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

[Portrait]

Good. So the stomach may be shown? How much leg may be shown? If the top is the equivalent of a broad swath of cloth wrapped around the body, is this acceptable? What if the bottom is a skirt? A sheer skirt?

Uhmm…They are very obviously not “objectively” sexual.

I disagree. The fact that they reveal no flesh whatsoever should be enough to remove the claim of indecency, especially if one wears a shirt that covers the crotch area. Women are not bound to hide even the shape of their bodies; that is absurd. Skinny jeans do not inherently draw attention to the legs in the same way that a shirt that looks like it is painted on draws attention to the breasts. Female anatomy is responsible for this fact.

No more “well-formed conscience” arguments, because no one can do anything with them. They amount to claims of self-evidence, which should be demonstrable easily anyway.

I would hope that spiritual maturity enables all individuals to discriminate between what is modest and immodest.

Moral relativism is not the only form of a defective conscience, nor is it even relevant here.

There is doubt. The fact that you personally are offended does not mean that everyone is or should be. This is not even about moral relativism, it is about finding the appropriate objective standard for modesty. Tight-fitting jeans are not immodest.

It is not going to be rectified by anything other than clear, objective, and reasoned discussion of particular aspects of modesty.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your reponses.

Forgive me, my dear friend, but it does rather appear that you are being a little too disputatious. Exposure of the stomach is both indecent as it is unecessay and there is a huge difference in a mini-skirt and a three-quater length skirt, that falls well below the knees. It is manifestly immodest and unbefitting for those who profess godliness to don any clothing that gives visual prominence to the legs, hips, breasts or to the female form generally. A pious Catholic woman has the good sense to realise her physical vulnerability as the ‘weaker vessel’ and the male readiness to exploit it because of evil desire. Moreover, she wishes to be cherished and respected for her good personal qualities, rather than her physical endowments, which, I hasten to add, are not intrinsically bad but are not intended to be flaunted in public.

Different garments are immodest for different reasons, my dear friend, but in the final analysis an immodest garment is just that, an immodest garment. Tightly fitting jeans decidedly do attract attention to a woman’s legs as they give unseemly visual prominece to their shape and that trespasses the boundaries of propriety as it excites impure thoughts. True, a woman cannot help her anatomy, but she can and must take action so as not to accentuate her anatomy, for this results in her being viewed as an assemblege of body parts.

Alas, you now have the relativisation of standards of decency and a tragic loss of a sense of decorum. Nobody blushes a great deal these days and many men and women are bereft of any shame as regards their immodest attire. This relativistic thinking, which has even had an impact upon Catholics since the 1960’s, has weakened in consciences the notions of good and evil, sin and grace, vice and virtue and, by analogy, standards of modesty with respect to dress. The ‘New Morality’, including a whole new notion of modesty, allows immodest styles of clothing to be worn without any sense of shame, even at Holy Mass. Thus the issue of moral relativism is highly germane to the topic under review, dear friend. Indeed, it explains the moral deterioration of our age, with its nefarious sexualisation of contemporary culture.

Some modern day Catholic women/girls can be extraordinarly naive regarding the sad consequences of their immodest clothing choices. They may well be sincere in wanting to lead a Christian life, but they are sincerely wrong inasmuch as they are unaware of the link between a chaste heart and a chaste appearance, and their potential for being an occasion of sin in others. Let us hear the warning of Pope Pius XII:

“Numbers of believing and pious women…in accepting to follow certain bold fashions, break down, by their example, the resistance of many other women to such fashions, which may become for them the cause of spiritual ruin. As long as these provocative styles remain indentified with women of doubtful virtue, good women do dare not follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by women of good reputation, decent women will soon follow their example, and are carried along by the tide into possible disaster”.

Now whilst Pope Pius XII did not specify any particular article of clothing - modesty and discretion would prevent him from doing so - it is surely obvious that mini-skirts, bikinis, shorts and tight-fitting jeans come under his censure as being “bold” and certainly “provocative”. Even from this one quote alone it can clearly be seen that the new modesty of the “New Morality” is out of kilter with the traditional teaching of the Church regarding unseemly vesture.

