Modesty

[Joseph_L_Varga]

However, I could give you examples of dress that’s fine for young boys and girls but not for figures with more authority.

I just imagined a Supreme Court Justice dressed like the guy from AC/DC. It might be difficult to be taken seriously like that.

 

[Nepenthe]

I have always thought that modesty is far more a state of mind than a matter of what people wear or don’t wear. If both men and women practiced true, internalized modesty, then we could all walk down the street in safety, naked as jaybirds, (okay, not in a snowstorm - that’s just stupid) and it wouldn’t be much cause for lewd thoughts or behavior any more than wearing a burqah (and some people get all hotted-up by that anyway - lack of internal discipline once again!), and the responsibilities are shared equally between all people.

Now, however, I am NOT saying that’s that is any excuse for poor taste! There is NEVER a reason for ghastly dressing, such as impracticality, or just plain fuglitude. Whale tails and a tramp-stamp and acidwashed jeans are just plain tacky-looking, and a turnoff, where a well-fitted, slightly revealing (even a bit vampy) and appropriate evening dress can be just plain WOW.

I mean, if men don’t think having their tackle easily visible through their pants or showing plenty of skin on a hot day is ‘immodest’ in the sense of wanton display and temptation, well you better know, some (most) women will stare, maybe even more than men have trouble keeping eye contact at face level, ahem, with women!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I mean, if men don’t think having their tackle easily visible through their pants or showing plenty of skin on a hot day is ‘immodest’ in the sense of wanton display and temptation, well you better know, some (most) women will stare, maybe even more than men have trouble keeping eye contact at face level, ahem, with women!

I agree, and I learned this from female friends. Women also have hormones and we better watch out not to tempt them.

Regarding walking the streets naked and being protected by internalized modesty, I don’t know what to say in a theoretical, hypothetical sense. In practice, I take my clues from King David and Job. King David was tempted and did disgraceful things after seeing Batsheba taking a bath. Job said he made a covenant with his eyes not to look (watch, stare) at other women. So, I take it as a given that if I stare at inappropriately dressed women, it can lead me into temptation, and that I should also dress in a way that will not tempt other people.

 

[chevalier]

Nepenthe, there’s also a kind of clothes that are specifically designed to reveal strategic areas or otherwise draw attention to them. While they wouldn’t be an issue if we were perfectly modest, also, we wouldn’t have come up with them in the very first place. It’s a bit like wondering how we would react to a given bad thing in an ideal world… Bad things don’t happen in ideal worlds. But I don’t want to be seen as ranting, regardless of the volume of my posting. It just seems to me that modestly is mostly discussed in terms of how much it covers or not. That is not the end of it. A reflection that it starts inwardly is correct but doesn’t finish it off in mundane terms. In mundane terms, there’s plenty of clothing that should go out the window because it’s more “sexy” than it is cute.

 

[GraceDK]

With all respects, I think you’ve been really hurt by someone important in your life.

Men in EVERY country are good and bad. There are some very kind hearted family men in Arab countries as well.

I am 37 and still get rude comments at times and I am a mom!! I definitely don’t dress showing cleavage or legs anymore I would look silly doing that at my age.

There are good people and not so good people everywhere you go and the numbers don’t change much from country to country.

With all respects, I dont know what you are trying to indicate.
I am discussing modesty and you dont need to analyse my person because of that.
But if you really wanna know I am always wearing long shirts and long sleves not because I wanna look holy but because I think its pretty. And yes I get loads of attention from guys even if I have never worn a cleavage. When it comes to the middle east its enouh that my hair is not covered and I have blue eyes.

I am not saying there are not kind hearted men in Arab countries. I know there are because I have lived there and even loved an Arab man.
However, for the same reason I can say that many men in the Middle East do not learn to control their drives. Rather they learn that women who dont dress according to their religious dress code are available for some fun behind the back of their wife.
In the Middle East women are not valued in themselves as individuals that have infinite worth, but only in asmuch as they are “virtuous” meaning they are virgins who are never seen hanging alone with person of the opposite sex, smoking or other things which do not count as a sin for men but as totally stimatizing for women. Women are supressed largely in Islamic countries, both by means of education, dress, and female circumsision, sharialaw on a number of issues, and forced marriage.
The honour is a huge complex thing that you cannot even begin to fathom and woe to the woman who brings shame to her family name by wearing pants in public or showing hair…
You may take for granted the freedom we have as women in Christian cultures.
Even in Europe we see many many cases of honour-violence and honour killings every year… even on young women who have grown up here who might have fallen for the wrong man, have been seen with a white boy or someone who simply stood up to her husband.
If you do not believe that there is a problem I have no problem with it… you will probably be faced with the truth of my statements as the real world also starts closing in on America.

