Please help! Boyfriend wants me to dress sexier

[TheRealJuliane]

I am dating a guy (he isn’t technically my bf but we have discussed the possibility of a relationship) who is extremely wonderful and so much like me, except for this exception: he seems to think it’s fine to be physically aroused so llong as one does not follow up with physical action.

**It launched us into a heated debate, our first ever. **(Btw, we are both mid-20’s)

I explained that the Church tells people to dress in a way that does not tempt the opposite sex to thoughts of fornication (or for married people, adultery) because you are responsible not just for your own sin, but also the sin of the person who lusts for you.

He purposely answers me in a very slippery way, which was entirely new to me… saying he doesnt lust much anymore, so it wouldn’t be a problem to see me like that… saying that he does not believe men are more visually wired than women… telling me that women should feel ok being uncovered if men are allowed to wear only shorts in public… saying that, even after a couple is married, the husband will want other men to be jealous of his wife (basically, that he would be proud if his future wife made other men jealous of his trophy)

What should I do? I dress mainstream but attractive… a jeans, tee, and high heels kind of gal. I am not a prude, I just have the facts of Church teaching, and he does not… and he is very much butting heads with me over this! How can I handle him so that I don’t lose him completely over this issue? I adore him otherwise.

He thinks it’s fine to be sexually aroused so long as one does not follow up with physical action.

THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF BECOMING SEXUALLY AROUSED in the first place!!!

He purposely answers in a very slippery way…Rather than directly address the subject, he’s like a lawyer, constructing an argument in a courtroom. Here are his points.

1. He doesn’t lust like that any more (OH SURE HE DOESN’T!! ) So it won’t be a problem for him to see her “like that.” What does “like that” mean? Semi-nude?
2. Men really aren’t wired more visually than women.
3. Women should have the right to be uncovered if men can wear shorts.
4. It is perfectly fine for other men to ogle her if she is his “property,” even after they are married.

It’s perfectly clear to most of us who have lived a while and have gone through something similar or even DONE and said similar things, what is going on. The guy wants to see her body, and doesn’t mind if other men see it too. He’s got an objective by trying to convince her to “loosen up” and wear clothing she really doesn’t want to wear.

The clothing is important, but not the main issue. The main issue is that he is focused on her body AND he wants her to change to suit HIM.

They have had a “heated argument” over this. It’s time for her to take a giant step back and put up some boundaries with this dude.

“My wardrobe is no longer up for discussion. You either like me as I am, (and I am not going to dress so that you or other men ogle me), or you don’t. If you can’t let it go, then I’m afraid I can’t see you any more.”

 

[TimeEntrance]

Perhaps “normal” - but she doesn’t have to settle for someone who not only has low standards, but lowers her standards.

If he really loves her, then he wants the best for her and her immortal soul. Telling her to dress “sexy” for him is objectifying her down to something he can use and look at.

If you want a guy to look up to you, don’t give him a reason to look down.

To be honest I could not determine a whole lot about the guy from her short post. Not to mention I know neither her nor him. I got certain impressions (i.e., manipulative, not entirely honest)) but if her post was the sole evidence presented in a court of law by the side of the prosecution I doubt it would meet the standards for a conviction of the guy.

If certain sentences in her post could be analogous to the standards and types of criminal evidence, I would say the inculpatory evidence against him in her post is at best indirect or circumstantial. The exculpatory evidence exonerating him is at best indirect as well. She claims he’s a wonderful man. But what is that? She did not say and there was no qualification.

But assuming he is a wonderful man - or at least a wonderful man for her - then I can’t make her decisions. Nor would I want to. She’ll need to way the pros and cons of him or even a deeper relationship with him.

For all I know the guys rescues little babies from drowning, volunteers his time teaching kids that are mentally challenged, always selflessly helps his elderly neighbors, is destined to find a cure to HIV/AIDS, but has a great vulnerability to sex and sexual desires when he gets into relationships with women.

I simply do not know.