Any rational discussion respecting modest attire, my dear friend, must take into account the consistent extrinsic tradition of Holy Mother Church and the arduous demands which form a part of that Sacred Tradition.

God bless and thankyou for taking time to discuss this all important topic with me.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fix]

Fix, only respond if you can respond in a productive manner.

You said this:

I never even hinted at that, making the second question a straw man from which you are now trying to distance yourself.

The question I asked answers itself. The point was to show that the poster believes bikinis are immodest no matter the style or intent of the one wearing it. Now, you may disgaree, but that does not make his position illogical or circular.

Yes, yes we do. Otherwise I could say that about anything. Skirts reveal too much! Burkas reveal too much! Dresses reveal too much! It is self-evident – anything they reveal is too much. Self-evident.

Nonsense. The appearance of bikini is substantially different from a Burka or long skirt.

That is not a line of reasoning, and it is as theologically unsound as it is intellectually sterile. Neither are traits that have permitted the Church to teach the truth in the past or now.

I am not aware that the Church has said that any particular fashion style is sinful, that is not proof that everything available is modest.

This is actually the line of reasoning presented by Portrait (and you, perhaps?). Forgive me if I am not convinced. There is no reason to pick any other example.

What specifically is too revealing about a bikini. The back? The neck? The breasts? The stomach? The legs? Why is a bikini not okay but a one-piece is? Why are dresses okay, given that they reveal ankles? All of these questions are emphatically not self-evident, because clearly this is disagreement, and the Church has not laid out explicit guidelines on all such matters. They permit pants on women, for example.

The other poster has stated why he thinks the bikini is immodest. That should be sufficient.

 

[fix]

Dear fix,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said, my sentiments entirely.

All of this would have been self-evident to former generations of Catholics, but nowadays you are dealing with men who do not think with an authentically Catholic mind about such issues. Moreover, as you quite rightly say, people have come desensitized and so cannot distinguish between what is modest and immodest vesture. Jolly sad, I say.

God bless and thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

You are fighting an uphill battle. Mostly the opposition to moral stances is stated as “your arguments are not convincing”. Which usually means that the arguments are fine it is that the hearer that refuses to be convinced.

 

[Portrait]

Please prove. With data. Because there are far too many variables at play for you to make such an intellectually simplistic statement.

For example, I am over twenty years old. Until this past calendar year I did not even know that men got sexually aroused looking at women in bikinis or whatever, because I have not a single time in my entire life. This, needless to say, probably discernibly, affects my outlook on such matters. Nevertheless, assume a woman of my age has had the same experience. Would this not affect what she wears? It is not unreasonable for people to consider tight-fitting jeans innocuous (as they are, but let us roll with your own belief on them).

There are clearly modesty “borderline” cases. A woman walking out naked is very obviously is a different category than a woman wearing tight-fitting jeans, and for you to equate them in any way – which that statement most certainly does – is as erroneous as it is offensive.

A proscriptive teaching that I espouse fully. Nevertheless, your opinions on modesty are not necessarily direct consequents.

You are asserting motives. Can you prove that the reason women wear bikinis is purely to “seduce and stir up concupiscence?” Please provide a scientific study which demonstrates this for all women. If you cannot, then let it stand that you feel comfortable making moral judgments about other people without proof.

You probably should ask someone else. Staring at a woman naked produces no physiological response in me, so I am not in a position to tell you what leads other men to lust.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

Modesty in dress regulates our actions and exterior customs concerning sexual issues. Thus it controls one’s conduct so as to avoid unlawful sexual arousal in others. A good Catholic will always strive to avoid wearing any garments that are known orare reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal. This applies both to men and women equally. Incontrovertibly, mini-skirts, bikini’s, shorts and skin tight clothing fit the description of garments that are known and reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal in others. Now it is this which renders them indecent and unsuitable for women professing godliness. There is no reason to make heavy-weather of all this, my dear brother, for it is all perfectly plain and uncomplicated. A refusal to accept this basic Catholic moral teaching has more to do with obstinately opposing traditional norms of modesty in favour of the new modesty of the ‘New Morality’ of our decadent age. As fix states above, it is about refusing to be convinced by the arguments for traditional Catholic modesty, probably because they seem austere and/or “all so very Puritan” in the 21st. century (not that the Protestant Puritan saints could not teach us Catholics a thing or two concerning morality).