And you dont know how maiming it is to grow up in a muslim culture compared to the only one you know which is the western civilisation where you learn that you have freedom to think for your self and have worth in your self. Imagine that every muslim has the right to kill an apostate who has become a Christian. That is sharia…
anyway… its off topic.

No I dont have a problem…I just got some experience with what I am talking about and I have studied alot…

 

[GraceDK]

Funny you are turned away by a man who wants nothing but women to give respect to themselves. Shame, it’s hard to find them. Most men will not care. Lucky those who find men like Catholic_89 who follows Church teaching…

Or maybe you are still blinded by effects of immodesty to this world and you, need a break. You are not in a country where people are unaware of the effects of dressing immodestly. Open your eyes and see the place where you live in and see how most people react to immodest clothing. To live in a place scarred by immodesty and still think that people can wear whatever they want is negligence and not following your calling to be disciples of Christ.

Shame? Well dont feel sorry for me. I dont want a man who thinks that a woman is without self respect because she wears a tang top or jeans… I want a man who respects him self and others and dont have many deep thoughts about the intentions and self understanding of the other gender.
If men could focus on their own problems that would be highly appreciated.
If I see a guy who is not wearing a shirt in the city in the summer, i might think; “okay… i look away right now and if I were him Id probably not go like that”… I dont go further and judge him in my heart for trying to incite lust in people or lacking self respect. The moment I start thinking down those lines I am the sinner and not him.

You say I should open my eyes… yeah… I do. I look out the window and see people dressed in winter coats and turtle necks.
I dont care much for cleavage in the summer when its warm… I tthink that both genital and secondary genital regions should be well covered. However… there is a culture and a time where even if a Catholic or Muslim man gets aroused on the beach most other men dont… also… I am always asking for one thing that there has not been provided yet on any tread:
What is modesty. We can all agree on some basic things… especially as to what should and should not be in your mind as you get dressed…
But its the grey area - we even have men here promoting muslim attire - and the jugdement of the mind of our neighbour that bugs me. See a woman is also your neighbour and when you judge her then you got a problem… because frankly you dont know the heart of any person on the whole planet.

 

[GraceDK]

Grace, I hope you don’t mind me chiming in again. I hope I’m not giving you nightmares with the sheer volume of what I post to you.

I dont mind… this is the internet. I dont live here and only answer when I feel like it. I havent changed an inch from my beginning oppinion about modesty and what it is… just so that you know… so you might be wasting your time with your lengthy posts.

True, except more than 10% simply want to look hot rather than obey fashions. They don’t necessarily take it very far, but more than 10% know that they are crossing certain lines when they show half their breasts or the upper part of their buttocks or wear their underwear in the open, checking in the mirror if their “panty lines” are visible enough.

Really? more than 10 percent Chevalier? thats fascinating… did you get that number from Cosmo magazine… or … you are not just guessing are you?

I** don’t judge their moral worth, but I’d be shot behind a barn, which I find a very attractive form of demise, before I dated any one of them and I can’t resist the judgement that they have lots of growing up to do yet.**

Well dont we all brother? Dont we all? By the way… I find your remark there precisly immature… and immodest…

Neither do I, but it must be stressed that a nun wouldn’t find peace merely following the dominant fashion. She would carefully pick her swimsuit and she would not try to appear attractive to men. In fact, she would try to tone her attractiveness down if she were very pretty, because she simply isn’t free for the taking and she cares for the pour souls of men. The same is true of a well-built priest going on the beach. He would most certainly not occupy the central spot to show off his great chest that he acquired through years of missionary work in the jungle or as a military chaplain or as an amateur sportsman or however else.

