My mom won't enforce modesty--what to do?

[severus68]

You are in college now, right? Enjoy your college experience and let your Mom deal with your 11 year old sister! As the mother of a former 11 year old girl (now 27!), I can tell you that worrying about bikini’s or shirts that fall off one’s shoulders is the least of the problems a parent can face. When I was in Hawaii last fall, the only girls who were not in bikinis were those my age (LOL!) or too heavy to fit in one. Foster a loving relationship with your sister so that as she moves through her teenage years you can become a confidant and friend - if you start criticizing her clothing at age eleven, that companionship will never have the opportunity to develop.

Great advice.

 

[severus68]

How are the results irrelevant? This poll took into account a wide range of viewpoints within a Christian perspective. It wasn’t Fundamentalists or SSPX churches–it was just a bunch of normal Christian guys.

The nature of a bikini or a shirt that’s falling off your shoulder is to be revealing. My best friend struggled with impurity for a long time, and one of the things that triggered his impurity the most was immodesty. He’s mentioned bikinis, tight jeans, and these types of shirts when talking to me about his struggles. Also, take a quick glance at the history of the bikini: historyofwaterfilters.com/bikini.html

All that being said, I will take the advice of those who have told me to be a sister and let my mother be a mother. I think it’s great advice, and I plan to follow it.

The results of polls do not form Catholic doctrine.

You appear to be getting upset with opinions which differ from yours on what constitue immodest outfits. This must be a stressful time of your life with your studies etc. I agree that the best advice to take is to let your mother be the mother.

 

[raaucoin]

dear friend,
By your own admission,your mom is a good mom. Trust her parenting. In the mean time, as an older sibling teach by your own example. Are you her sister? Take some time to go shopping with her, Avoid judging her choices, but allow her to be with you as you buy clothing that is appropriate for you. Tell her why you aren’t comfortable in more revealing things. And leave it at that. Are you an older brother? What a wonderful opportunity to share with your sister your reasons for being interested in girls who are modest and respect themselves.
But remember- at 11 yrs. old it is natural for her to be experimenting with differnt looks. Be supportive and non-judgemental,but honest. It’ll go a lot farther if you let it be an experience of growing your relationship rather than just telling her what she should and shouldn’t do.

 

[Portrait]

How are the results irrelevant? This poll took into account a wide range of viewpoints within a Christian perspective. It wasn’t Fundamentalists or SSPX churches–it was just a bunch of normal Christian guys.

The nature of a bikini or a shirt that’s falling off your shoulder is to be revealing. My best friend struggled with impurity for a long time, and one of the things that triggered his impurity the most was immodesty. He’s mentioned bikinis, tight jeans, and these types of shirts when talking to me about his struggles. Also, take a quick glance at the history of the bikini: historyofwaterfilters.com/bikini.html

All that being said, I will take the advice of those who have told me to be a sister and let my mother be a mother. I think it’s great advice, and I plan to follow it.

Dear timeandeternity,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

May I just begin, dear sister, by saying that I think that your concern as to how your younger sister is attired is very praiseworthy indeed, given the decadent age in which our lot is now cast. You are quite right to be anxious regarding such a matter and I would strongly advise that you give no heed to those misguided Catholics who would suggest that you are being overly prissy. Much of contemporary Catholicism has been infilitrated by spirit of the age, so that you now have modern day Catholics wrongly asserting that it is society that dictates what is modest and immodest, this irrespective of the fact that Western society is in a dreadful state of moral and cultural deterioration.

A bikini, tightly fitting jeans and off-the-shoulder-tops are decidedly to revealing and unseemly for any respectable women, let alone and eleven year-old girl. Please discuss this issue again with your mother and in a polite manner say that you feel she ought to be much more rigorous as regards your younger sister’s immodest clothing choices. She should forbid her to be attired in such seductive apparel and instill into her, whilst she is still young, the dangers and inappropriateness of following the fashions of the pagan multitudes in her midst.

Our Church has consistently taught that indecent clothing is unbefitting of those who profess religion. Here is, for example, what Pope Benedict XV in much sober and God-fearing times when immodest aparrel was not tolerated:

“One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women in every age and station. Made foolish by the desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would have formerly blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshhold of churches, to assist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity” (Sacra Propediem, 1921).