Your individual experience cannot be the template for how the vast majority of chaps respond to scantily dressed women. If there is poor catechesis, or an individual is reared in a nominally Catholic home, then they may well be of the opinion that their tightly fitting jeans are inoffensive, but it does not follow that their tightly fitting jeans are inoffensive. Besides, it is of vital importance that any garment is not evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent and already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. Catholics do not set their watches by the town clock, for the town clock may well be giving the incorrect time; similarly, good Catholic people do not allow a decadent culture to dictate them what is modest and immodest as regards clothing, as it will probably lead them astray on such a matter, which is hardly surprising sex obssessed age.

There is no need of a “scientific study”, dear friend, since a well-formed conscience would tell a devout Catholic woman that a bikini would reasonably be expected to excite sexual arousal in men. However, I would contend that women who don bikini’s do so primarily to parade their figures on the beech and to semaphore to men just how sexually attractive they are. If this were not the case then they would shun wearing such indecent swimwear and opt for something that covered their bodies in a respectable fashion. In any event, regardless of their motive, they undeniably do seduce and stir up concupiscence by doning a bikini and it is this that is unacceptable and immodest for any God-fearing Catholic woman.

God has indeed made the human body beautiful, but immodest vesture neither contributes to the promotion of the human person nor to the establishment of the kingdom of God. All Christian women have a biblical obligation (I Tim. 2: 9) laid upon them to dress modestly with reserve and reflect that holiness “without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14). This all may seem rather embarrassingly old-fashioned in these Laodicean times in which our lot is cast, but God’s standards of modesty do not change, even if the culture does.

God bless and goodbye for now, my dear friend. Please at least ponder carefully what I and others here who uphold standards of Catholic modesty have said in their posts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LaSainte]

I find this thread and others like it to be so irritating. Generally, they consist of one or more men attempting to hold women responsible for their own weaknesses. If I go on a date with my husband wearing my favorite dress (which incidentally, shows a bit of cleavage but covers all of my vital body parts and even falls below the knee), and a man sees it and runs into the bathroom to masturbate, then who is responsible? Is it me, for wearing a dress that would be appropriate to wear even in the finest of dining establishments, or is it señor pervert over there who can’t get through a dinner without making a quick dash to the loo to take care of business?

Some men (LOTS of men actually) are turned on by feet. Should I not wear sandals or high heels now?

Most men are turned on by long hair and a beautiful face. Should we all shave our heads and throw away our makeup?

Should pretty women just stay inside?

Or should men just look at a pretty woman (even if she is gasp! wearing tight jeans, a mini skirt or a bikini at the beach), acknowledge her beauty inwardly and then move on with his life?

There is more overt sexuality in a mascara commercial than there is in anything I wear or do when I go out, so do those of you complaining about us “immodest” women own televisions? I know you all own computers, haha. So here’s the deal. Get rid of your television, your computer, all magazines, and any other form of immodest temptation that is laying around that you can actually CONTROL, and we will take your complaints about our choice of denim seriously.

Otherwise, get control of yourselves and stop trying to place the blame for your own weaknesses on others.