Sure… any woman carefully chooses her swim suit. Actually I know no man or woman who does not choose their swim-wear with care … that it may look nice and bring out the best of what they have or dont have… (except from my dad who wears just about anything that fell of the moon as long as its cheep)
A secular sexually active woman with a boyfriend might wear her red hot bikini to the beach with him so that he noticed how sexy she is… there are problems with this and there are also processes in it that are natural and okay… whether we like it or not we are also homonal and partly ‘animals’… integrated individuals hopefully but to seek to look sexy and want to be desired is not always wrong. I am for instance looking forward to buying some nice pink ligere when I get married… I want to be bodily desired by the right man in the right setting… hope no one gets offended at that.
As for the handsome looking priest on the beach… in fact I think he should be most welcome to have a nice spot in the middle of the beach… I dont see a problem. The problem only comes in the spectator who sees only a body and not a whole man with a personality, a heart and a purpose in his life.

Yes, but she is also a role model. She generally knows a lot more about morality and theology than we the laity do and all in all, she is or she should be less interested in appealing to men.

Every mother and every woman generelly is a role model…
Lets not put nuns in a special box. Most of them seek to look nice also for a worldly audience. However, their spouse is a Spirit… okay… He sees their heart and soul in a way that other women are not seen by their spouses why also women in their 50s wear nice clothes and makeup to look good to their husbands… there is nothing wrong with wanting to look beautiful and attractive. The woman was created with the longing for being beautiful and being appreciated also as such among other things.

Grace, I see where you’re coming from, but some things are materially wrong even if the individual is not culpable. There are circumstances when nudity itself is not immodest. But I find it hard to imagine a circumstance in which big cleavages and glorified underwear wouldn’t be objectively immodest. And even a saintly woman acting in ignorance doesn’t sanctify her clothing.

My question is this… WHY are you debating us? What is your point on this Catholic web page.
There are places in the world where you may go without any bra at all and everyone thinks its normal… there… you got a circumstance. I will in no way agree that cleavage is intricically evil. What is evil is intent when it comes to clothing… is the intent ti provoke lust, to dishonour or provoke… there you have objective evil.
I am reading the book of Ayaan Hirsi Ali these days. She went from wearing a burka to going to a mixed swimming hall in a normal swim suit… she was amazed that it was not a catastrofe if a man looked at her and that the world did not tumble down… because in her new culture people were measured as individuals pure and simple… not worthy of being treated with respect only if they wore certain clothes.

**I do not feel uncomfortable on the beach, sitting next to and talking to women in swimsuits (topless is not a swimsuit) and I will even take a bona fide look because hey, God’s creatures are beautiful. **

bona fide look? hm… men like you are why I dont wear swim suit but swim dress… I dont see why men look down the body of women they are not married to and vice versa… just leave peoples body parts alone. you wanna talk to a woman. Look her into the eyes. I actually dont feel too comfortable sitting with men that wear small bathing pants… if I am in their company. Otherwise it does not matter to me the least. But what I do is I dont look at their body whatsoever… last time I was at a lake with a guy friend of mine… do not ask me what he was wearing or what colour it had couse I have no clue.

 

[GraceDK]

Grace,
(…) However, all the above doesn’t justify the idea that women should be free to express their sexuality by wearing clothes that give them a sense of influence and control over men.

And here I would add that trying to control a man’s reactions is worse than trying to control a woman’s wardrobe. Wardrobe is external, mental freedom of the man who’s being confronted with a woman who intentiously wears provocative clothes to give him a hard time resisting, is internal.

Further, if we’re talking about sexual coercion, what is it? It’s forcing a sexual activity on an unwilling person. And what else is provocative dress about? It’s about forcing men to have sexual responses which they don’t necessarily desire and it makes them have some form of sexual interaction (she stimulates, he is stimulated, this is interaction) with the woman, while they may very well be married to someone else.

The purpose of cleavage is solely visual and it is intended to elicit a certain reaction from men and sexualise the interaction at least slightly. Therefore the same excuses do not apply.