People say things negative about the Catholic Church all the time. I read negative things about Pope Benedict XVI as both a man and member of the clergy, frequently. But I regard him as an overall very good man. Is it possible he has some faults? Sure.

At any rate… my first semester in community college I had this very physically attractive woman that liked me. I would try to discourage her advances but she remained persistent. Nothing ever came of it but she was once a stripper (and cocaine addict) and she came into class every day dressed like Wow! with tight jeans and wearing high heels she could rock. She knew how to walk in them like second nature. But the point is this… not only was she a very tough woman (my same age), our personalities matched well, and I also had no problem with the way she dressed. I could have been with her around millionaires and male Hollywood stars and not only not feel jealous as many guys gauke at her and hit on her… I’d be totally confident she was leaving with me and like the attention the guys were paying her. Unless they were getting too aggressive or disrespectful - especially of “my space.”

So, it depends on personalities and who is compatible with who.

I partly say this as someone that has briefly read on the history of fashion. I read pretty widely and read whatever grabs my interest. So, knowing what I know I would say most women of the West today, even if conservative, would be considered social liberals dressed like “whores” among the conservative Americans and Europeans of the early 1900’s, the 1800’s, or the 1700’s.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think we have enough information to make that call. She never said how or when he told her to dress ‘sexier’. I think that he may have been making a point on something else and she got defensive thinking he was saying that she needed to dress like such and such. Women have been known to make inferences and get defensive. It happens.

That is a fair point. I could definitely see it going either direction…

… saying he doesnt lust much anymore, so it wouldn’t be a problem to see me like that…

This certainly made it seem more like he was trying to justify getting her to wear something provocative, but you are right, from the information we have been given so far it is possible that he was making some other point and brought himself up as an example making the OP feel as though he were trying to get her to change her clothing. I guess we can’t know either way unless the OP decides to return.

And I do think that there is a strong possibility that he was using sexy and attractive interchangeably.

Yes, the two have become synonomous in some circles, but certainly not in all, so again, it is something we can’t know unless the OP returns. Though I think it is important for the OP to realize that they are sometimes used synonomously in case the argument with her almost boyfriend was just a big misunderstanding.

 

[thewanderer]

All she described is things he said about people and social norms in general. He didn’t say anything about her or the way she dresses, at least not that she posted. I really think he may have said something about how women dress or should dress in general, or his attitudes on attractive women in public, or whatever and she heard “I like it when women wear ________ and you should start too.” If he said something else, and she heard that, that would certainly set of a heated debate.

I hope you realize that I wasn’t addressing this post to you, but to the OP. I did start to recognize that we only have one half of the story here, but it still seemed much more likely to me that the almost boyfriend was really behaving innapropriately so I still focused on that in my advice.

 

[TimeEntrance]

By my message, I wanted only to say that she needs to know herself very deeply, in order to take her personal decision (to stop this dating or to keep doing this dating). For that, she has to ask yourself questions about different fields of the fashion of garments and the corollaries. After responding via her conscience, **she decides alone, without pressure. **

This " future potential boy friend "??? **has no right to pressure on her. He has to respect her personality, her essence, her human dignity, her feminity. **He has to avoid wrong mentalities of the world in one side( liberal, porn,…etc) and the other side (puritan, very strict), …etc: that is his duty. He has no right to control her.

Which begs the question if the men in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have a right to pressure women how to dress or upbraid them over how they dress (e.g., wearing the tiny Brazilian Bikini etc)?

I think males and females in relationships general try to have some influence on each other even in matters of fashion. Of course, there are degrees to everything. At a certain point a pressuring becomes harassment or simply overstepping boundaries and not respecting the others preferences, comfort zones, and individuality.

One Catholic man in the Church hierarchy thought women should not wear trousers. I understand where he gets the idea. Once upon a time Christian women did not wear jeans or other trousers. Even up until the 1960’s most American men did not wear jeans. American fashion has become significantly more casual since the 1960’s. Black and white kids went to school dressed like they were wearing their Sunday best. Now they go to school dressed with jeans hanging down their butts. Too boot… some are sending their boy children to school dressed like girls. (I’m trying to imagine the expression on my former nun teacher faces if they saw that one coming into the classroom).

