressed. Additionally, no one has actually provided the methodology with traditional values. Looking at what Popes had to say is helpful, but does not exhaust every possible, and even prolonged thought will not yield cases that were simply not addressed. For example, is showing a square inch of flesh above the knee inherently immodest? What about an inch of boob? Is showing the hair permissible? The eyes? The nose? How many toes may one show?

Rephrased, in what way, if any, may one determine at a concrete level the distinction between modest and immodest?

Looking to traditional values offers the following problems:

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Would you kindly mind answering the following questions, when you have a little time:

What benchmark, dear brother, would you yourself use to determine whether some particular garment is modest or immodest? To what sources do you repair for reliable and trustworthy guidance on such matters? Do you believe that there is any standard or point of reference to which the earnest Catholic can turn, or must he grope helplessly alone in the dark and come to his own personal conclusions in the final analysis?

How do you think Catholics throughout the ages have established whether specific clothing is either modest of immodest? Have the various Popes, for example, who have spoken upon such matters used an unsound ‘criterion’ or faulty standard, in your opinion?

Are you of the opinion that Church teaching allows a great deal flexibility in this whole issue of modest attire and that there is very little that must needs be ‘covered up’? Moreover is this dependent on whether the context is divine worship or in public places?

Thankyou, dear friend. Look forward to reading your responses. Please be assured that I am genuinely desirous to understand your position better, Baelor.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[johnnyjones]

Let me repeat my query in case what I am actually seeking has been lost.

OurBeloved, this is mainly for you, in case you do not actually understand what I am saying due to inattentive or incorrect reading of my posts, my own lack of clarity, or some other reason.

There is no doubt from me that traditional values correctly inform judgment on a wide variety of moral matters. Modesty is no exception. Thus, one should look to traditional values in order to know what is modest.

That was not, however, the subject of my interest. I know how to determine if my dress is modest: I may look to traditional values and will know, if my outfit reflects traditional garb, that it is modest.

I am interested in determining a criterion that can distinguish between modest and immodest clothing. Thus, if my outfit does not bear a significant resemblance to traditional garb, I must determine whether it is modest or not. This may seem trivial, but it is not. Some persons find pants of any kind inherently immodest, for example.

Thus, the issue in question is determining a methodology that can judge each article of clothing as modest or immodest.

There are three outcomes that I perceive as possible:

1. This question is irrelevant and should neither be asked nor answered.
2. The methodology theoretically exists but is unknown/we do not have the tools to develop it.
3. The methodology is currently extant and discernible.

Either of these outcomes is acceptable to me.

The problem is that it is not clear to me that traditional values, which was provided as an answer to my query, is a satisfactory one. I listed some issues with this methodology earlier; none has been addressed. Additionally, no one has actually provided the methodology with traditional values. Looking at what Popes had to say is helpful, but does not exhaust every possible, and even prolonged thought will not yield cases that were simply not addressed. For example, is showing a square inch of flesh above the knee inherently immodest? What about an inch of boob? Is showing the hair permissible? The eyes? The nose? How many toes may one show?

Rephrased, in what way, if any, may one determine at a concrete level the distinction between modest and immodest?

Looking to traditional values offers the following problems:

Could it be said then, using your point of difficulty in the matter, that because you can’t apply a level of distiction between modest and immodest, we may have evolved societally into being incapable of having any distinctions between the two? I ask that not knowing an absolute answer but I lean towards a high probability.

Braided hair and necklesses were immodest during the period of time outlined in the NT. What immodesty’s do we have now? Have we become so accepting of certain fashions we don’t know what we should do? I understand your debate point, “modesty” is difficult to gauge. We may have gotten to the point where there is no shame. We can’t tell if shoulders are more stimulating then the half covered genital area.

A free society operates on its own moral standard. But as Christians, if we know that such simple things as braided hair and necklesses were a fuss, how much more is is a thin cloth covering the typical areas of sexual stimulation “immodest”? Immodesty is not regulated, but using a logical moral compass that the pope and the church suggests should at least be a start.