One final (in this post) argument I’d like to present for your consideration is that ignorance makes an individual act not culpable but it doesn’t make the act not materially wrong. An individual act of an individually ignorant person doesn’t make the whole genre of such acts good. Your innocent friends who dress very provocatively are simply ignorant - not so much of men’s reaction as of the wrongness of celebrating sexiness. They may also be very young and may know little about human sexuality,

Okay… so… I have deleted most of your post C, which was the part I basically agree with.
Now… I think the next passages are quite exaggerated. Talking about maybe 10 women where one wears a big cleavage and you are in that same room… I do not see you in a dangerous situation where you are forced in any way either to look or to respond. But if you are in a relationship and have made it clear that you want to be chaste and your gf or bf constanty tries to get bodily close to you and touch you inappropriately then there has become a more intimate and grave problem.
I have never met a man who was forced to have a sexual response because of an individuals dress in the same room.
I am not sure anything in the clothing world is anything but visual… as for cleavage… yes there are many women who wear that as a fashion thing to look pretty… not to arouse their suroundings… I know this because I even see women in Church with cleavage… mothers with children… women that come every week to Sunday mass and whose motives I have no reason to suspect.
As for my friends… They dont have a problem… and no one else seems to have a problem.
We are in a different culture here. That was my point.

Okay… I wont be visiting this thread anymore Chevalier… we oughto change subject anyway… this is getting to the point where I think we both agree on most things and have repeated ourselves dozens of times.

Peace and good night from here… .

 

[chevalier]

Grace, not all attention is bad attention and bad attention doesn’t come only to those who seek it, Straps, ankles and whatnot, are one thing and perhaps an extension of the uncovered hair problem, but clothes designed to bring sexual tension about should be boycotted. I’d be happier if people got over the idea of “sexiness”.

 

[Fidelia]

Grace, not all attention is bad attention and bad attention doesn’t come only to those who seek it, Straps, ankles and whatnot, are one thing and perhaps an extension of the uncovered hair problem, but clothes designed to bring sexual tension about should be boycotted. I’d be happier if people got over the idea of “sexiness”.

I agree. Neither gender should dress in a way to intentionally flaunt sexuality. There are certain things that should only be for your spouse to see.

 

[Litcrit]

bad attention doesn’t come only to those who seek it … but clothes designed to bring sexual tension about should be boycotted. I’d be happier if people got over the idea of “sexiness”.

A few days ago I saw an attractive woman walk down the street and a man ogled for as long as he could make her out on the horizon.

Had she covered her hair, she would have been a perfect hijabi. The only skin she displayed was on her hands, and nothing was too short or too tight or anything. But her clothes were feminine and form-fitting.

I personally prefer dressing more like a male bum - I am a child of the grungy 90s, after all. Then my husband, my confessor, and others tell me I’m not being feminine enough.

You can’t win this thing.

 

[AveSantaMaria]

Something is wrong with this country in terms of modesty. We are fast becoming a society like Europe where no one respects sexual privacy. Just hearing about some of the newspaper articles during the campaign with writers fantasizing about Presidential candidates makes me sick.

 

[Lifeisamazing]

Can anybody give me a basic ‘dress code’ for both Catholic men and women?

In addition, I have a little bit of an issue on my hands. My girlfriend is more or less a modest dresser (for this day and age). Nothing too bad, but nothing that Mary would wear, either. I would love to tell her “wow, you look great today!”, even if she does, but I don’t want to encourage (what might be) an immodest piece of hers. Instead I say something dull like “I love the color of your shirt!” etc.

Am I too strict? I always encourage her to be modest and try to be modest myself. Any help?

Oooh, I stayed away from this one at first, but I guess I will post my 2cents.

Q: Am I too strict?

A: Adapt whatever guidelines you would like in modesty for yourself. You say that she is a modest dresser most of the time, and I also doubt that her mode of dress was totally different BEFORE she became your girlfriend. In other words, you saw how she dressed and chose to date her within that context. Strictness with one’s self and one’s choices is completely up to the beholder. If you were so strict in the first place, and they way she dresses is such an issue, why did you pursue her? This is not a question of “Am I strict?” I sense this is a “Am I being jealous and looking for issues where there is none?”

Then…

If you can determine you are not acting out of jealousy, then I would say this if she puts on something that is truly trashy:
“That is not something that I would pick for you, but honey, the question is— Are you comfortable? If you are, then so am I.”

I gotta tell you, I am not some dowdy girl. I was a fitness trainer and have modeled and dress for fashion, comfort, and femininity and I know when I look good (I also know when I feel something is a little too sexy and I am uncomfortable). I am sure your girlfriend does too.