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

Modesty in dress regulates our actions and exterior customs concerning sexual issues. Thus it controls one’s conduct so as to avoid unlawful sexual arousal in others. A good Catholic will always strive to avoid wearing any garments that are known orare reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal. This applies both to men and women equally. Incontrovertibly, mini-skirts, bikini’s, shorts and skin tight clothing fit the description of garments that are known and reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal in others. Now it is this which renders them indecent and unsuitable for women professing godliness. There is no reason to make heavy-weather of all this, my dear brother, for it is all perfectly plain and uncomplicated. A refusal to accept this basic Catholic moral teaching has more to do with obstinately opposing traditional norms of modesty in favour of the new modesty of the ‘New Morality’ of our decadent age. As fix states above, it is about refusing to be convinced by the arguments for traditional Catholic modesty, probably because they seem austere and/or “all so very Puritan” in the 21st. century (not that the Protestant Puritan saints could not teach us Catholics a thing or two concerning morality).

Your individual experience cannot be the template for how the vast majority of chaps respond to scantily dressed women. If there is poor catechesis, or an individual is reared in a nominally Catholic home, then they may well be of the opinion that their tightly fitting jeans are inoffensive, but it does not follow that their tightly fitting jeans are inoffensive. Besides, it is of vital importance that any garment is not evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent and already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. Catholics do not set their watches by the town clock, for the town clock may well be giving the incorrect time; similarly, good Catholic people do not allow a decadent culture to dictate them what is modest and immodest as regards clothing, as it will probably lead them astray on such a matter, which is hardly surprising sex obssessed age.

There is no need of a “scientific study”, dear friend, since a well-formed conscience would tell a devout Catholic woman that a bikini would reasonably be expected to excite sexual arousal in men. However, I would contend that women who don bikini’s do so primarily to parade their figures on the beech and to semaphore to men just how sexually attractive they are. If this were not the case then they would shun wearing such indecent swimwear and opt for something that covered their bodies in a respectable fashion. In any event, regardless of their motive, they undeniably do seduce and stir up concupiscence by doning a bikini and it is this that is unacceptable and immodest for any God-fearing Catholic woman.

God has indeed made the human body beautiful, but immodest vesture neither contributes to the promotion of the human person nor to the establishment of the kingdom of God. All Christian women have a biblical obligation (I Tim. 2: 9) laid upon them to dress modestly with reserve and reflect that holiness “without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14). This all may seem rather embarrassingly old-fashioned in these Laodicean times in which our lot is cast, but God’s standards of modesty do not change, even if the culture does.

God bless and goodbye for now, my dear friend. Please at least ponder carefully what I and others here who uphold standards of Catholic modesty have said in their posts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

Lust does not come from the outside in. It’s from the inside out. The rot that is already planted in a persons mind. The origin of lust is not the woman being viewed — but the one doing the viewing. Each and every one of us has to take responsibility for what lives in our mind – and quit using others as scapegoats.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Nonsense. The appearance of bikini is substantially different from a Burka or long skirt.

According to you.

Middle Eastern rapists apparently think otherwise.

 

[severus68]

I find this thread and others like it to be so irritating. Generally, they consist of one or more men attempting to hold women responsible for their own weaknesses. If I go on a date with my husband wearing my favorite dress (which incidentally, shows a bit of cleavage but covers all of my vital body parts and even falls below the knee), and a man sees it and runs into the bathroom to masturbate, then who is responsible? Is it me, for wearing a dress that would be appropriate to wear even in the finest of dining establishments, or is it señor pervert over there who can’t get through a dinner without making a quick dash to the loo to take care of business?

Some men (LOTS of men actually) are turned on by feet. Should I not wear sandals or high heels now?

Most men are turned on by long hair and a beautiful face. Should we all shave our heads and throw away our makeup?

Should pretty women just stay inside?

Or should men just look at a pretty woman (even if she is gasp! wearing tight jeans, a mini skirt or a bikini at the beach), acknowledge her beauty inwardly and then move on with his life?

There is more overt sexuality in a mascara commercial than there is in anything I wear or do when I go out, so do those of you complaining about us “immodest” women own televisions? I know you all own computers, haha. So here’s the deal. Get rid of your television, your computer, all magazines, and any other form of immodest temptation that is laying around that you can actually CONTROL, and we will take your complaints about our choice of denim seriously.

Otherwise, get control of yourselves and stop trying to place the blame for your own weaknesses on others.

Great post, great points.

