Need Proof

[Stylus]

I need some facts to defend modesty in dress. So far all I have is somewhere in the Bible it says that women will not put on the clothes of men…(or something to that extent). But that doesn’t explain why we disapprove of tight clothes and low necklines. I’ve also heard a few of those apparitions about Our Lady wanting us to dress modestly but you can’t use that in an argument because many people don’t believe in that sort of thing.

A friend of mine mentioned that he thinks a woman should be able to show off her figure a little bit…he said bare shoulders are feminine, shorter (but not too short) skirts are nice.
I need to prove that we women are not supposed to wear clothes that are tight, short, revealing, sleeveless…etc. It got me thinking… Where did all these guidelines come from anyway?

 

[Dorothy]

Stylus:

I need some facts to defend modesty in dress. So far all I have is somewhere in the Bible it says that women will not put on the clothes of men…(or something to that extent). But that doesn’t explain why we disapprove of tight clothes and low necklines. I’ve also heard a few of those apparitions about Our Lady wanting us to dress modestly but you can’t use that in an argument because many people don’t believe in that sort of thing.

A friend of mine mentioned that he thinks a woman should be able to show off her figure a little bit…he said bare shoulders are feminine, shorter (but not too short) skirts are nice.
I need to prove that we women are not supposed to wear clothes that are tight, short, revealing, sleeveless…etc. It got me thinking… Where did all these guidelines come from anyway?

It just seems to be common sense for a woman to know how to dress modestly. Unfortunately, not too many women have that sense.

To dress provocatively is to allow one’s self to be an occasion of sin to others, and to send the wrong message about one’s self.
It is very possible to dress womanly and attractive without being immodest.

I would wonder what a man is really thinking when he suggests that a woman should “show off her figure.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Stylus:

I need some facts to defend modesty in dress. So far all I have is somewhere in the Bible it says that women will not put on the clothes of men…(or something to that extent). But that doesn’t explain why we disapprove of tight clothes and low necklines. I’ve also heard a few of those apparitions about Our Lady wanting us to dress modestly but you can’t use that in an argument because many people don’t believe in that sort of thing.

A friend of mine mentioned that he thinks a woman should be able to show off her figure a little bit…he said bare shoulders are feminine, shorter (but not too short) skirts are nice.
I need to prove that we women are not supposed to wear clothes that are tight, short, revealing, sleeveless…etc. It got me thinking… Where did all these guidelines come from anyway?

I hope I don’t make things worse for you, but I also wonder where all that comes from. In the Garden of Eden, apparently there was no issue of “revealing” but for some reason once when Adam became embarrassed it all changed – or did it?

So far I haven’t searched the Bible for backup. I can’t think of anything in particular but I’ll give it a shot. Is this person Catholic, and if so, would CCC references also be useful if they exist?

Alan

 

[1ke]

From the Catechism:

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

• by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
• by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;[312]
• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;[313]
• by prayer:
  I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.[314]

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

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.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.

2527 “The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ.”

 

[volzcpa]

Here is the CatholicModesty site with Scripture passages

catholicmodesty.com/Biblemodesty.html

 

[BryPGuy89]

Stylus:

I need some facts to defend modesty in dress. So far all I have is somewhere in the Bible it says that women will not put on the clothes of men…(or something to that extent). But that doesn’t explain why we disapprove of tight clothes and low necklines. I’ve also heard a few of those apparitions about Our Lady wanting us to dress modestly but you can’t use that in an argument because many people don’t believe in that sort of thing.

A friend of mine mentioned that he thinks a woman should be able to show off her figure a little bit…he said bare shoulders are feminine, shorter (but not too short) skirts are nice.
I need to prove that we women are not supposed to wear clothes that are tight, short, revealing, sleeveless…etc. It got me thinking… Where did all these guidelines come from anyway?

It says not to play the harlet and not to lust and what not too. These in all can too can be aplied to that kind of dress. Women usually dress like that for male attention or to incite lust, and thus leading others down wrong paths in their clothes. Like other things, this kind of clothing type shouldn’t be encouraged because they lead to things that are wrong and opposite of God.

 

[martino]

1 Cor 12:23 “…and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part,…”

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Stylus

Does the Bible Say It’s a Sin for Women to Wear Pants?

The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5

by Jason Young

Some Christians have taken this verse to mean that Christian women shouldn’t wear pants, arguing that pants are that which “pertaineth unto a man.” Many sincere and honest Christians have grappled with this issue, wanting to be pleasing to God. This teaching, as with all teachings regarding the scriptures, needs to be carefully examined. It is just as much an error to teach something that the scriptures don’t say as it is to ignore what the scriptures do say.

The teaching that it is wrong for Christian women to wear pants is based upon the following beliefs:

1. Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches that women should not wear that which pertains unto a man.

