Modesty

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Well, if the OP’s girlfriend asks for his opinion then that is different then if he just forces his opinions on her. Like I said, I highly doubt her mode of dress dramatically changed the moment they became exclusive, so he chose a girl that sometimes dresses a little less modest than he now says he likes. Hmmm, why could that be? Let’s have some self responsibility here, guys…

I don’t know about the OP, but once I dated someone, she was an attractive woman with a good sense of style and she dressed mostly in a conservative or business-like fashion. In fact, when I first met her in person, she wore a dark green suit that would fit for any occasion that calls for conservative dressing, and we went to Holy Mass. Later on, she also dressed conservatively most of the time. And I always found her stylish and beautiful like that. However, once every while, she would put on something that made me feel like, Oh no, this can’t be true, I want to hide somewhere, I can’t handle this, and I don’t want her to dress like this! It happened seldom, maybe once in 2 or 3 months, but when it did, it was bad. And, she wouldn’t listen to me, I guess she just did this for the sake of variety, when she felt like doing it. I guess every once in a while she took a vacation from her usual persona and became a rebellious teenager, acting out in a slightly shocking way (at least to me). I still loved her dearly and I wouldn’t break up with her over this issue, but really, I was grinding my teeth in despair on those rare occasions when she dressed like this. And I had to put up with it, because there was no way of changing her. Finally we broke up over something else that proved insurmountable (me being Catholic and she being part of a militant anti-Catholic Church), but had we stayed together, the problem of how she dressed occasionally and me being uncomfortable with that would have persisted.

I know we are not in Afghanistan and this is not Taliban territory, and one’s freedom to dress any way he/she wants is almost like a holy cow that must be respected (I guess it’s an Amendment to the Constitution ), and still I wonder… isn’t it reasonable to discuss it, and for both sides to make compromises, in a serious relationship? After all, compromises always have to be made, in every single area of life including the financial priorities, how much time to spend at work and how to spend the spare time, everything that has to do with the children, etc.

I guess I just wanted to say, it’s not necessarily those occasions when a woman dresses in risque fashion, that draw a guy to her. That would imply something like we guys are all dirty pigs and we always act on our dirty sexual impulses. It’s not as simple as “this is why you started dating her in the first place, now deal with it”. And it’s also not very productive to treat the area of dressing as an exception to all other areas of dating/married life where eveybody knows that adjustments to each other and compromises are inevitably part of the deal. On top of it all, when a guy suggests to his girlfriend or wife not to wear something, it’s not necessarily because he wants to assert his male dominance and control a la Taliban. It could be simply that he really loves her and really cares about her, and that’s what motivates him when talking to her.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I have a lawyer joke, which I’m sure you’ve heard…

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start…

The way I heard it, it was 1000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean.

I never heard this joke. And I really need it. Not b/c of you, Chevalier. It’s b/c I have to deal with our own lawyer here, for the next 4-6 weeks (finishing up a patent). I hope reading some good lawyer jokes will make it more bearable for me… Ghosh, I hope he doesn’t read this. My boss always says I do all the work for him (he is excellent at giving instructions) and he takes up all the money when the job is finished. The pinnacle of it all was when his photocopy machine was broken. I wanted to send him a bunch of material (about 200 pages), to support our case. He said, no, that’s not good enough to him, everything should be sent in 6 copies - so I ended up photocopying and stapling everything and sending him a box of 1200 pages. So, I really need now that joke with the 1000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean. Just to get me in the right mood for the next several weeks.

Sorry, OP, I don’t know how this is related to vanity and modesty…

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I have a 17 year old daughter… In the past when I have tried to talk to her about her shirts, she has told me I have a dirty mind.

O my gosh, Galnextdoor, and you are not even a guy like the rest of us dirty pigs posting on this thread!

Have you seen what a beating the poor OP :blackeye:, Chevalier, CatholicGuy89 and others took :blackeye: in the earlier posts, for daring to speak their mind? But I know they are tough guys, they can take this and more! I will just hide behind them!

 

[kage_ar]

The OP probably feels like his thread was high-jacked. I have found this thread interesting. I have a 17 year old daughter who has
a well-developed figure. I’ve tried to talk to her about modesty, but she just doesn’t get it. (It doesn’t help that my ex-husband has called me a prude.) Almost every top she wears is skin tight or low cut. I’m thinking about making her read this thread. In the past when I have tried to talk to her about her shirts, she has told me I have a dirty mind. I just don’t know how to make her understand.