 

[chevalier]

Really? more than 10 percent Chevalier? thats fascinating… did you get that number from Cosmo magazine… or … you are not just guessing are you?

Easy, no need to sting. I was trying to come up with the most sparing estimate I could think about. I do not think that glorified underwear and plentiful skin exposure of today’s is all that accidental or that nearly all people think of it in terms of pretty. I’m not a prude, but I have a problem with that.

Well dont we all brother? Dont we all? By the way… I find your remark there precisly immature… and immodest…

Because I showed off a bit? Possibly not good for my humility, but I doubt anyone would be led to sin.

whether we like it or not we are also homonal and partly ‘animals’… integrated individuals hopefully but to seek to look sexy and want to be desired is not always wrong.

Grace, being created in God’s image is more important than being created via evolution. To look sexy can have two meanings: to look attractive or to cause sexual arousal in the viewer. The former is okay, the latter is not.

I want to be bodily desired by the right man in the right setting… hope no one gets offended at that.

The right setting is married and somewhere where you are alone. That setting is not a public space and unmarried people don’t have a proper setting. This doesn’t mean that trying to be physically appealing is wrong. No, it’s not. But trying to be sexually compelling is a different story. Modern clothes cross the line and many aspects of behaviour considered acceptable these days feel offensive to me.

The problem only comes in the spectator who sees only a body and not a whole man with a personality, a heart and a purpose in his life.

That somewhat goes together with what I said about integral persons, but seeing someone integrally, at least if it is proper, can’t admit disordered desires within it. We are generally free to admire, but desires are a whole different thing and I think we should be mindful of our hormones because while not all of it immediately falls under lust, it’s just… not right. We need moderation there. And where lust is involved, we need a clean stop.

there is nothing wrong with wanting to look beautiful and attractive. The woman was created with the longing for being beautiful and being appreciated also as such among other things.

No disagreement from me there. Just please see the difference between beautiful and attractive and the clothes of today, which are still too often about tempting people and compelling them, although I do see improvement. In fact, I see the bad fashions receding and I see more and more women dressing modestly and with a great sense of fashion at the same time. You have no idea how great news this is to me, a hopeless romantic and artist’s kid. It’s rejoicing that beaty is gaining ground over mere sexual bombing.

My question is this… WHY are you debating us? What is your point on this Catholic web page.

Hmm? I am debating because I see something I disagree with. Why do you ask?

bona fide look? hm… men like you are why I dont wear swim suit but swim dress… I dont see why men look down the body of women they are not married to and vice versa…
just leave peoples body parts alone. you wanna talk to a woman. Look her into the eyes.

That was uncalled for. I have my share of sins, including that kind, but why do you presume that I when I look at a woman it has to be sexual, or that I don’t look my interlocutor in the eye?

Talking about maybe 10 women where one wears a big cleavage and you are in that same room… I do not see you in a dangerous situation where you are forced in any way either to look or to respond.

Grace, a while ago I was a lustful man who couldn’t look at a woman without objectifying her and who wouldn’t look her in the eye when talking. Now I seem to be quite the opposite. Could you please decide?

As for the situation that we are discussing: I realise she is likely clueless about what she’s wearing and I have other things to do because I came there for other reasons. If I had to have a one-on-one conversation, however, I would probably try to cut it short, especially if she were particularly attractive and/or looking for the bad kind of attention (these are two different things). The first step to falling to temptation is believing that you can’t fall. I would probably be uncomfortable more than genuinely tempted, but this doesn’t mean I’m immune.

I have never met a man who was forced to have a sexual response because of an individuals dress in the same room.

Arousal is not voluntary and arousal is the definition of a sexual response. You can go a long way learning to control it, but you cannot totally prevent it. It is possible for an individual to cause unwanted arousal in another. I don’t know why you’d think it’s not - in fact, you probably don’t think that. The fact that you never saw a man visibly betray signs of arousal doesn’t mean there was no battle going on in his head. And you don’t know if he won.

I know this because I even see women in Church with cleavage… mothers with children… women that come every week to Sunday mass and whose motives I have no reason to suspect.