 

[severus68]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

Modesty in dress regulates our actions and exterior customs concerning sexual issues. Thus it controls one’s conduct so as to avoid unlawful sexual arousal in others. A good Catholic will always strive to avoid wearing any garments that are known orare reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal. This applies both to men and women equally. Incontrovertibly, mini-skirts, bikini’s, shorts and skin tight clothing fit the description of garments that are known and reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal in others. Now it is this which renders them indecent and unsuitable for women professing godliness. There is no reason to make heavy-weather of all this, my dear brother, for it is all perfectly plain and uncomplicated. A refusal to accept this basic Catholic moral teaching has more to do with obstinately opposing traditional norms of modesty in favour of the new modesty of the ‘New Morality’ of our decadent age. As fix states above, it is about refusing to be convinced by the arguments for traditional Catholic modesty, probably because they seem austere and/or “all so very Puritan” in the 21st. century (not that the Protestant Puritan saints could not teach us Catholics a thing or two concerning morality).

Your individual experience cannot be the template for how the vast majority of chaps respond to scantily dressed women. If there is poor catechesis, or an individual is reared in a nominally Catholic home, then they may well be of the opinion that their tightly fitting jeans are inoffensive, but it does not follow that their tightly fitting jeans are inoffensive. Besides, it is of vital importance that any garment is not evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent and already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. Catholics do not set their watches by the town clock, for the town clock may well be giving the incorrect time; similarly, good Catholic people do not allow a decadent culture to dictate them what is modest and immodest as regards clothing, as it will probably lead them astray on such a matter, which is hardly surprising sex obssessed age.

There is no need of a “scientific study”, dear friend, since a well-formed conscience would tell a devout Catholic woman that a bikini would reasonably be expected to excite sexual arousal in men. However, I would contend that women who don bikini’s do so primarily to parade their figures on the beech and to semaphore to men just how sexually attractive they are. If this were not the case then they would shun wearing such indecent swimwear and opt for something that covered their bodies in a respectable fashion. In any event, regardless of their motive, they undeniably do seduce and stir up concupiscence by doning a bikini and it is this that is unacceptable and immodest for any God-fearing Catholic woman.

God has indeed made the human body beautiful, but immodest vesture neither contributes to the promotion of the human person nor to the establishment of the kingdom of God. All Christian women have a biblical obligation (I Tim. 2: 9) laid upon them to dress modestly with reserve and reflect that holiness “without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12: 14). This all may seem rather embarrassingly old-fashioned in these Laodicean times in which our lot is cast, but God’s standards of modesty do not change, even if the culture does.

God bless and goodbye for now, my dear friend. Please at least ponder carefully what I and others here who uphold standards of Catholic modesty have said in their posts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

What is your opinion of what a modest woman should wear at the minimum, for everyday and to swim in at the beach/pool?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What is your opinion of what a modest woman should wear at the minimum, for everyday and to swim in at the beach/pool?

This would be my guess.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Ironically, they’re from a time period where Europe was a racist, elitist slave driver of nations and its cities were full of class warfare, poverty, and, oh whaddya know, prostitution.

Clearly, modest clothing is not as virtuous as some people make it out to be.

 

[Baelor]

Exposure of the stomach is both indecent

Why?

as it is unecessay

So? It is not necessary for me to eat chocolate truffles, but doing so is not sinful.

and there is a huge difference in a mini-skirt and a three-quater length skirt, that falls well below the knees.

And there is a huge difference between showing one’s face and covering it completely. The Vatican recognizes one as necessary for modesty and the other as not, as do I. What is the difference? Is it culturally-dependent? Is it universal? If universal, then how would identifying exactly what standards of modesty there are not be a hugely productive goal?

It is manifestly immodest and unbefitting for those who profess godliness to don any clothing that gives visual prominence to the legs, hips, breasts or to the female form generally.

How do you determine whether a garment fits those criteria? And what are the analogous standards for men?

A pious Catholic woman has the good sense to realise her physical vulnerability as the ‘weaker vessel’ and the male readiness to exploit it because of evil desire.