Do not allow the shirts that are too low cut or too tight in your house, if she brings them in, throw them away. As someone once said, remember - parent is a verb.

 

[chevalier]

Joseph, you either went to a conservative school or took a law course at some point.

But on the merits. I can empathise (I’m still male) with your problem. Generally, variety is good, but in some things consistency is better. It is important that one case of variety doesn’t invalidate a general trend of consistency, but it surely feels like it does. And you know it’s just a feeling, probably a bad one, that should be ignored, but it’s difficult because it makes you ask what point keeping consistent most of the time if at some points one makes total vacations.

As for Afghanistan and Taliban, I don’t care. I’m the guy with the sword. And I’m a lawyer, I can probably handle it.

As for compromise, errr, I’m a lawyer and I can’t handle it. Seriously, though, compromise is okay as to actions, but not that great as to facts. A bit like with lawsuits. If you want to fix a problem, mediation or arbitration is great. But if you want to find out whether a contract was valid… err… Right.

Besides, the very word makes me shiver. I like appropriate solutions and I don’t see the value of making proportionate concessions in the short term. There of course needs to be a balance because if one party keeps conceeding and the other does not, something’s wrong with the deal. But the whole 50/50 thing is counterproductive. And I’d feel bad “supporting” something I didn’t agree with for the other part of it to vanish. I just can’t approve something I don’t agree with and I can’t and won’t pretend.

This said, sometimes you just need to live…

I guess I just wanted to say, it’s not necessarily those occasions when a woman dresses in risque fashion, that draw a guy to her. That would imply something like we guys are all dirty pigs and we always act on our dirty sexual impulses.

Aye. But there are different kinds of “drawing”. For example, sometimes you aren’t all that biologically driven to a person of the opposite gender and yet your whole being reaches in his or her direction and it’s not brother and sister at all. At other times, your biology reacts and yet you utterly refuse even to think about it.

It’s not as simple as “this is why you started dating her in the first place, now deal with it”.

Not as the total reason, but it may well be one of the factors. If we are attracted to someone and that someone is presented in an attractive way, the attraction escalates. However, after some sobering-up, we may well notice that oops, something wasn’t that great about it.

And it’s also not very productive to treat the area of dressing as an exception to all other areas of dating/married life where eveybody knows that adjustments to each other and compromises are inevitably part of the deal.

Aye. I suppose no one would even have a problem with this going for clothing on the point of colour, fabric, evening/formal/informal standard and so on, but never you dare imply…
I don’t buy that, either. I utterly feel not like telling one what to wear or micromanaging anyone or anything (ideally, I’d sit in a tower and give general directions), but I like my puzzle to match. And this is an odd piece.

On top of it all, when a guy suggests to his girlfriend or wife not to wear something, it’s not necessarily because he wants to assert his male dominance and control a la Taliban.

Ditto, but I admit it feels rather unserious if a person has a relationship with you and yet flirts with others and/or dresses for attention of the wrong kind. You begin to question, “whether you really need me.” And in some cases the answer would finally be in the negative. You have someone, you don’t flirt. Same goes for fishing.

Sorry, OP, I don’t know how this is related to vanity and modesty…

I could tell you. Not making your copies on your own is a mark of status among lawyers.

O my gosh, Galnextdoor, and you are not even a guy like the rest of us dirty pigs posting on this thread!

Have you seen what a beating the poor OP , Chevalier, CatholicGuy89 and others took in the earlier posts, for daring to speak their mind? But I know they are tough guys, they can take this and more! I will just hide behind them!

*Modestia o muerte! Hasta la victoria siempre! *
Pásame las granadas!

Ooops. Err…

 

[Lifeisamazing]

That would imply something like we guys are all dirty pigs and we always act on our dirty sexual impulses. It’s not as simple as “this is why you started dating her in the first place, now deal with it”.

Whoa, hold on now. That is not even close to what I said, or how I said it. Accepting the occasional less-than-modest dress code at the start of the relationship is a valid issue that should be discussed as a factor. I in no way was assuming that is why he started dating her or that adjustments are not necessary as relationships progress. But, again, some self responsibility is in order.