Yes, it is not intrinsically wrong and very respectable people have not shunned it. It was a daily thing in some historical periods and there’s more of it in an art museum than on some days in the street. I do not deny cultural perception and changing sensitivities (an ankle was bad when much bigger cleavage than nowadays was considered normal). The concept still beats me, however.

 

[chevalier]

Okay… I wont be visiting this thread anymore Chevalier…

That’s a pity because I was hoping you’d see some of my points - not meaning share them. Well, maybe you’ll reconsider.

Peace and good night from here… .

Ufff… I do need a walk.

…]
You can’t win this thing.

Please, I’m no clothes police! Once again, I don’t think looking for some attention or looking at someone is necessarily bad. I just make some difference between aesthetically pleasing and sexually appealing. It’s the latter that I find wrong when it crosses the lines of trying to induce involuntary arousal and much of modern apparel does cross this line. In fact the reason I’ve been so vocal in this thread is that I want to stress firmly the difference between trying to look good and trying to arouse people and challenge their mental control. I simply don’t want the latter to be put on the same footing with trying to be pretty. I don’t see it as being on the same scale but merely farther advanced. I apparently fail to convey this point without looking like a prude and a clothes fascist.

Whatever I said here could be summarised in one short sentence: “It’s never fine to try to arouse people.” In retrospect, I should have said just that and shut up after that.

 

[chevalier]

If you can determine you are not acting out of jealousy, then I would say this if she puts on something that is truly trashy:
“That is not something that I would pick for you, but honey, the question is— Are you comfortable? If you are, then so am I.”

Don’t you think that’d be a false assertion? The very reason he’d ask would be because he weren’t comfortable with it and adults are normally comfortable with what they wear. I wouldn’t dream of telling a woman to wear it or not (barring if I were a parent, educator or someone in charge of professional dress codes), but I think trying to make him obligated to approve whatever his girlfriend approves of is too much. He’s got to rely on his girlfriend’s judgement, but not blindly so. He doesn’t get to pick her wardrobe, but he gets to have his opinion and vote with his feet, should such dire need arise.

And yes, dear Opening Poster, it doesn’t seem her style has changed much since when you decided to date her. Jealousy is a strong candidate and do make sure it’s not the case. Sometimes we smooth over some minor problems when we want to date a girl and start a relationship. We think it won’t be an issue but it later turns out it is one. We’ve got to learn to assess such factors before dating someone - but dating is also the time when we do some deciding. You need to make your decisions and you cannot allow those clothes to be a lasting problem with you and your girlfriend. Do not allow it to be the beginning of a spiral of demands, either. You are not obligated to like her choices, but she is the one to make them. You can’t force her. You may have to pick - either you take her with her choices or not at all. Love it or leave it isn’t always fair, but sometimes it just happens. From your Opening Post, which feels like it was months ago, I got the vibe that she wasn’t being immodest, more than she could in fact be more modest if you would have to point at something. The point is: don’t point! If you have a nice girlfriend, be happy that you have one. Don’t go out looking for problems in her! Some people just can’t be happy no matter what - don’t allow yourself to become one. Don’t allow boredom to make you look for faults in a relationship. Maybe that girl isn’t for you, but there are tons of other factors that may have influenced how you feel. I would like to lay this thread to rest, but this probably won’t happen. At any rate, I will pray for you and hope it turns out well. If you really can’t live with it, go to your priest and he will offer you better advice. Pray and pray for her too. Perhaps it’d be a good idea to talk to a priest anyway, not only about your girflriend’s particular style but about the larger issue.

 

[Lifeisamazing]

Don’t you think that’d be a false assertion? The very reason he’d ask would be because he weren’t comfortable with it and adults are normally comfortable with what they wear. I wouldn’t dream of telling a woman to wear it or not (barring if I were a parent, educator or someone in charge of professional dress codes), but I think trying to make him obligated to approve whatever his girlfriend approves of is too much. He’s got to rely on his girlfriend’s judgement, but not blindly so. He doesn’t get to pick her wardrobe, but he gets to have his opinion and vote with his feet.

I see what you mean. Maybe it would be better to end it at “…are you comfortable?” and forget the “then I am”. I am just going on the fact that the OP said she dresses modestly most of the time, and that he may be looking at her lustfully and jealously even when she is dressed just fine.