 

[OurBeloved]

It is very easy to lead impressionable young women who desire to be holy to consider themselves and their body as simply something which they must gaurd from the greedy eyes of men. I know you don’t think this can happen, but I assure you it can and does.

What you are referring to here are possibilities. No one is denying possibilities. One can use religion to incite hatred. It has happened in the past and it still does happen. But to conclude from it that we should be careful about asking people to be religious is incorrect, is it not?

So in this case, while some people while adopting traditional values can lead them to destructive behaviour, it would be incorrect to therefore conclude that doing so is bad.

its not confusing to say that modesty is about preventing temptation out of charity and that it has to do with the visul sense in particular (alhtough it can also be related to the other senses, touch and smell for instance). The thing is is that I am looking for a universal, not just examples, about what the difference between fashion and standards of modesty is. We know things through universals. I am still not clear on exactly what your idea of traditional values entails, so I’m looking for a universal. From earlier in this thread we had a universal that we both agreed on ‘sexy’ clothing is immodest (in general public use). That is a universal that can be used practically to determine what clothing is modest and what immodest. Seeing as we both agreed on that, I was curious how that lined up with the idea of traditional values. If you still agree that the line of immodesty with respecct to clothing is to be drawn at ‘sexy’ clothing, then traditional values ought to match up with this universal, if they don’t, and require more than that, then it seems likely that one can dispense with the traditional values that require more as the universal for whether an article of clothing is modest or not is whether or not it is ‘sexy’.

The universal here is ‘not cause temptation’. You are simply caught in a cycle here. When you ask me what is the universal? I tell you its not to cause temptation. Then you ask me how do you do that? I answer that the most reasonable way to do is by following traditional values. Then you go back to asking what is the universal standard behind these values and we have a cycle.

The problem here is that you implicitly looking for a universal value that tells you what the goal is and at the same time tells you how to best achieve it. That is not how it works. You have a universal value that you want to achieve. Experience of centuries tells you how to best achieve it.

There are two different factors, 1. the focus placed solely (or almost solely) on women ensuring they do not become an occasion of sin for a man.

This is really not true. What you are confusing here is the fact that women are usually the ones who advance and try out different fashions. Hence, there were more guidelines for women to use that were given by tradition.

1. The statement ‘traditional values’ when left unclear can lead to all sorts of claims about what is necessary for modesty, such as the claim that women can never wear pants or else they are sinning by being immodest. Many things were traditionally the style or stadard of dress in the past, but if it is not clear what is meant by ‘traditional values’ it can lead people to mistake what you have labelled differences in fashion as a lack of modesty.

But this is just a problem unique to you. You and some others have somehow fallen in to a weird area of life where you seem unable to identify traditional values and confuse it with fashion. That is really a problem you need to resolve than any objection against traditional values.

No, people can not say the same thing with respect to religion in general. my problem is not that there is some set of standards and values. I wholeheartedly believe there is some standard of what clothing is acceptable and what clothing isn’t, so I have no idea why you think that is my problem. My problem, as mentioned above, is that I have seen this kind of unclarified thnking and arguing lead women into a destructive cycle, so we should clarify it so as to avoid leading women into that!

The point here is that you are not suppossed to argue. If you noticed, I tell you to adopt traditional values. You are the one who has been arguing with me about how you should be able to pick and choose. What you are suggesting is indeed destructive. What I am suggesting does not do such a thing but give you a set of rules to follow.

 

[Baelor]

What benchmark, dear brother, would you yourself use to determine whether some particular garment is modest or immodest? To what sources do you repair for reliable and trustworthy guidance on such matters? Do you believe that there is any standard or point of reference to which the earnest Catholic can turn, or must he grope helplessly alone in the dark and come to his own personal conclusions in the final analysis?

The post you just quoted explicitly answered this question: I believe that traditional values generate outcomes that I can safely say are modest.

How do you think Catholics throughout the ages have established whether specific clothing is either modest of immodest? Have the various Popes, for example, who have spoken upon such matters used an unsound ‘criterion’ or faulty standard, in your opinion?