And it’s also not very productive to treat the area of dressing as an exception to all other areas of dating/married life where eveybody knows that adjustments to each other and compromises are inevitably part of the deal. On top of it all, when a guy suggests to his girlfriend or wife not to wear something, it’s not necessarily because he wants to assert his male dominance and control a la Taliban. It could be simply that he really loves her and really cares about her, and that’s what motivates him when talking to her.

No need to try and make a stand for all that is male. I think it is a bit extreme to think the ladies on this thread were painting all of manhood with the same brush stroke, thinking a man is the taliban if he asks his wife to be aware, and defending trashy clothing! Quite the opposite, if you read through. Most of us were stating we prefer modest clothing b/c it is our free will to choose to be virtuous. I feel beautiful and feminine within myself and I can dress myself like a big girl, thank you. If my husband had a gripe about a piece of clothing, I would listen and consider his feelings all the way, but again, I can dress myself. Sometimes though- it is a control issue. Sometimes, it is a jealousy issue that some men love to cloak in the religious. To ignore the spectrum of possibility is to take a defensive stance.

 

[Lifeisamazing]

Oh, and just wanted to add one thing. I think the debate the ladies and some of the guys were talking about could be summed up in this:

Consider the Source…

We all have trusted sources of good advice. We all have those whose suggestions aren’t worth losing sleep over, as we know their motives are not pure. That, I think, is what many of us were pondering on this subject. Not at all that men are all pigs, etc., etc.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Whoa, hold on now. That is not even close to what I said, or how I said it. Accepting the occasional less-than-modest dress code at the start of the relationship is a valid issue that should be discussed as a factor. I in no way was assuming that is why he started dating her or that adjustments are not necessary as relationships progress. But, again, some self responsibility is in order.

No need to try and make a stand for all that is male. I think it is a bit extreme to think the ladies on this thread were painting all of manhood with the same brush stroke, thinking a man is the taliban if he asks his wife to be aware, and defending trashy clothing! Quite the opposite, if you read through. Most of us were stating we prefer modest clothing b/c it is our free will to choose to be virtuous. I feel beautiful and feminine within myself and I can dress myself like a big girl, thank you. If my husband had a gripe about a piece of clothing, I would listen and consider his feelings all the way, but again, I can dress myself. Sometimes though- it is a control issue. Sometimes, it is a jealousy issue that some men love to cloak in the religious. To ignore the spectrum of possibility is to take a defensive stance.

Sorry, Lifeisamazing, I misunderstood your previous post. All of your points are well taken. And your caution that the dress issue may have been there from the beginning, and to take self-responsibility for accepting that in the beginning, is a very important one. After all, if you are dating a girl (or guy) who is occasionally immodest, flirting around, involved with porn, abuses alcohol, or is emotionally or (God forbid) physically abusive, and you don’t take those red flags seriously, you are in for trouble, and there is nobody else to blame but yourself for your lack of prudence.

 

[masha]

I read the original post and then only some of the many posts that followed, so if I repeating something, sorry.

To the OP: If you think your girlfriend is dressing immodestly at any point, let her know. She’s your girlfriend, so obviously you two are prettly close - right? Say it nicely, but don’t be afriad to say it. My husband tells me I look hot, but a little too hot for outside the house.

But if she’s dressing modestly, just not according to the “Mary-like dress” tract, let her be. No self-respecting girl wants to dress like that because it’s not modest, it’s prudish and unattractive. Modesty needs to be attractive. Compare the Orthodox Jewish and Muslim clothing online to much of the Catholic modest clothing sites and you’ll see what I mean. They generally have style, we generally don’t.

I hope this helps a little. Good luck.
Masha

 

[TommyWommy]

Some experts have estimated that more than 75% of human communication is non-verbal. This includes facial expressions , hand gestures , body language , and yes, even clothing .

Another important element of communication is that the message sent is not always the message that is received. This is why it often becomes important to seek clarification of any given message. However, it is not easy to obtain clarification of a non-verbal message, especially from a distance. (This is why many soldiers were killed by friendly fire in the early part of the Civil War since North & South had similar or ambiguous uniforms in some cases).

Sometimes we send a message (verbal or non-verbal) that becomes intercepted by an unintended party. We may respond with, “I wasn’t talking to you,” or “Mind your own business.” Or, we may invite them into the communication loop. The point is, public communication is not “private.” When we put a message “out there” we throw it at the mercy of the receivers who will interpret it as they see fit, for better or worse. And they will seldom seek clarification from us. Consequently, if we CARE about how the message will be received, we will do our best to make it a clear, concise, unambiguous message. There is no way to do this perfectly, given the variety of potential receivers “out there.”