These words have an extraordinary contemporary ring to them and are highly pertinent to our own very degenerate age. Many modern day Catholics would probably respond that we must move with the times and that this sort of ‘Puritan’ austerity has no place in the Catholic Church of today. However, that only evinces the degree to which many Catholics have been polluted by the demoralizing influences of the godless world. Shame on us, I say.

Many Contemporary Catholics will engage in no amount of sophistry and fallacious reasoning to excuse the wearing of immodest clothing. Notwithstanding this deplorable laxity, Sacred Scripture has spoken quite plainly and unambiguously upon the topic; St. Paul says “Women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9, added emphasis mine). Moreover, it should be observed that the word ‘modesty’ in this text denotes a sense of shame and a godly recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety. Thus it is manifestly obvious that, irrespective of cultural considerations, a woman’s clothing must needs be expressive of an interior modesty and a sober outlook upon life - in other words a Christian outlook, consistent with good taste and decency. It is really as simple as that and until the sexual revolution of the 1960’s no thoroughgoing Catholic would have challenged this, for they would have been in accord with the sort of thing that Pope Benedict XV said in my citation above.

God bless, dear sister, and I will pray that you will be able to approach your mother regarding this issue of your sister’s inappropriate clothing very soon. BTW, very good posts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Portrait:

You are quite right to be anxious regarding such a matter and I would strongly advise that you give no heed to those misguided Catholics who would suggest that you are being overly prissy. Much of contemporary Catholicism has been infilitrated by spirit of the age, so that you now have modern day Catholics wrongly asserting that it is society that dictates what is modest and immodest, this irrespective of the fact that Western society is in a dreadful state of moral and cultural deterioration.

I do not think that anyone here has suggested she is being “prissy,” and portraying the posts – which have yet to be addressed satisfactorily – that there is a possibility of there not being a modesty issue to a series of ad hominem attacks is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate.

Touting the line that has been touted since Juvenal (for he has reached an eloquence few have rivaled) will not make your point any stronger.

Your post does not improve:

A bikini, tightly fitting jeans and off-the-shoulder-tops are decidedly to revealing and unseemly for any respectable women, let alone and eleven year-old girl.

Do you see the sleight of hand that results in a logical fallacy? You say that such attire is “unseemly for any respectable women [sic],” which has the No True Scotsman issue embedded in it – you seem to eliminate the possibility that any respectable woman would wear such things, which leads to a circular argument (wherein their respectability is, by assertion, predicated on or inextricably tied to the fact that they do not wear – horribile dictu – tight jeans!

She should forbid her to be attired in such seductive apparel and instill into her, whilst she is still young, the dangers and inappropriateness of following the fashions of the pagan multitudes in her midst.

Such calumny is hardly appropriate on a Catholic forum.

Again, I ask: Do her off-the-shoulder tops reveal any cleavage?

 

[Walking_Home]

Portrait:

You are quite right to be anxious regarding such a matter and I would strongly advise that you give no heed to those misguided Catholics who would suggest that you are being overly prissy. Much of contemporary Catholicism has been infilitrated by spirit of the age, so that you now have modern day Catholics wrongly asserting that it is society that dictates what is modest and immodest, this irrespective of the fact that Western society is in a dreadful state of moral and cultural deterioration.

I do not think that anyone here has suggested she is being “prissy,” and portraying the posts – which have yet to be addressed satisfactorily – that there is a possibility of there not being a modesty issue to a series of ad hominem attacks is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate.

Touting the line that has been touted since Juvenal (for he has reached an eloquence few have rivaled) will not make your point any stronger.

Your post does not improve:

quote:

A bikini, tightly fitting jeans and off-the-shoulder-tops are decidedly to revealing and unseemly for any respectable women, let alone and eleven year-old girl.

Do you see the sleight of hand that results in a logical fallacy? You say that such attire is “unseemly for any respectable women [sic],” which has the No True Scotsman issue embedded in it – you seem to eliminate the possibility that any respectable woman would wear such things, which leads to a circular argument (wherein their respectability is, by assertion, predicated on or inextricably tied to the fact that they do not wear – horribile dictu – tight jeans!

Quote:

She should forbid her to be attired in such seductive apparel and instill into her, whilst she is still young, the dangers and inappropriateness of following the fashions of the pagan multitudes in her midst.

Such calumny is hardly appropriate on a Catholic forum.

Again, I ask: Do her off-the-shoulder tops reveal any cleavage?