Teaching on specific garments has not exhausted the selection thereof, and consequently it is impossible that the Popes etc. have established the modesty of the same.

Are you of the opinion that Church teaching allows a great deal flexibility in this whole issue of modest attire and that there is very little that must needs be ‘covered up’? Moreover is this dependent on whether the context is divine worship or in public places?

The Church, to my awareness, has not been as exhaustive in its description of what must be covered and what must not be covered.

For instance, is it possible that as many men are as aroused by hair or eyes as flesh above the knees? I find it conceivable, yet the Church does not permit short shorts into the Vatican but does permit uncovered hair and exposed eyes.

Could it be said then, using your point of difficulty in the matter, that because you can’t apply a level of distiction between modest and immodest, we may have evolved societally into being incapable of having any distinctions between the two? I ask that not knowing an absolute answer but I lean towards a high probability.

I am saying that no one in this thread has actually provided a methodology that is sufficient to establish that line exactly. Whether this should be attempted or not is a different issue.

 

[johnnyjones]

The post you just quoted explicitly answered this question: I believe that traditional values generate outcomes that I can safely say are modest.

Teaching on specific garments has not exhausted the selection thereof, and consequently it is impossible that the Popes etc. have established the modesty of the same.

The Church, to my awareness, has not been as exhaustive in its description of what must be covered and what must not be covered.

For instance, is it possible that as many men are as aroused by hair or eyes as flesh above the knees? I find it conceivable, yet the Church does not permit short shorts into the Vatican but does permit uncovered hair and exposed eyes.

I am saying that no one in this thread has actually provided a methodology that is sufficient to establish that line exactly. Whether this should be attempted or not is a different issue.

Why doesn’t the Vatican permit short shorts?

 

[OurBeloved]

I question the possibility of finding it at all. How can one identify whether modesty is a core value, and how can one identify the time at which modesty ceases to be a core value of a society? How can one identify at what points the Church was speaking in line with traditional values? How can one identify which subcultures in the past were operating with modesty as a core value?

A society that does have concern for not tempting others is a society that holds modesty as a core value.

More problematically here, you seem to consider yourself the pinnacle of intelligence and assume that if you cannot identify a culture that has modesty as a core value, then everyone must also suffer from the same problem.

Ask yourself, how would you identify any core value of a culture? How would you identify a culture that is pro-democracy? It would be the same way you identify a culture with modesty as a core value.

Proof that that was the turning point. Proof that people in general at that time operated with modesty as a core value. Proof that the Church offered opinions on exactly what garments were modest and which were immodest.

And you couldn’t spend the time to do it yourself? You instead want to try and use your lack of knowledge as a tool here in this argument. Frankly, I could respond that if you are unaware of everything you said above, it is better for you to not discuss this issue because you seem unaware of history it-self.

Let us return to that point. Shoulder-revealing garments would be…A) Modest, or B) Immodest.

Yes, and as I have said many times, what better way to know if a certain garment would be modest or immodest than by using traditional values and standards built on centuries of experience.

That is a false dilemma. One can have various sources of knowledge, for example:

1. Revealed knowledge (once one accepts it)
2. Reason
3. Empiricism

You seem to not read complete sentences. I asked you to provide a system on how one acquires knowledge and passes it down other than a way where people before them pass their knowledge down to the younger generations.

While what you have suggested as ways of acquiring knowledge are correct, you are confusing that with passing knowledge down. If everyone were to only follow the three you listed, we would never make progress because everyone will have to rediscover everything others did.

Your determination that “this is how society operates” has not been determined or accepted, and you yourself admit that it is the result of 3), but have not provided any corroboration outside of your own individual experience.

My own individual experience? If you have studied above high school education, it should also be within your experience as well (assuming you pay attention) that entire field of academia operates by passing down of knowledge from the previous and peer evaluations.

I am simply questioning the validity of your claim.

Without even questioning your own line of questioning.

Really? Where have I done that?

You do that every-time you deny that the methodology I suggest is unique to this issue of modesty and is just my individual experience.