So, like the volume on the TV, we might try our best to find a good “setting” of modesty, but it will inevitably be too loud for someone and too quiet for someone else.

Having said all that, I believe it also behooves us to recognize the general differences in male/female sexuality. (This may differ from culture to culture, so when in Rome, do as the Romans, so to speak.) Men tend to be more visually stimulated sexually. (Observe the lack of a “Hooters” restaurant counterpart for women). Women tend to be more turned on by what they hear and feel. (Few men read romance novels). Anyway, there is a difference that needs to be acknowledged and appreciated when it comes to clothing and non-verbal communication.

So, let’s not kid ourselves:

Women, you know darn well that you have a “volume control” on the “sexiness” of your clothing (as well as other non-verbal means of communicating like body language and facial expressions). So, do your best to keep it at a reasonable level. And fight back when men try to force you to extremes.

Men, you know darn well you are tempted to undress the most covered up woman with your eyes. In fact, for some men, the more mystery, the more temptation. So, if you can’t see the child of God behind the breasts, look away and think about something else until you can appreciate that she is not an object for your pleasure.

To the OP:

The way she dresses is an extension of herself. What you say about her clothes you say about her. Consider that very carefully.

 

[chevalier]

But if she’s dressing modestly, just not according to the “Mary-like dress” tract, let her be. No self-respecting girl wants to dress like that because it’s not modest, it’s prudish and unattractive.

No degree of phariseeism could be true of Our Lady.

 

[chevalier]

Women, you know darn well that you have a “volume control” on the “sexiness” of your clothing (as well as other non-verbal means of communicating like body language and facial expressions). So, do your best to keep it at a reasonable level. And fight back when men try to force you to extremes.

True, but allow me to use a parallel: if you help someone up, you go out of your way. If you don’t throw a banana skin under his foot, that’s hardly a concession.

Men, you know darn well you are tempted to undress the most covered up woman with your eyes.

I object and I also, respectfully, point out that revealing clothes already do the revealing, so one can’t complain about the others undressing him.

In fact, for some men, the more mystery, the more temptation. So, if you can’t see the child of God behind the breasts, look away and think about something else until you can appreciate that she is not an object for your pleasure.

Two caveats:

1. It can never be said that it’s fine to show but wrong to look.
2. If people are tempted by more clothing, it’s not a reason to wear less.

The way she dresses is an extension of herself. What you say about her clothes you say about her. Consider that very carefully.

That is important, but it shouldn’t mean one can’t have an opinion different from the wearer’s. As for the respect you talk about, sometimes it may even be better to go straight to the person instead of talking about him or her to others. That, or go and ask a priest.

 

[TommyWommy]

True, but…

Ok, it’s true. Thank you.

I object and I also, respectfully, point out that revealing clothes already do the revealing, so one can’t complain about the others undressing him.

I guess that word “revealing” is a bit like trying to determine where the ocean meets the land. It is somewhat subjective, is it not?

 

[chevalier]

I guess that word “revealing” is a bit like trying to determine where the ocean meets the land. It is somewhat subjective, is it not?

True, it is, but what is not subjective is that if one chooses to show something, he isn’t being undressed when it comes to what he shows. One can still complain about others looking at what he shows (because excessive or rude looking is always bad), but it doesn’t make one look very rational or consequent.

 

[TommyWommy]

There are several things about this whole discussion that seems problematic to me. One is the difference between women and men (especially the fact that men are ‘generally’ more visually stimulated and tempted).

Add to that the difference in cultural and subcultural backgrounds people come from.

Add to that the ease at which people’s messages can be misinterpreted from the intention of the message.

Add to that the variety of fashion available to women, and the challenge of discerning the “appropriateness” of dress for any given context. If you’ve ever gone shopping for clothes with your wife, you’ll know what I mean. It has to fit right, look right, feel right, be “pretty” but not “sleazy.” It has to look ‘nice’ for her husband as well as her friends. And then she is supposed to ‘know’ what will draw the praises of her husband without ‘tempting’ the eyes of other men. She is also supposed to know exactly how much skin she is ‘allowed’ to reveal and on what body parts for any given context. And even if NO skin is showing, does it ‘flatter’ her figure, or is it too tight and therefore ‘too revealing?’