1. Pants pertain to a man because they not only were exclusively invented for men, but they also have historically only been worn by men.

1. The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.

The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.

The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armour or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deuteronomy 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deuteronomy 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armour of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,

“As the word…geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”4

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:

“…and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, ‘take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman…’” (sic) 5

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential ‘men’s items,’ Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior’s gear’.”

Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been ‘unlady-like’ for her to use a sword – worse, a violation of the law – because a sword is a man’s tool…”

…

actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

 

[freesoulhope]

Stylus:

I need some facts to defend modesty in dress. So far all I have is somewhere in the Bible it says that women will not put on the clothes of men…(or something to that extent). But that doesn’t explain why we disapprove of tight clothes and low necklines. I’ve also heard a few of those apparitions about Our Lady wanting us to dress modestly but you can’t use that in an argument because many people don’t believe in that sort of thing.

A friend of mine mentioned that he thinks a woman should be able to show off her figure a little bit…he said bare shoulders are feminine, shorter (but not too short) skirts are nice.
I need to prove that we women are not supposed to wear clothes that are tight, short, revealing, sleeveless…etc. It got me thinking… Where did all these guidelines come from anyway?

What society as a whole doesnt understand these days is that, we are responsible for eachother.

When a women reveals apart of her flesh, the purpose is to cause a lustfull desire in the heart of man. If a women dresses to make you look at her figure, then this is advocating sex, it causes one to look upon a women as a sexual object. When one lusts in the mind it is as bad as commiting fonication. If i go out promoting murder, and as a result sombody commits a horible crime, then i am partly responsible even though it wasnt me that directly comitted it. Therefore we are responsible for eachother. People dont like to take responsibility for sombody else because we grow up to focus souly upon are selfs and what we want.

There are three kinds of people.

There are those who live for flattery, compliments, forfillment of desires, popularity and exceptence in the word veiw. This kind of person doesnt live to please God, but lives to please the ideology of atheistic man, the man God. Some people are Good only as far as it benifits there existence, but as soon as somthing puts them in a bad light or embarrses them in front of the world veiw, they shun it and discard regardless of its wealth ( the wealth and love of God)

Then there are those that live to please God, and all though they may at first do his will out of fear, they except and love the morality that God has given them because they understand the benifits and how frudulent the will of man is. They regognise the perfect design of Gods “moral model”, and how it unites man in peace when followed with stricked and humble mind. And they see the benifits that come from being Good, where as a man who lives to please his desires see’s only embarrasment and slavery.

Then there are those who sit in between the two worlds. This man likes the idea of God and satifys him self with such a thought. But he shapes God to his own ideas and leads on to his own understanding. He may be somebody who would shun any correction and education in spirituality and sees church as a mundain pointless event or thinks that it is unesercery to attend. He pleases both sides of the fence, he nither hot or cold. Such a person will glorify the ego of man yet call ones self a Christian thinking that ones actions are okay. A Christian such as this would not see the problem with a women dressing up to encorage lust in the hearts of men, because he refuses to educate him self in the ways of Christ or ignores it all together( Christian by name) In some cases a Christian can be very devout but ignorant of some understanding of the church.

A fence Christian is simmerla and can be compared to the controversy of homosexuality in the church. Some people are ignorant of what sexuality is and what it was made for. They are slaves to the idea that they are born to be as they are by the will of God. So they spend thier time trying to find loop holes in scripture, so they can serve God but remain actively gay at the same time. But the truth is, a man is only a man because a women is a women. Sexuality exists to serve a purpose, like everything else that exists in Gods creation. If the human race didnt have sexual organs we would not be sexualy attracted to eachother nor would we be man or women since this is defined by “sexuality”. There for sexaul desire and love follows a design or blue print, it is for a purpose. Yet despite this you will all ways find people who want it both ways, This is called customised morality!.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AlanFromWichita:

I hope I don’t make things worse for you, but I also wonder where all that comes from. In the Garden of Eden, apparently there was no issue of “revealing” but for some reason once when Adam became embarrassed it all changed – or did it?

So far I haven’t searched the Bible for backup. I can’t think of anything in particular but I’ll give it a shot. Is this person Catholic, and if so, would CCC references also be useful if they exist?

Alan

This reminds me of how men in kilts were barred from St. Peter’s until a few years ago. I only knew this because a man so attired made news by being allowed in. ​

From the Catholicmodesty home page:

Words of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917:

"Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much… "

• I find this hard to believe; for if God is bothered by how we dress, why should He be offended after 1917, and not centuries earlier ? Immodest dress is no invention of the 20th century - there was any amount of it after the 1300s. Clergy spent a lot of time denouncing female fashions. I find it very hard to believe that the Omniscient God does not know this.

I also think it is suspicious that our Lady seems to have the same moral priorities as nineteenth-century Catholics - why does she not denounce hypocrisy, oppression, pride and corruption in Church and state, as the OT prophets did ? She is after all “Queen of Prophets” - one might expect her to have their lofty moral vision, instead of denouncing relative trivia ##

 

[kquinn]

A good source is a book called “Dressing with Dignity”, don’t remember the author. Also, as previously stated, we are commanded not lead others to sin - which is arguably the point of immodest dressing (and as your friend asked why dress modestly, I’m assuming that they agree that there are modest and immodest ways to dress).

Also, our bodies are temples of God and in respecting them we respect God’s creation and love for us. If we dress immodestly, we are saying that our bodies are merely things of this world, for carnal pleasure, only tools to make us happy/give us attention/get a guy to drool.

In addition, showing lack of respect for ourselves through immodest dress implies that we do not deserve to be respected by men. You do not hold a piece of raw steak in front of a hungry dog and expect it not to drool (this may be a bit of an extreme example). We can not expect men to treat us like something precious/sacred/worthy of love (pure love, not carnal love/lust) if we display ourselves to be only objects.

Hope this helps a bit,
God bless,
k

 

[JimG]

For the life of me I can’t figure why anyone would need proof that modesty is a good thing. It’s like a teenager telling her parents, “Prove to me that it’s wrong to go to school in a bikini.” Oh well, maybe that happens.

 

[Elphaba]

kquinn:

A good source is a book called "Dressing with Dignity

Well, perhaps if you don’t mind getting your arguments from SSPX and CMRI (sedevacantist) sources

Here is an article with Catholic references and written by a Catholic faithful to the pope.
seekwisdom.org/articles/deut22_5.htm

 

[kquinn]

Easy Elphaba,

My first question would be, have you actually read Dressing with Dignity? The author brings up very interesting research regarding certain cuts of cloths and the way that they draw attention from the male eye. As far as SSPX/CMRI sources go, I was not aware that this was an issue with this book. It was referred to me by a friend who is very much in line with Rome and I found it to be very helpful (though perhaps extreme in some cases). Apparently I struck a chord with you, I apologize. From my reading perspective, I simply thought of it as a book centered on modesty of dress. I would still assert that the book holds very good points about modesty (though obviously, if the author is SSPX/CMRI perhaps there are better sources). I was simply giving advice on a book I’d read that helped me have greater respect for modest dress.

God bless,
k

 

[Elphaba]

KQuinn,

Not a problem. I have read both editions along with just about all the Catholic modesty literature on the market. I never said the author was SSPX or CMRI, only that the book contained such references. It is really quite easy to verify this fact in the second edition. Just trace the references. I do not fault you or your friend for recommending the book - not many people actually look at the endnotes and the arguments are convincing - though some are flawed and extreme, as you noted.

As for the research you mentioned, there are absolutely no references in either edition to the alleged studies. Without valid references, it is merely unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[coyote]

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armour of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

I am a veteran. And, apparently also an “abomination”.
No thanks. I take issue with this statement.

 

[Traugs]

coyote:

I am a veteran. And, apparently also an “abomination”.
No thanks. I take issue with this statement.

Coyote,

Joan of Arc dressed as a man in order to fight a war as God directed her. She’s now Saint Joan. I think those of us who are female vets are probably okay.

To clarify though:
I don’t think this particular statement has anything to do with dressing modestly. As with many things from the OT you have to take it with a grain of salt so to speak.

 

[volzcpa]

How about a little armchair philosophy on this subject. Men and women are different. Men by nature are more intrigued by mystery. Men are more visually stimulated. A man is attracted (or not) to a woman first by what he sees. What he sees and what he is looking for depend on his frame of mind (when his is in control of lust) . He has a lust frame of mind (like after a few drinks) and a chaste frame of mind. In his lust frame, there is seldom if ever any thought of getting unraveling the mystery of what is inside the woman but he is only thinking about his own selfish gratification. In his chaste frame, he has (at least temporarily) subdued his cravings for lust and is interested in what the woman is about on the inside and is looking to begin solving her mystery. NOTE: Men can have their frame of mind change, literally, in an instant. These are generalities, as there are some men who always have only one frame of mind all the time.

If he is in the lust frame of mind he will be looking for, and most impressed by, a woman who is showing off her body i.e. being immodest in dress, word or action. He thinks, at least subconsciously, “Here is a woman that is showing off what she thinks is her most important attribute, and that’s exactly what I am looking for.” He is attracted to a woman because he wants to know her (biblical sense) not because he wants to get to know her. If he is in the chaste frame of mind he will be attracted to a woman who has an air of mystery i.e. modest in dress, word and action. He wants to talk to her and find out about her likes and dislikes, her interests, what kind of personality she has, her background and her family.

So, if a woman wants to attract men who are only interested in themselves, be immodest. But, if she wants to attract men who are interested in her inner self, then she should be modest.