I did. You addressed not a single one of the issues, which would normally be fine, but you did not even answer the follow-up either.

I do not need to answer your follow up questions as I explained pretty well but you seem to keep missing. It has come to the level that you have started to deny the existence of any material that contains homilies from popes, bishops or priests with advice on how to dress.

This is indeed quiet fascinating to see what great lengths you would go to defend yourself when a simply acknowledgement and agreement would be sufficient that your position was problematic and mine is at least reasonable. But I guess it is not to be so we move on…

I am not trying to prove anything. You simply made a claim that society operates in a particular way, but you refuse to demonstrate that fact conclusively or to acknowledge it as a certainly fallible observation until this point.

I cannot say my position is false because anyone who really has experience of real life, even in academia would know that it is exactly how everything operates.

So, let us do so:

I have already provided answers for them but it appears that you are either a unique individual who has no access to the resources I pointed out or simply desperate to maybe win the argument.

Quiet ironically, you don’t even seem to realize that my possible inability to answer the questions does not mean that you have achieved anything either.

 

[OurBeloved]

There is no doubt from me that traditional values correctly inform judgment on a wide variety of moral matters. Modesty is no exception. Thus, one should look to traditional values in order to know what is modest. That was not, however, the subject of my interest. I know how to determine if my dress is modest: I may look to traditional values and will know, if my outfit reflects traditional garb, that it is modest

But for the longest time, this was the very point you debated started discussing methodologies of coming to know things. If you do agree with the above statement as you say you do, then we really are in agreement.

I am interested in determining a criterion that can distinguish between modest and immodest clothing. Thus, if my outfit does not bear a significant resemblance to traditional garb, I must determine whether it is modest or not. This may seem trivial, but it is not…

This is a different question. In other words, here you are searching for a way to establish the standards independent of traditional values using some other knowledge that you might extract. In other words, you want to perhaps look at the traditional values and extract some core idea from it or perform an experiment to determine what will be called modest of what might not be called modest.

There are few things to keep in mind on this matter.

1. Human beings are complex creatures and their reactions cannot be completely documented or predicted. A person’s behavior also varies over-time and as they experience different life experiences. Even if we could grasp all these variations and predict with 100% certainity, then our free-will probably doesn’t exist and we are just creatures of determinism. So in any case, we can only attempt to achieve a general idea based on reactions of human beings.
2. In a sense, the core value you seek is ‘what doesn’t cause temptation for the general population’. In this sense, I think if you can indeed carry out a study in evaluating which body parts one finds attractive, then it would indeed be valuable and can help better refine the traditional values. Also important to keep in mind is that it is also about how the form of the body is emphasized. But that too could be studied.

But such a study is most likely never going to be conducted and there is a question of how many souls would have to suffer temptation by participating in the study in order for us to gather data as well. So it does raise an ethical question about holding such a study.

1. What is important as a Christian is salvation. If traditional values can get the job done, it is better to adopt these values rather than try and re-invent the wheel. In the process of reinvention and the time taken to reinvent, many souls may be lost as they are lead to temptation. Salvation also involved doing the best we can. If traditional values can do the job, it is better in this sense to adopt these rather than carry out an experiment.

So the possible answer to your question is that it is indeed possible to perform an experiment and determine some more better results but right now, it seems like it will not happen due to practical constraints and valid ethical questions about holding such an experiment. But hypothetically, it is possible to conduct such an experiment and give us a wealth of information that can help refine our traditional values.

In the meantime however, until such an experiment is conducted, the best way one can live a modest life would be to turn to traditional values and standards. In other words, as you seem to agree, we would have to rely on the collective experience of centuries as our guidelines. It’s definitely not perfect, but it will have to do.

EDIT: Ignore my previous post to you (Post #406) because it might not be of any importance since as I understand from what you have written in the post quoted in this reply, you and I are actually in agreement.

 

[Baelor]

But for the longest time, this was the very point you debated started discussing methodologies of coming to know things. If you do agree with the above statement as you say you do, then we really are in agreement.