And Catholics hate this… but I ask it anyways. ***If *the way Catholic women dress today is so morally okay then why doesn’t anyone depict the Virgin Mary in the same fashion of clothing?

I suspect we know the answer at least to some extent, but prefer not to look at ourselves in the mirror.

 

[Jala]

I also just want to add to my ealier post, that if what your almost boyfriend means by sexy is simply attractive without the negative connotations, then maybe all he means is that he would appreciate you dressing up a little more.

This could be the case, but what right does he have to ask that of her, either?

There have been men in my life who have tried to tell me how to dress (“Don’t you have anything more ‘dressy’ than that?” “You need more color in your wardrobe”). None of them have tried to talk me into dressing in a “sexy” or provocative manner. But notice, that they are no longer in my life.

The red flag to me is less that he’s telling her HOW to dress, than the fact that he IS telling her how to dress. Grown women should not be dictated to, in dress or anything else, unless your (name removed by moderator)ut is specifically asked for.

Jala

 

[TimeEntrance]

Nope, and Nope.

She doesn’t need to ask herself anything. She wears modest clothing and knows the reasons why.

The only question she needs to ask herself is, “Why am I still dating this creep?”

Modest by who’s standards? Satan’s?

It sounds like you’ve never read up on the history of fashion. One characteristic of the West is it many trends and rapid changes in fashion. Hey, even Fernand Braudel writing about the rise of capitalism noted clothing fashion distinguished “stable societies” (like Afghanistan) from the progressive societies of the West.

I bet dollars to donuts the Virgin Mary historically - and in Catholic art - dressed much more akin to the Muslim women of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia than to contemporary Catholic women. Even my great saint I go to all the time, St. Bernadette, dressed with her head covered and big dresses that fell way past the knees.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesty#Catholic_Church

Catholics are expected to dress modestly; it is recognised that the forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.[11] The wearing of a headcovering was for the first time mandated as a universal rule for the Latin Rite by the Code of Canon Law of 1917,[12] abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.[13] Apart from that, there have never been any “official” guidelines issued by the Catholic Church. But from time to time the Church hierarchy, and some popes, have given opinions on various matters; although these guidelines are not binding, they are often followed.[14] Pope Pius XII stated that women should cover their upper arms and shoulders, that their skirts should cover at least as far as the knee, and the neckline should not reveal anything.[15] Giuseppe Cardinal Siri of Genoa stated that trousers were unacceptable dress for women.[16] Many traditional Catholics have attempted to further expand on this latter standard.[17]

Some Catholics have attempted to form cohesive theories of modesty. Sometimes this is from a sociological perspective,[15] while at other times it takes a more systematic, Thomistic approach, combined with the writings of the Church Fathers.[18] Approaches arguing primarily from traditional practices and traditional authorities, such as the Saints, can also be found.[19]

Around 1913, it became fashionable for dresses to be worn with a modest round or V-shaped neckline. In the German Empire, for example, all Roman Catholic bishops joined in issuing a pastoral letter attacking the new fashions.[20]

It might be worth noting European men of the West originally wore skirts, robes or togas. Many wore skirts though. But eventually Europeans adopted the trousers from the nomadic horsemen of the East.

And “Who wears the pants in the house,” is reference back to a time when good Christian women never wore trousers. That would have been considered immodest.

But I’m sure many will argue modesty in fashion is subjective. Maybe or maybe not. The Europeans had a problem with the Tupi Amerindian women running around half naked though with breasts exposed and little covering their bums. To the Tupi this normal and nothing was immodest or wrong about it. Of course, the Tupi men were used to seeing women like that and it probably did not arouse them.

One might argue if conservative Catholics today (= liberals of centuries ago) can be fine with the normal dress of women today… can they become fine 100 years from now with gay marriage normalized?