---

 

[fix]

Do you see the sleight of hand that results in a logical fallacy? You say that such attire is “unseemly for any respectable women [sic],” which has the No True Scotsman issue embedded in it – you seem to eliminate the possibility that any respectable woman would wear such things, which leads to a circular argument (wherein their respectability is, by assertion, predicated on or inextricably tied to the fact that they do not wear – horribile dictu – tight jeans!

I fail to see your point. Did he define respectable? If he says respectable people dress modestly and the styles in question are immodest, how is it circular to conclude that respectable people do not wear immodest fashions?

 

[BossLike]

I’m fully agreed with you

 

[Baelor]

I do not think that anyone here has suggested she is being “prissy,” and portraying the posts – which have yet to be addressed satisfactorily – that suggest that there is a possibility of there not being a modesty issue as a series of ad hominem attacks is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate.

Sorry, this is a much clearer version of the paragraph in my above post, which I originally edited only partially (obviously).

I fail to see your point. Did he define respectable? If he says respectable people dress modestly and the styles in question are immodest, how is it circular to conclude that respectable people do not wear immodest fashions?

The train of thought is as follows:

1. “Respectable” women do not wear things like that.
2. What if there is a good, Catholic women who does wear things like that?
3. She must not be “respectable” or all that good and Catholic since she wears things like that.

In other words, the definition of “respectable” will be sufficiently and arbitrarily narrowed until it includes only the criteria that the poster wishes. That is, No True Scotsman: No truly respectable woman would wear such things, which is an unacceptable way of addressing the legitimate response that there are some perfectly modest women who do wear tight jeans, etc… The impasse is a result of whether tight jeans, etc. are immodest or not. There is absolutely no reason to mention respectability because it only clouds the issue and does not help address the actual problem of whether the given clothes are immodest or not.

 

[fix]

The train of thought is as follows:

1. “Respectable” women do not wear things like that.
2. What if there is a good, Catholic women who does wear things like that?
3. She must not be “respectable” or all that good and Catholic since she wears things like that.

#3 may very well be an apt conclusion. We need to define our terms.

In other words, the definition of “respectable” will be sufficiently and arbitrarily narrowed until it includes only the criteria that the poster wishes.

Not necessarily.

That is, No True Scotsman: No truly respectable woman would wear such things, which is an unacceptable way of addressing the legitimate response that there are some perfectly modest women who do wear tight jeans, etc…

Again we need definitions. If such a person did wear immodest clothing then that particular instance would not be proof of modesty, right?

The impasse is a result of whether tight jeans, etc. are immodest or not.

I agree

There is absolutely no reason to mention respectability because it only clouds the issue and does not help address the actual problem of whether the given clothes are immodest or not.

I can’t agree here. You almost seem a bit pedantic. Unless I misread the other posts he already says the clothes are immodest. If you are saying his reason for arriving at that conclusion cannot solely be based the phrase “respectable people do not dress like that” then I agree it would be insufficient because he has not given other criteria for defining immodest. But, to me it seems he already shows they are immodest by the way they were described.

 

[Baelor]

#3 may very well be an apt conclusion. We need to define our terms.

Exactly. Which is what posts like the one I was quoting work against. There is no point is simply asserting that respectable women do not wear X. Yes, we know modesty is important. Yes, we know modesty is important to respectable women. But we know nothing more about whether X is modest, and that statement does not get us anywhere at all.

Not necessarily.

Then the statement stands as an assertion with nowhere to go, and in this case unfounded and unexplained as well. The only direction it could go without a proof of the immodesty of the vestments in particular (which would make the statement superfluous anyway) was into a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Again we need definitions. If such a person did wear immodest clothing then that particular instance would not be proof of modesty, right?

Exactly. My point is that not a single poster has actually explained why off-the-shoulder shirts are always immodest, or why tight jeans are always immodest, or why etc.

I can’t agree here. You almost seem a bit pedantic. Unless I misread the other posts he already says the clothes are immodest. If you are saying his reason for arriving at that conclusion cannot solely be based the phrase “respectable people do not dress like that” then I agree it would be insufficient because he has not given other criteria for defining immodest. But, to me it seems he already shows they are immodest by the way they were described.

To which I respond as I did originally:

Baelor:

it does not seem like there is an inherent issue with off-the-shoulder tops or bikinis. I would say they become an issue when they are excessively revealing. Is that also an issue?