That was not ever the point I was discussing. I have only been concerned with one thing: the determination of arbitrary garments as modest or immodest. At no point did I say that traditional values were not helpful. I have stated and maintain that traditional values are not a sufficient criterion for determining whether a garment is modest or not.

This is a different question. In other words, here you are searching for a way to establish the standards independent of traditional values using some other knowledge that you might extract. In other words, you want to perhaps look at the traditional values and extract some core idea from it or perform an experiment to determine what will be called modest of what might not be called modest.

I am fine with traditional values establishing all standards. I simply have not yet been presented with a compelling case that they do.

If this is a satisfactory resolution, then so be it.

 

[OurBeloved]

That was not ever the point I was discussing. I have only been concerned with one thing: the determination of arbitrary garments as modest or immodest. At no point did I say that traditional values were not helpful. I have stated and maintain that traditional values are not a sufficient criterion for determining whether a garment is modest or not.

Perhaps I did not understand what is said here. But now there seems to be some inconsistency in what you are saying with your previous post. You did claim in your previous post that you agree that following traditional values does safeguard modesty. But then here you claim that traditional values are not sufficient for determining whether a garment is modest or not. This would seem to imply that traditional values are good for nothing in your view and therefore it seems to contradict what you have said about them being able to tell you how to be modest.

Or do you mean that traditional values can still be refined over time and the standards and values we have from it might not encompass all possible scenarios? That I do agree with and I believe that if we all adopted the common goal of upholding modesty and the traditional values as our guide, we will continue to refine it more through our experiences and pass it down to our younger generations and so on.

I am fine with traditional values establishing all standards. I simply have not yet been presented with a compelling case that they do.

If this is a satisfactory resolution, then so be it.

Well, the contention here was not that traditional values should establish all standards. If the traditional values are from a culture that encouraged all its people to live hedonistic lives and allure each other for sex, then the values of such a culture regarding dress are will not establish standards of modesty.

But if a culture is known to have tried to at temp to live modestly, like that of the period before the sexual revolution, then it would seem reasonable to adopt these traditional values and standards from this period. Here the word reasonable is used not in the sense that those traditional values are 100% correct or we have 100% certainty, but more so along the lines that since it is the product of experience in trying to uphold modesty for centuries it would be more accurate compared to possible alternatives we have. Therefore, it seems like the best place to turn to.

 

[Baelor]

Perhaps I did not understand what is said here. But now there seems to be some inconsistency in what you are saying with your previous post. You did claim in your previous post that you agree that following traditional values does safeguard modesty. But then here you claim that traditional values are not sufficient for determining whether a garment is modest or not. This would seem to imply that traditional values are good for nothing in your view and therefore it seems to contradict what you have said about them being able to tell you how to be modest.

There is no inconsistency. I am saying that I can look to traditional values and develop an outfit that I can be reasonably confident is modest. I cannot take an arbitrary given outfit and then use traditional values to determine whether the garment is modest or not. If you agree with the second statement, then you should not have responded “traditional values” to the original question, which was essentially asking whether anyone had a criterion that could be applied to any garment whatsoever.

Or do you mean that traditional values can still be refined over time and the standards and values we have from it might not encompass all possible scenarios? That I do agree with and I believe that if we all adopted the common goal of upholding modesty and the traditional values as our guide, we will continue to refine it more through our experiences and pass it down to our younger generations and so on.

In a sense, yes.

 

[OurBeloved]

There is no inconsistency. I am saying that I can look to traditional values and develop an outfit that I can be reasonably confident is modest. I cannot take an arbitrary given outfit and then use traditional values to determine whether the garment is modest or not. If you agree with the second statement, then you should not have responded “traditional values” to the original question, which was essentially asking whether anyone had a criterion that could be applied to any garment whatsoever.

Well, we might still be able to pass some judgement on a new dress based on the standards we have from before but it might not capture all the problems with the dress.