It wears me out just thinking about how daunting it must be! All I have to decide is: jeans or good pants? Tie or no tie? Jacket or no jacket? And I’m done. I never have to think, "Gee, I wonder if this will tempt women to gawk at me and undress me with their eyes.

And through all this, the women can be seen by all and scrutinized by all (male and female), while we men have the option of hiding our impure thoughts from others. (or at least trying to)

Yet, the responsibility of holiness or sin belongs equally to us all. Like Adam said, “Lord, the woman You put here gave it to me to eat.” (i.e. It’s HER fault, Lord, not mine.) And like Eve said, “The serpent said it was ok for me to do it.” (i.e. It’s not MY fault, Lord, I placed it before the man because the snake showed me how attractive it was supposed to be.)

So much of this comes down to the intention of the heart. “…the Lord does not see as mortals see. They look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (1Samuel 16:7)

I do think people need to be able to talk about this with each other (especially spouses). But even then, concensus will often be elusive. The pendulum will always swing.

I’ve gone to Christian churches where women wore tops with exposed shoulders, spaghetti straps, and short shorts. I’ve also gone to churches that required women to wear long dresses and long sleeves and no makeup or jewelery. There is a middle ground, but it can be a very large, gray area to navigate. And the women tend to get the raw end of the deal, by being oppressed, exploited, blamed, shamed, or all of the above.

Finally, the tension of this whole discussion can be encapsullated in this single exchange between a man and a woman:

Man: Wow! You look really hot tonight!
Woman: Why can’t you just tell me I look pretty?

 

[LJN21]

This

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=310965

 

[chevalier]

Tommy, that’s why I take time to point out it’s not a gender war. It so happens that men are indeed somewhat more visually stimulated - but not really so much more again. And, also, there is less custom for men to show off so directly (it would be much different for women if men were customarily allowed to show off abs, biceps, most of the leg and whatever else in everyday dress). Clothes can make our difference between unattractive and very attractive, but we don’t have cleavage, belly lines, straps or similar concepts. If women wear clothes that 1) aren’t stretchy (lycra etc), 2) don’t show cleavage or belly line, i.e. more or less the same dress code as men but obviously with some adjustments (e.g. we don’t ever wear lace or frill or pink colours but they’re fine for women), then there is far less scrutiny. The scrutiny is generally a by-product of the idea that women are allowed to show more skin than men. Obviously, liberties have limits and can be misused, hence scrutiny.

Plus, I don’t think the whole headache about finding appropriate clothes for every occasion and so on and so forth is necessary. Modesty in terms of not tempting people to sin is not the same as finding the proper dress code. Falling short of an etiquettal dress code is hardly anywhere close to a moral offence, whereas some of the clothes that are popular to wear today - again, not most, maybe even not the majority - cross the moral line, at least in my view. If one accepts the bottom line “don’t tempt people sexually”, in which “sexually” has the everyday meaning (i.e. not anything that’s remotely related to mating in scientific terms), then one has much less to worry about. Seriously, people need a break and they don’t need to examine every inch and every slight angle with a magnifying glass. We just need to get rid of the secular pressure to be “sexy”. Pretty and attractive is perfectly fine, by the way.

 

[TommyWommy]

This

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=310965

That’s good stuff. Although it says little about the woman’s challenge in manner of dress apart from not dressing like a prostitute, which is one end of the spectrum. There’s still a pretty big gray area for women to navigate between the extremes when it comes to fashion, cultural context, social context, climate, etc. I’m just trying to empathize with this challenge that women face.

Now, it seems that (at least for some folks) ‘more covering’ equates to ‘more holiness,’ whereas, in Eden, nakedness WAS pure holiness. There was no sin and no shame. Now, there is sin, there is shame, and Adam & Eve needed covering. So, how is a woman to know the line between sin and holiness for her wardrobe? If more covering equals more holiness, then the burka is the way to go. (few of us would agree with that!)

I just think it’s a very blurry line to try and bring into focus, because of the problem of sin we ALL face.

 

[chevalier]

It’s not only about how much skin is show, but also about how it is shown and for what purpose.

 

[TommyWommy]

Tommy, that’s why I take time to point out it’s not a gender war.

It turns into one because of the difference between shame and guilt. A woman does not have to be ‘guilty’ in order to experience the ‘shame’ imposed upon her from outside of her (i.e. men who feel tempted)

Obviously, liberties have limits and can be misused, hence scrutiny.