 

[thewanderer]

This could be the case, but what right does he have to ask that of her, either?

There have been men in my life who have tried to tell me how to dress (“Don’t you have anything more ‘dressy’ than that?” “You need more color in your wardrobe”). None of them have tried to talk me into dressing in a “sexy” or provocative manner. But notice, that they are no longer in my life.

The red flag to me is less that he’s telling her HOW to dress, than the fact that he IS telling her how to dress. Grown women should not be dictated to, in dress or anything else, unless your (name removed by moderator)ut is specifically asked for.

Jala

Which is what I went on to make sure to point out in that same post.

Good grief, first that post is attacked for being too hard on the boyfriend and now for being too easy on him. Yes, that would still be a huge red flag, so long as that is actually what is happening.

 

[Jala]

Which is what I went on to make sure to point out in that same post.

Good grief, first that post is attacked for being too hard on the boyfriend and now for being too easy on him. Yes, that would still be a huge red flag, so long as that is actually what is happening.

I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to attack your post, and I should have noted that I was really just ranting. Your original sentence was just the segue to my anecdote; I apologize for not making that more clear.

Jala

 

[thewanderer]

I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to attack your post, and I should have noted that I was really just ranting. Your original sentence was just the segue to my anecdote; I apologize for not making that more clear.

Jala

No worries.

attacking was rather a harsh word… sorry BEL, I know I shouldn’t have applied that to you either.

 

[fpt]

FOR THE WOMAN (FEMALE), ACCORDING TO THE MAN (MALE)

SEXY??? ATTRACTIVE? CHARMING? SENSUAL? SEXUAL? BEAUTIFUL? EROTIC? SEXUED? PRETTY? ORGASMIC?

In the world, where the relativism is the king, how to be sure to understand really, the situation in his head?

Definition and acception of the defintion, the good one. It is very difficult.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am dating a guy (he isn’t technically my bf but we have discussed the possibility of a relationship) who is extremely wonderful and so much like me, except for this exception: he seems to think it’s fine to be physically aroused so llong as one does not follow up with physical action.

It launched us into a heated debate, our first ever. (Btw, we are both mid-20’s)

I explained that the Church tells people to dress in a way that does not tempt the opposite sex to thoughts of fornication (or for married people, adultery) because you are responsible not just for your own sin, but also the sin of the person who lusts for you.

He purposely answers me in a very slippery way, which was entirely new to me… saying he doesnt lust much anymore, so it wouldn’t be a problem to see me like that… saying that he does not believe men are more visually wired than women… telling me that women should feel ok being uncovered if men are allowed to wear only shorts in public… saying that, even after a couple is married, the husband will want other men to be jealous of his wife (basically, that he would be proud if his future wife made other men jealous of his trophy)

What should I do? I dress mainstream but attractive… a jeans, tee, and high heels kind of gal. I am not a prude, I just have the facts of Church teaching, and he does not… and he is very much butting heads with me over this! How can I handle him so that I don’t lose him completely over this issue? I adore him otherwise.

Let your adoration be immediately extinguished the minute you realize you are dealing with a guy who thinks it is his job to dictate how you ought to dress, and particularly if he is goading you away from virtue instead of towards it. You chose the adjective “slippery” to describe how he is trying to con you into disagreement with what you have been taught…listen to that! Your soul is telling you something!! It is natural to want to dress to please your husband, but shy away from someone who tries to manipulate you into doing things you don’t want to do…even if he says he wants to be your husband. He should be trying to convince you to do things for reasons that are out in the open and fully in keeping with getting you to Heaven and in keeping with you being yourself. He might try to draw you out to do more things that you are too shy to try–nice clothing that you wouldn’t have indulged in for your own sake, that kind of thing–but he’ll not try to con you into making yourself over to please him. (A husband wants his wife to make other men jealous? Provoking others to sin by coveting you would please him? Huh?!? You are not dealing with someone who has his conscience on straight.)

OK, let me reword that: Run from anyone who tries to manipulate you into doing anything except please God. Really. Run the other way and run fast. You know this, deep down. Trust what you know.