In other words, if there is a traditional value or standard that says don’t show cleavage for an example, we can decide by looking at a new dress if it is modest in this sense or not. But the new dress might have other problems that we have not addressed simply because we do not have any experience based data on that specific dress.

Is this what you mean by traditional values not being sufficient to determine if a new garment is modest? Because this I agree.

Since you did mention that you do agree and do in practice judge whether your clothing is modest based on how well it reflects the traditional values and standards, it would seem to imply that if your clothing did not meet such a judgement, you would say that your garment is immodest according to the best judgement you can make. So in this sense, you do seem to agree that we are able to a certain extent determine whether a new dress is modest or not using traditional values.

 

[Baelor]

Is this what you mean by traditional values not being sufficient to determine if a new garment is modest? Because this I agree.

Essentially, yes.

So in this sense, you do seem to agree that we are able to a certain extent determine whether a new dress is modest or not using traditional values.

But traditional values cannot delineate modesty and immodesty perfectly, which was the goal of my original inquiry. In other words, I can look to traditional values as a metric for getting a modest outfit. I may be able to look to traditional values in some cases to determine whether a garment is modest or immodest. But traditional values as they stand now cannot exhaustively determine whether garments are modest or immodest.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Thus you commit the genetic fallacy by assuming that these values must not reflect the truth simply because their origins are questionable.

Has it ever occurred to you that you’re not thinking of the same thing I am? Please meditate on the fact that I put the term ‘traditional values’ in between quotation marks.

This as I pointed out to Baelor, is an epistemological crisis that you two seem to be having.

If what you say is true, it still shouldn’t affect the fact that practically, the best we can do is trust the experiences of our culture.

Morality transcends the physical appearances of fashion. Fashion is a product of culture and thus, you can’t treat either of the two as if they’re one and the same or even tightly connected. On that note, morality transcends culture as well.

So am I to understand that you are a person who believes that there is no such thing as morality then? Because one could make the same argument you do against moral values of any sort.

Please read the above. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Just because morality has absolutes doesn’t mean everything else does.

Fashion and tastes certainly don’t operate on anything that substantial, Hence, the stupidity of referring to Hollywood for moral teachings.

For one, you are having an epistemological crisis. Secondly, you are following double standards. Thirdly, you have rejected the existence of moral values.

All of these ridiculous assessment is based on the fallacy that fashion and morality are tied to each other.

You might as well condemn ugliness as a sin. That’s the conclusion that your line of thinking will justify.

A very big confusion on your part here. Art is a separate subject from modesty as pertaining to day to day lives.

You speak of fashion. What is fashion but art worn on the body? Again, so long as it involves evaluating something with your visual tastes, it’s not something you’d use as a moral evaluator.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There are many things that you need to keep in mind here. As we can see, you seem to be someone that has a low hormonal response or perhaps have mastered the body so well that you can control your impulses in a very good way. That is truly commendable.

Mastery over my hormones? Hardly! My hormones are just as responsive as any other man’s. I just know how to see things in two different perspectives, which one of them is talking, and which one I should really listen to.

But, when it comes to modesty, it deals with catering to the general society. Not just the saints but also to the sinners.

Catering to people’s weaknesses is hardly a cure. I should know. Just today I’ve learned how little value you have for letting your weaknesses get the better of you.

This sounds like an interesting school of philosophical thought on art but Blessed John Paul II disagrees with you and frankly, so do I. I think I am on the right side with this one.

Blessed JP2 is a theologian, not necessarily an art critic and when it comes to evaluating works that have artistic value (including fashion), one should take into account how author intent can be disregarded because their take on their own work can be more easily ruled out without any serious repercussions. There’s no basis on what the creator can stand on other than his/her tastes either. It’s not like reading a Bible or a science textbook when what has been written has more solid basis.

A society should be concerned about both internal and external. We should not compromise the external and just worry about the internal or vice-versa.

What you’re advocating is nothing short of human shallowness justified and legislated into culture. Should a society like yours exist, guys like me would be further cast out for dressing like criminals. I bet the same fate awaits those who sport tattoos, spiky leather clothes, or wear eye-liner.