 

[Litcrit]

Please, I’m no clothes police! Once again, I don’t think looking for some attention or looking at someone is necessarily bad. I just make some difference between aesthetically pleasing and sexually appealing. It’s the latter that I find wrong when it crosses the lines of trying to induce involuntary arousal and much of modern apparel does cross this line. In fact the reason I’ve been so vocal in this thread is that I want to stress firmly the difference between trying to look good and trying to arouse people and challenge their mental control. I simply don’t want the latter to be put on the same footing with trying to be pretty. I don’t see it as being on the same scale but merely farther advanced. I apparently fail to convey this point without looking like a prude and a clothes fascist.

Whatever I said here could be summarised in one short sentence: “It’s never fine to try to arouse people.” In retrospect, I should have said just that and shut up after that.

Actually, I quite like your thinking, and when I quoted you I was going to agree with you… but then realized I still personally don’t get it. I don’t get that fine distinction between wanting to look pretty and feminine (I’m personally uncomfortable with that for some reason) and trying to sexually arouse men (if I look even remotely pretty in a feminine way, men will still get aroused sometimes, right? and see me in a way I don’t want to be seen).

And on top of that confusion I’m also quite comfortable with the human body itself and am untroubled by nudity, topless women, etc., if they’re just obviously minding their own business enjoying the beach, for instance.

 

[chevalier]

I see what you mean. Maybe it would be better to end it at “…are you comfortable?” and forget the “then I am”. I am just going on the fact that the OP said she dresses modestly most of the time, and that he may be looking at her lustfully and jealously even when she is dressed just fine.

Possible, but after reading the Opening Post once again, I think we may all have simply read too much into it. He asked a simple literal question and we went on analysing. It’s certainly possible the Opening Poster is simply a young guy who doesn’t feel good complimenting his girlfriend on a dress or something he doesn’t feel truly at peace with - he’d like to tell her she looks great, but then something’s not letting him because he thinks it might have a bad effect on her or maybe it’d feel like a lie because he doesn’t like that dress or whatever on the point that isn’t as modest as it should be. Come to think of it, I’ve had similar problems and I can relate. When I was younger, I would pretend it was fine. These days, I dodge the question and if I want to be nice, I compliment the given lady on something I can honestly say I like. Pressed to the wall, I’d give a negative answer. Sometimes you have to, but most of the time you can avoid it. It’s probably the same if one woman asks another and they aren’t close enough friends to warrant direct answers.

Aball, are you even still there or have we chased you off?

 

[chevalier]

Actually, I quite like your thinking, and when I quoted you I was going to agree with you… but then realized I still personally don’t get it. I don’t get that fine distinction between wanting to look pretty and feminine (I’m personally uncomfortable with that for some reason) and trying to sexually arouse men (if I look even remotely pretty in a feminine way, men will still get aroused sometimes, right? and see me in a way I don’t want to be seen).

Whether you want to been see that way or not is precisely this fine difference. If you don’t want it, you don’t. But someone who wants it can’t claim the same defence, should anything happen. It would be like taunting people and then saying they should be better than calling us names in return.

The same what is with human intentions is also with clothes - some serve the function of making the wearer presentable, beautiful or attractive, and some appeal to the viewer’s sex drive, not his sense of aesthetics or attraction, but just try to make him think about sex. Pretty and trashy are simply not in the same pool, even if both are capable of causing arousal.

And on top of that confusion I’m also quite comfortable with the human body itself and am untroubled by nudity, topless women, etc., if they’re just obviously minding their own business enjoying the beach, for instance.

Human body is not immodest and neither is nudity per se. What is immodest is our intentions and it’s the intentions, not clothes, strictly speaking, which are immodest. When I say “immodest clothes”, I mean designs which can’t seem to serve any other purpose than provoking sexual arousal. This is not far from the difference between classical or renaissance art and modern magazines for men. You know art from porn, right? Knowing pretty from raunchy is a similar skill. Pretty can complain about being seen as raunchy. Raunchy cannot complain about being seen as raunchy. And raunchy is not a higher degree of pretty, nor is pretty the lower degree of raunchy. They don’t belong on one scale. It’s not fair to lump them together.

Am I any clearer now?