 

[Portrait]

I do not think that anyone here has suggested she is being “prissy,” and portraying the posts – which have yet to be addressed satisfactorily – that there is a possibility of there not being a modesty issue to a series of ad hominem attacks is as disingenuous as it is inaccurate.

Touting the line that has been touted since Juvenal (for he has reached an eloquence few have rivaled) will not make your point any stronger.

Your post does not improve:

Do you see the sleight of hand that results in a logical fallacy? You say that such attire is “unseemly for any respectable women [sic],” which has the No True Scotsman issue embedded in it – you seem to eliminate the possibility that any respectable woman would wear such things, which leads to a circular argument (wherein their respectability is, by assertion, predicated on or inextricably tied to the fact that they do not wear – horribile dictu – tight jeans!

Such calumny is hardly appropriate on a Catholic forum.

Again, I ask: Do her off-the-shoulder tops reveal any cleavage?

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post

There is a strong probability that the OP will, in these morally permissive times, encounter those worldly-minded Catholics who wrongly believe that seductive style attire is quite acceptable in the current culture. Remember they take their cue from the current culture as to what is modest or immodest. Such persons will undoubtedly imply that if she has concerns respecting such clothing then is either being prudish or sucumbing to overscrupulosity, which is arrant nonsense. Thus they quite rightly deserve to be ignored, because they have obviously been influenced by prevailing godless ideologies, which renders what they say unsound and unreliable

Sorry, my dear friend, but your line of reasoning is simply illogical, for the whole point is that a God-fearing and respectable Catholic woman would not don a bikini or mini-skirt because this sort of vesture is unbecoming a women who professes godliness. There is no circular reasoning because these garments are, by Catholic standards, unseemly and seductive and only someone desperate to uphold a liberal worldly viewpoint would ever argue to the contrary. Let us hear what our Catechism says:

"Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person. * It means refusing to unveil what should *remain hidden" (para. 2521, emphasis mine)

“Modesty is decency. It inspires ones choice of clothing” (para. 2522, emphasis mine)

“Modesty inspires a way of life that makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing idealogies” (para. 2523).

Then, of course, you have St. Paul’s words which I cited in my previous post: “Women should adorn themselves sensibly and in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9).

Now surely, dear friend, if words do mean anything at all then these citations are quite clear and unambiguous. How can blouses falling off the shoulders, tight fitting jeans that acentuate body parts and bikini’s, possibly fall under the heading of “seemly apparel”? To qoute Pope Benedict XV again, such immodest clothing “shocks every honest man and offends God”.

When men or women don seductive unseemly attire they are inviting others to view them as a mere assemblege of body parts rather than people with personalities. Immodest vesture, such as bikini’s, shorts, low-cut tops revealing cleavage, distracts from our personhood, with the tragic result that we engage less with personality and more body parts. This leads, as our current morally depraved society bears ample witness, to men and women becoming objectified, and especially women since they are more visual. Indeed, it is this disordered fixation with body parts that has led to the increasing sexualisation of Western culture and the prevalent immorality that is a sad feature of it.

If the faithful are not to be implicated in this ongoing sexualisation of culture, then clearly they must needs eshew garments that voluptuously expose the body to the gaze of others - they must refuse “to unveil what should remain hidden” and their “intimate centre” must be protected at all costs. Here is how a pre-VII manual of instruction puts it:

“The virtue of modesty is the virtue that protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not ot invite temptation, and to be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause tmeptation in others”.

(Christ in Us, Killgallon and Webber, Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 269)

God bless and goodbye for now, my dear friend, have a jolly splendid weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Maryann_C]

The results of polls do not form Catholic doctrine.

.

First of all this young lady has never said that this is a matter of doctrine so for you to use this term is in appropriate in this discussion.

Second polling young men from a range of backgrounds is a valid way of trying to gauge the general feelings of people. It may not be scientific but it is a step up from “I think” and with us fickle humans polling is, until they start employing some kind of mind reading technology, one of the few ways of finding out people thoughts and opinions in which case it IS perfectly legitimate to use the results of a poll in this sense.

Third, need I really add that this does not necessarily have to be, and is not, a Catholic issue. Where to draw the modestly line is a social issue. As I said before and I expand…the next step over the ‘modesty line’ from a bikini is to be naked but there are some who would say there is nothing wrong with that because God made us all beautiful and we should embrace our nakedness not hide it!