Oh, and long stretches of frustration without consumation are a recipe for disaster. That is not a fence that one can stand on for long…you’ll have to jump in one direction or the other. Do not let anyone else tell you anything different.

 

[fpt]

I have a question, if they were in relationship, as boyfriend and as girlfriend, what do you think if he had said to her: " I like you, I love, I desire you, I want you. You are beautiful and your are very sexy. "

What is your reaction? Are you shocked? It is shocking or not?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I have a question, if they were in relationship, as boyfriend and as girlfriend, what do you think if he had said to her: " I like you, I love, I desire you, I want you. You are beautiful and your are very sexy. "

What is your reaction? Are you shocked? It is shocking or not?

You’re getting lost in the weeds, my friend. This is not about what he DIDN’T SAY, but what he is arguing with her.

He is arguing for her to wear different clothing than she wants to wear. They are NOT boyfriend and girlfriend, they are not even in a formal relationship. They are dating.

He has also said that arousal is fine, as long as nothing physical is done. So what exactly is he asking for the OP to do with him? Make out? Touch each other? Have oral sex? She doesn’t say, but she did say that he feels arousal is fine, as long as sex doesn’t take place. This is a problem as well as the clothing disagreement.

 

[fpt]

you’re getting lost in the weeds, my friend. This is not about what he didn’t say, but what he is arguing with her.

He is arguing for her to wear different clothing than she wants to wear. They are not boyfriend and girlfriend, they are not even in a formal relationship. They are dating.

He has also said that arousal is fine, as long as nothing physical is done. So what exactly is he asking for the op to do with him? Make out? Touch each other? Have oral sex? She doesn’t say, but she did say that he feels arousal is fine, as long as sex doesn’t take place. This is a problem as well as the clothing disagreement.

okay, i understand better now the situation that seems to be.

 

[johnnyjones]

Modest by who’s standards? Satan’s?

It sounds like you’ve never read up on the history of fashion. One characteristic of the West is it many trends and rapid changes in fashion. Hey, even Fernand Braudel writing about the rise of capitalism noted clothing fashion distinguished “stable societies” (like Afghanistan) from the progressive societies of the West.

I bet dollars to donuts the Virgin Mary historically - and in Catholic art - dressed much more akin to the Muslim women of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia than to contemporary Catholic women. Even my great saint I go to all the time, St. Bernadette, dressed with her head covered and big dresses that fell way past the knees.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesty#Catholic_Church

It might be worth noting European men of the West originally wore skirts, robes or togas. Many wore skirts though. But eventually Europeans adopted the trousers from the nomadic horsemen of the East.

And “Who wears the pants in the house,” is reference back to a time when good Christian women never wore trousers. That would have been considered immodest.

But I’m sure many will argue modesty in fashion is subjective. Maybe or maybe not. The Europeans had a problem with the Tupi Amerindian women running around half naked though with breasts exposed and little covering their bums. To the Tupi this normal and nothing was immodest or wrong about it. Of course, the Tupi men were used to seeing women like that and it probably did not arouse them.

One might argue if conservative Catholics today (= liberals of centuries ago) can be fine with the normal dress of women today… can they become fine 100 years from now with gay marriage normalized?

Once you open up this modesty issue, you will be atounded at the amount of people who feel apparel has little relevance. I understand your viewpoint.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Once you open up this modesty issue, you will be atounded at the amount of people who feel apparel has little relevance. I understand your viewpoint.

Well, I’m happy you understand my view point. The issue of fashion or apparel is not something entirely new on my mind. As crazy as it might sound I wrote 2 or 3 Bishops an essay about my views on lay Catholics and fashion in our contemporary time.

I think that was well over 10 years ago I composed that essay. I don’t even remember everything that I said other than my disappointment in the general state of contemporary fashion and that I gave the Tango dresses as an example of what I thought was female clothing with nice architecture that’s sexy while edifying.

Of course these are my views and who says my views are some objective and universal truth? