Negative effect of fashion on morality

[edwest2]

Modesty was a very important concept for girls and young women. In the early 1960s, skirts had to cover the knees. This set an appropriate level of modesty, and modesty was a valued quality boys looked for when Catholic girls reached dating age. Bathing suits had been one piece affairs, but then the two piece bathing suit was introduced, resembling underwear. Next, the bikini, regarded as daring and even scandolous and rightly so. These things were advertised in magazines and shown in movies.

Then came mini-skirts and mini-dresses. Women, especially young women, were encouraged to abandon modesty and decency. Why?

Coming to the present day, I saw a magazine cover at the supermarket with Britney wearing a gauze mini-dress (?) with her underwear clearly visible. Does this girl have a mother or father? Would you want your daughter on a magazine cover dressed like this?

And going along with what is considered stylish dress, is a certain type of behavior. It is no secret that Britney and Paris and others have numerous out of wedlock sexual encounters. And when a new girl becomes a celebrity, I often read how these people “shed their good girl image” shortly after signing up.

Wake up Catholics! Are your daughters walking around in what I call half-pants that don’t even go up to their waists? Are they wearing underwear that consists of a piece of string?

I encourage everyone to throw out the secular magazines and turn off the TV. And I also encourage you to not watch movies where a very attractive couple has a sex filled, unmarried relationship. The fact of the matter is, the more we focus on these very negative role models, the harder it is to focus and imitate Jesus in our lives.

There used to be a thing called good, clean fun. It’s been replaced by raunchy, dirty behavior.

God bless,
Ed

 

[child_of_God85]

What kind of clothing would you consider modest? Some of my dresses don’t actually cover my knee (though not nearly at short as mini skirts of dresses), not all of my shirts and blouses come up to my neck (about midway), and I do wear bikini’s (though not the skimpy ones, most likely considered a tankini). Would you consider me immodest?
I think I dress very modestly. I don’t dress this way to turn men on or to get any sort of attention from men. I dress this way because I like the way I look in these clothes.
I do have to cringe when I see a girl with have her butt cheaks peaking out from under her skirt, or at a lot of what teenage girls are wearing nowadays. I never would wear a lot of that stuff. But at the same time, I do not want to wears dresses down to my ankles and shirts up to my chin, it’s not my style.

 

[VR70]

I’m not going to get into the whole “what is modest” debate, cause it’s been done and done and done again on here.

I just wanted to say that it is still possible in this day and age to raise children to know the difference. My daughter is almost 8. When we are in the supermarket in front of the tabloids or watching tv and a scantily dressed woman is viewed, she says, “what she’s wearing is really inappropriate.” and yes, she really uses that word.

I have raised her to think this way about what to wear - If Jesus came today, would you be embarrassed by what you’re wearing in front of Him? Using that, she has thus far kept away from the styles (even in her sizes unfortunately) that would not pass that test. And of course, she has a mom who makes sure she passes that test every day, too.

God bless!

Trish

 

[child_of_God85]

That is a good question for a girl/woman to ask, before leaving the house. Would they be embarassed to wear what they have on in front of Jesus. Thankfully I can say without hesitation that no, I would not be ashamed or embarassed.

 

[TheGoodLife]

I just wanted to say that it is still possible in this day and age to raise children to know the difference. My daughter is almost 8. When we are in the supermarket in front of the tabloids or watching tv and a scantily dressed woman is viewed, she says, “what she’s wearing is really inappropriate.” and yes, she really uses that word.

What a mature young lady you’re raising. How awesome!

I cringe every time I have to go to the supermarket with my 3 year old dd. I always stand in front of the magazines to block them from dd and try to keep her distracted by talking with her, but I guess it hasn’t been enough because the other day she took off her clothes in the house and when I asked her why, she said she wanted to be on a magazine [cover]. I never imagined that I’d have to give a ‘modesty talk’ to a 3-yr-old.

 

[Mirdath]

And yet again, apparently women are incapable of lust, and are to blame for the lust of men.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with the length of the skirt or any other dimension of clothing. If hemlines drop back down to the floor, all that’s going to happen lust-wise is the re-fetishization of the ankle.

What we need is not burqas for everyone but a little self-control, maybe?

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I agree.I HATE the way people exploit their bodies and want to look ‘attractive.’ Ugh, its disgusting. I only want to look like a flower for Jesus. I never wear anything that doesn’t cover my shoulders, chest, stomach, and higher legs.I never wear makeup.I usually wear trousers and a loose jumper.If I dont wear a jumper, I wear modest shirts.If I wear skirts, I wear long ones that cover almost to the ankle.I am disgusted by the current fashion and think its a disgrace.

Even though I am NOT interested, lots of boys like me and ask me to kiss them and be their girlfriend, but I ignore them or tell them to go away.I consider it an insult! I would NEVER flirt and would never kiss a boy unless I was going to marry him, and I am going to stay chaste forever.

 

[SeekerJen]

And yet again, apparently women are incapable of lust, and are to blame for the lust of men.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with the length of the skirt or any other dimension of clothing. If hemlines drop back down to the floor, all that’s going to happen lust-wise is the re-fetishization of the ankle.

What we need is not burqas for everyone but a little self-control, maybe?

As much as I agree with your post, I have to agree with the OP as well. He wasn’t suggesting that women start dressing in high-necked, wrist- and ankle-length clothing. He was suggesting, rather, that there is a problem with women walking around in clothing that leaves almost nothing to the imagination, with their underwear hanging out. And I agree. Why do girls walk around wearing spaghetti strap tops that show off their bras, when a tank top with 1-inch wide straps would cover their underwear? Why do they wear pants cut so low that 1) they have to buy them super tight to get them not to fall off, meaning that even the thinnest girls sport “muffin tops”, and 2) they can’t sit down without exposing half their bums (and usually a decorated G-string along with it)? And of course, if you look at the celebs glamorized on TV and in magazines, they’re running around in underwear, or in short skirts with no underwear, and acting like tramps.

Of course, women likely would not feel as much of a need to dress in this fashion if men did not respond so enthusiastically. As much as some good men call for modesty and chastity, the fact is that Britney or Lindsey or Jessica Alba on a magazine cover in underwear is what sells. I spend my weekdays on a big college campus, and girls attracting the most male attention are the ones dressed as I have described above. I think both genders need an attitude adjustment.

 

[edwest2]

And yet again, apparently women are incapable of lust, and are to blame for the lust of men.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with the length of the skirt or any other dimension of clothing. If hemlines drop back down to the floor, all that’s going to happen lust-wise is the re-fetishization of the ankle.

What we need is not burqas for everyone but a little self-control, maybe?

There was a time when self-control was more universally taught, Apparently, it still is, in some Catholic families. The problem is this: Catholics are alowing themselves to think that wearing next to nothing still somehow counts as clothing. Being a man, and having friends who are men, and having relatives in their teens, I’ve noticed no (zero) change in the reaction of a man toward an attractive woman. Have you?

In the 1960s a woman could be called glamorous. Yes, she was beautiful but there was always the idea that you could admire but not lust over her. Now, whores like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are being marketed as immodest and proud of their lack of virginity. That’s the problem. And it’s obvious that girls (and I do mean girls, not women) are being influenced by that to some degree. Some Catholics get that, but too many think it’s somehow OK.

Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman to lust after her that he has committed adultery. I grew up believing that women could be looked at but with God given respect. The current crop of female celebrities have no respect for themselves and no respect for the sanctity of their person’s as God intended. Partial nudity and sexual relationships have been trivialized. They have been taken from their proper place in civilized society.

God bless,
Ed

 

[child_of_God85]

As much as I agree with your post, I have to agree with the OP as well. He wasn’t suggesting that women start dressing in high-necked, wrist- and ankle-length clothing. He was suggesting, rather, that there is a problem with women walking around in clothing that leaves almost nothing to the imagination, with their underwear hanging out. And I agree. Why do girls walk around wearing spaghetti strap tops that show off their bras, when a tank top with 1-inch wide straps would cover their underwear? Why do they wear pants cut so low that 1) they have to buy them super tight to get them not to fall off, meaning that even the thinnest girls sport “muffin tops”, and 2) they can’t sit down without exposing half their bums (and usually a decorated G-string along with it)? And of course, if you look at the celebs glamorized on TV and in magazines, they’re running around in underwear, or in short skirts with no underwear, and acting like tramps.

Of course, women likely would not feel as much of a need to dress in this fashion if men did not respond so enthusiastically. As much as some good men call for modesty and chastity, the fact is that Britney or Lindsey or Jessica Alba on a magazine cover in underwear is what sells. I spend my weekdays on a big college campus, and girls attracting the most male attention are the ones dressed as I have described above. I think both genders need an attitude adjustment.

Most of what teen girls consider fashionable really just wind up making them look like street walkers.
I love fashoin and make up, it is one of my weak spots. But I do like dressing modestly. My skirts usually come just above the knee, my neckline is about 2 inches above the bust line, and my make up is done in moderation. I like looking classy and elegant. I just wish most girls would realize they are only making them selves look immature and cheap.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

I cringe every time I have to go to the supermarket with my 3 year old dd. I always stand in front of the magazines to block them from dd and try to keep her distracted by talking with her, but I guess it hasn’t been enough because the other day she took off her clothes in the house and when I asked her why, she said she wanted to be on a magazine [cover]. I never imagined that I’d have to give a ‘modesty talk’ to a 3-yr-old.

I was just saying to my DH the last time we were at the grocery store, “Those magazine covers are awful. I’m going to be one of those crazy moms who flips them all over so my kids can’t see them.” It really is bad. I don’t want my daughters growing up thinking they have to look like that to be pretty, and I don’t want my sons to grow up thinking they want to find a girl who dresses like that.

Why do they wear pants cut so low that 1) they have to buy them super tight to get them not to fall off, meaning that even the thinnest girls sport “muffin tops”, and 2) they can’t sit down without exposing half their bums (and usually a decorated G-string along with it)?

This is exactly why I despise shopping for jeans. I’m a fairly small/short person, so I have to shop in the Juniors section. I tried several weeks ago, while I wasn’t very far along with this pregnancy, and oh my Lord, I couldn’t believe the styles! Everything looks like it’s been run over a few times with a Mack truck (filthy dirty), and nothing comes up anywhere near my hips. For crying out loud, I want jeans that fit my hips and my waist! And I guess expecting them to actually look clean is asking too much.

It’s definitely irritating. At least with immodest tops, I can “layer” and put a tank top on underneath. If anyone has any suggestions on how I can “add” to those jeans, I’d totally appreciate it!!

 

[SeekerJen]

Truly Beloved: I’m 5 feet tall and wear a size 2/4, and have had much luck shopping for jeans and dressy pants at Old Navy. Sometimes the stores are out of stock in my size, but online I can usually order short-inseam jeans and trousers for a decent price (mostly $30-40 per pair, and they wear well). The jeans are available in different rise lengths, so avoid the “ultra low waist” ones and you should be fine. I have a short torso so anything higher than the “just below waist” rise cuts into my ribs, but that rise is perfectly modest with normal shirts. I assume they have similar inseam choices for maternity, although I wouldn’t be the one to ask.

I don’t even bother with the Juniors’ sections. Those clothes are not cut for women’s bodies, they’re cut for anorexic preteens with no breasts, hips, common sense, or parental supervision.

 

[child_of_God85]

I don’t even bother with the Juniors’ sections. Those clothes are not cut for women’s bodies, they’re cut for anorexic preteens with no breasts, hips, common sense, or parental supervision.

I know, whenever I go to the junior section looking for jeans, I ask myself whether girls now have tooth picks for legs. I have skinny legs, but even I can’t fit in the pants found in the junior section.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Truly Beloved: I’m 5 feet tall and wear a size 2/4, and have had much luck shopping for jeans and dressy pants at Old Navy.

You sound like me. I’m 5’2", and size 2 pants. I can’t seem to find any jeans/khaki pants in the Misses or Petites sections in size 2. Thank you so much for the Old Navy suggestion! I had been to every other department store, and nothing was sized small enough (size 4 is just too big) or cut “womanly” enough (smaller waist, fuller hips). Again, thank you!

Back to the thread, now…