 

[fix]

Exactly. Which is what posts like the one I was quoting work against. There is no point is simply asserting that respectable women do not wear X. Yes, we know modesty is important. Yes, we know modesty is important to respectable women. But we know nothing more about whether X is modest, and that statement does not get us anywhere at all.

Then the statement stands as an assertion with nowhere to go, and in this case unfounded and unexplained as well. The only direction it could go without a proof of the immodesty of the vestments in particular (which would make the statement superfluous anyway) was into a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Exactly. My point is that not a single poster has actually explained why off-the-shoulder shirts are always immodest, or why tight jeans are always immodest, or why etc.

To which I respond as I did originally:

Take the bikini issue as one example. You seem to assert that some are immodest and some are not, right? The other poster said that any bikini is immodest. He said any respectable person would not wear one. Your position would be more legitimate using some other less glaring example. Like claiming no respectable woman would wear pants.

I do not want to speak for the other poster but it seems he would say it is implicit in his assertion that the very nature of a bikini is immodest so his statement is not circular. It is self evident from the example.

 

[Walking_Home]

First of all this young lady has never said that this is a matter of doctrine so for you to use this term is in appropriate in this discussion.

Second polling young men from a range of backgrounds is a valid way of trying to gauge the general feelings of people. It may not be scientific but it is a step up from “I think” and with us fickle humans polling is, until they start employing some kind of mind reading technology, one of the few ways of finding out people thoughts and opinions in which case it IS perfectly legitimate to use the results of a poll in this sense.

Third, need I really add that this does not necessarily have to be, and is not, a Catholic issue. Where to draw the modestly line is a social issue. As I said before and I expand…the next step over the ‘modesty line’ from a bikini is to be naked but there are some who would say there is nothing wrong with that because God made us all beautiful and we should embrace our nakedness not hide it!

---

Actually being naked is not wrong in itself. If it was wrong – we would be in “error” disrobing – for example for medical examination/procedures. And no – I am not making a case for us to be walking around naked.

Wearing a swimsuit – even a bikini – would not be inappropriate in the context of the beach and/or pool — but it would be inappropriate for going grocery shopping.

 

[Baelor]

in these morally permissive times, encounter those worldly-minded Catholics who wrongly believe that seductive style attire is quite acceptable in the current culture.

I do not know what “seductive-style attire” is so I am unable to comment on this at all.

Remember they take their cue from the current culture as to what is modest or immodest. Such persons will undoubtedly imply that if she has concerns respecting such clothing then is either being prudish or sucumbing to overscrupulosity, which is arrant nonsense.

Yes, although “such clothing” is undefined, and therefore this statement is currently a shell that must be filled.

Thus they quite rightly deserve to be ignored, because they have obviously been influenced by prevailing godless ideologies, which renders what they say unsound and unreliable

Correct.

Sorry, my dear friend, but your line of reasoning is simply illogical, for the whole point is that a God-fearing and respectable Catholic woman would not don a bikini or mini-skirt because this sort of vesture is unbecoming a women who professes godliness.

That is not true. See my above posts for why this is totally unsatisfactory as a response to my post. Simply asserting that they are immodest and women who where them are not respectable does not make either of those statements true.

There is no circular reasoning because these garments are, by Catholic standards, unseemly and seductive and only someone desperate to uphold a liberal worldly viewpoint would ever argue to the contrary.

I will argue to the contrary while maintaining that I uphold a Catholic worldview.

Let us hear what our Catechism says:

"Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person. * It means refusing to unveil what should *remain hidden" (para. 2521, emphasis mine)

“Modesty is decency. It inspires ones choice of clothing” (para. 2522, emphasis mine)

“Modesty inspires a way of life that makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing idealogies” (para. 2523).

Then, of course, you have St. Paul’s words which I cited in my previous post: “Women should adorn themselves sensibly and in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9).

Now surely, dear friend, if words do mean anything at all then these citations are quite clear and unambiguous. How can blouses falling off the shoulders, tight fitting jeans that acentuate body parts and bikini’s, possibly fall under the heading of “seemly apparel”? To qoute Pope Benedict XV again, such immodest clothing “shocks every honest man and offends God”.