I do not remember learning that in Sunday School. Could you point me to a currently authoritative Church document that requires us to view women as “weaker vessels” and men as, well, out-of-control monkeys?

Tightly fitting jeans decidedly do attract attention to a woman’s legs as they give unseemly visual prominece to their shape and that trespasses the boundaries of propriety as it excites impure thoughts.

Good. We now have an explicit motive for modesty – the rousing up of impure thoughts. First, I argue that tightly-fitting jeans do give “unseemly visual prominence to their shape,” but that is not even necessary to dismantle this statement completely. You say that they “excite impure thoughts.” This is a quantifiable matter – please provide the quantities. Surely you would not have made such a claim without data, so I would love to see it.

True, a woman cannot help her anatomy, but she can and must take action so as not to accentuate her anatomy, for this results in her being viewed as an assemblege of body parts.

Non-sequitur

Now whilst Pope Pius XII did not specify any particular article of clothing - modesty and discretion would prevent him from doing so - it is surely obvious that mini-skirts, bikinis, shorts and tight-fitting jeans come under his censure as being “bold” and certainly “provocative”.

Even tabling the issue of tight-fitting jeans, knee-length shorts are most obviously neither bold nor provocative.

 

[Baelor]

The question I asked answers itself. The point was to show that the poster believes bikinis are immodest no matter the style or intent of the one wearing it. Now, you may disgaree, but that does not make his position illogical or circular.

That was not the nature of my claim. Re-read my post.

Nonsense. The appearance of bikini is substantially different from a Burka or long skirt.

As is the difference almost anything (including a modest dress) and a burka. If one is going to make a claim, one must delineate the parameters that lead to it. What makes showing the face acceptable but the midriff unacceptable? Or, more interestingly, the ankles but not the shoulders?

The other poster has stated why he thinks the bikini is immodest. That should be sufficient.

But it in fact was not – Portrait did not mention the fact that the stomach was exposed until explicitly asked about it, so his original statement why was insufficient by his own account.

 

[Baelor]

A good Catholic will always strive to avoid wearing any garments that are known orare reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal.

What defines knowledge or reasonable expectation? Should a study come out stating that 5% males are aroused by a woman’s stomach, would covering the stomach be necessary? What about 10%? 2%? 0%?

If a study should come out saying that as many men are aroused by a woman’s face as by her breasts, are women morally obligated to cover their faces?

How are shoulders “reasonably expected” to cause arousal? Should I be worried about an onslaught of shoulder fetishists, or am I missing something about them that makes them titillating?

Incontrovertibly, mini-skirts, bikini’s, shorts and skin tight clothing fit the description of garments that are known and reasonably expected to be the occasion of sexual arousal in others.

If it is so incontrovertible, it is quantified, because that is truly the definition of an incontrovertible fact in such a straightforward context of causation. So show us, and put the matter to rest!

There is no need of a “scientific study”, dear friend, since a well-formed conscience would tell a devout Catholic woman that a bikini would reasonably be expected to excite sexual arousal in men.

May I make sure that I understand you correctly?

You mention a dimension of modesty entirely determined on the causality involved, i.e. the effect that it has on males. You use this cause-and-effect schema to justify the claims that certain items of clothing are modest or immodest.

This causality is in fact quantifiable. Yet instead of approaching the issue from the objectively superior approach, i.e. justifying the immodesty of particular garments in the context of the cause-and-effect schema based on an objective proof that the schema holds in the case of the garment in question, you opt to…claim that a well-formed conscience can in presumably all cases be used as a worthy substitute. If this is your intellectual approach, I can only applaud the Church fathers for holding themselves to higher standards of thought.

Put another way, the well-formed conscience you describe would probably not tell a devout Catholic man that eating dookie is not something that is reasonably expected to cause arousal, but – the horror – it would be wrong.

However, I would contend that women who don bikini’s do so primarily to parade their figures on the beech and to semaphore to men just how sexually attractive they are.