You have not fulfilled your promise to us. You told us in this very post that “Catholic standards, unseemly and seductive.” Yet in those (wonderful and good) quotations you posted, I see nothing mentioned of “blouses falling off the shoulders, tight fitting [sic] jeans that acentuate [sic] body parts and bikinis [sic]” in any of them. Did I misread? Or is this another instance of you just asserting things and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal or not respectable?

When men or women don seductive unseemly attire they are inviting others to view them as a mere assemblege of body parts rather than people with personalities.

“Invite” implies agency that you cannot prove is there.

Immodest vesture, such as bikini’s, shorts, low-cut tops revealing cleavage, distracts from our personhood,

I agree with the bolded part. No one in this thread has actually presented any case for why bikinis or shorts are immodest. Of course cleavage is immodest, which is actually the basis for my very first post in this thread.

So, basically, the unbolded parts of this statement are totally unfounded.

Second polling young men from a range of backgrounds is a valid way of trying to gauge the general feelings of people. It may not be scientific but it is a step up from “I think” and with us fickle humans polling is, until they start employing some kind of mind reading technology, one of the few ways of finding out people thoughts and opinions in which case it IS perfectly legitimate to use the results of a poll in this sense.

Not really. Because modesty is aimed toward a good. Asking what people consider modest is not being aimed toward that good. A better poll would be to ask those attracted to women and men what particular clothing would most likely result in sexual responses.

Take the bikini issue as one example. You seem to assert that some are immodest and some are not, right? The other poster said that any bikini is immodest. He said any respectable person would not wear one. Your position would be more legitimate using some other less glaring example. Like claiming no respectable woman would wear pants.

I do not “seem” to assert that, I am asserting it explicitly and outright, but that is apart from my response to Portrait. The point is that her line of reasoning does not make sense regardless of whether it is incidentally correct. You cannot accept the a priori notion that it is immodest. The reasoning is circular because it is not okay for the poster to make that assumption in the first place.

 

[fix]

There is a strong probability that the OP will, in these morally permissive times, encounter those worldly-minded Catholics who wrongly believe that seductive style attire is quite acceptable in the current culture. Remember they take their cue from the current culture as to what is modest or immodest.

Quite true. It is called desensitization.

Such persons will undoubtedly imply that if she has concerns respecting such clothing then is either being prudish or sucumbing to overscrupulosity, which is arrant nonsense. Thus they quite rightly deserve to be ignored, because they have obviously been influenced by prevailing godless ideologies, which renders what they say unsound and unreliable

yes back to the CCC:

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

 

[fix]

I do not “seem” to assert that, I am asserting it explicitly and outright, but that is apart from my response to Portrait. The point is that her line of reasoning does not make sense regardless of whether it is incidentally correct. You cannot accept the a priori notion that it is immodest. The reasoning is circular because it is not okay for the poster to make that assumption in the first place.

Why not? Is any fashion acceptable simply because it exists? The poster makes the case it is self evident because it reveals too much of what should not be revealed. Now, you may not like that but it seems more legitimate and logical than your position.

 

[Baelor]

fix:
Why not? Is any fashion acceptable simply because it exists?

Stick to what I say, please, and do not attempt to erect straw men. It simply will not work.

The poster makes the case it is self evident because it reveals too much of what should not be revealed.

1. “Self-evidence” is a cop-out in almost every case I have seen.
2. If one should argue that it is not self-evident, the poster already relegates that person to the class of people trying to uphold the liberal worldview or whatnot, hardly a productive way of reaching any sort of increased understanding of morality.
3. And what, pray, does the poster believe should not be revealed? I see nothing concrete, nothing specific. And jeans reveal no skin whatsoever. Is the shape of the legs something to be concealed? The poster does not say. How can anyone work with nothing?

Now, you may not like that but it seems more legitimate and logical than your position.

I have no position at this point.

 

[Walking_Home]

Portrait:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Portrait View Post
There is a strong probability that the OP will, in these morally permissive times, encounter those worldly-minded Catholics who wrongly believe that seductive style attire is quite acceptable in the current culture. Remember they take their cue from the current culture as to what is modest or immodest.

Quite true. It is called desensitization.

---

“Desensitization” – is not necessarily a bad thing. A culture where less clothes is the norm/acceptable – and boys grow up to see a woman in a bikini-- as just a woman wearing an acceptable form of swim attire-- there would be less incentive to view her as an object.