Really? I did a Google search on why women wear bikinis and did not manage to find the study you must be referencing, because such a statement would have to be based on such a study, since such judgmental generalizations would be very uncharitable, un-Catholic, and irresponsible.

If this were not the case then they would shun wearing such indecent swimwear and opt for something that covered their bodies in a respectable fashion.

Please let me know where you learned to read the thoughts of others! I have always wanted to. Perhaps then I can know their motives as well as you do. I suppose that “comfort” is out of the question.

 

[graciew]

I find this thread and others like it to be so irritating.

Some men (LOTS of men actually) are turned on by feet. Should I not wear sandals or high heels now?
.

we can,with thick black woolen socks…in summer

 

[severus68]

This would be my guess.

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Victorians/swimearlyvics400new.jpg

Ironically, they’re from a time period where Europe was a racist, elitist slave driver of nations and its cities were full of class warfare, poverty, and, oh whaddya know, prostitution.

Clearly, modest clothing is not as virtuous as some people make it out to be.

Not acceptable, I do see a clear emphasis on waists, breasts and hips, tut tut.

 

[LightBound]

Not acceptable, I do see a clear emphasis on waists, breasts and hips, tut tut.

Not to mention (Gasp!!) that one of the women has her elbows showing! That is just so immodest!!

 

[severus68]

Not to mention (Gasp!!) that one of the women has her elbows showing! That is just so immodest!!

Oh yes, the one wearing those tantalising bloomers!

 

[exnihilo]

However, for whatever reason, although my mom generally dresses very modestly, my 11-year-old sister wears tight jeans, off-the-shoulder tops, and (the latest) a bikini. I’ve brought this up with my sister and she won’t listen to me (which is to be expected). Worse, I’ve brought it up with my mom and she just seems to brush it off. The most she’ll do is say something like, “Why don’t you wear a t-shirt under that?” but won’t enforce it. I don’t understand. I feel powerless to do anything.

You are not powerless. You have done what you should do in voicing your thoughts on the issue. Now you can pray about it.

These things are most certainly immodest. The problem you have is that our society approves of immodesty and objectifying women, even the Christian community and especially women. Have you ever seen women’s beach volleyball, which somehow is an Olympic sport? Look at what they wear. It is ridiculous. It is a close to playing a sport nude as one could get. The men dont dress like that. We got there by slowly eroding the standards of modesty.

When I was a kid the short skirts that almost everyone today wears were worn only by loose women. The reality is our society is full of loose women which is testified to by many various stats including premarital sex and abortion. Western Civilization is sick and has been getting sicker for years. Because immodesty is so advanced and common people think anyone who disagrees is a prude. You will not find much support for the obvious reason that most people go along with immodesty.

 

[LaSainte]

Not to mention (Gasp!!) that one of the women has her elbows showing! That is just so immodest!!

Well, she is clearly the Jezebel of the group. If this were “Sex and the City”, she would be Samantha.

 

[LaSainte]

You are not powerless. You have done what you should do in voicing your thoughts on the issue. Now you can pray about it.

These things are most certainly immodest. The problem you have is that our society approves of immodesty and objectifying women, even the Christian community and especially women. Have you ever seen women’s beach volleyball, which somehow is an Olympic sport? Look at what they wear. It is ridiculous. It is a close to playing a sport nude as one could get. The men dont dress like that. We got there by slowly eroding the standards of modesty.

When I was a kid the short skirts that almost everyone today wears were worn only by loose women. The reality is our society is full of loose women which is testified to by many various stats including premarital sex and abortion. Western Civilization is sick and has been getting sicker for years. Because immodesty is so advanced and common people think anyone who disagrees is a prude. You will not find much support for the obvious reason that most people go along with immodesty.

What about women’s gymnastics? Some here may consider the leotards they wear to be immodest, but I know from experience (I was a gymnast for 10 years), that a triple-twisting layout would be practically impossible wearing anything else. There wouldn’t be much to the sport if the women wore loose-fitting pants and long-sleeved shirts but could only pull off a cartwheel!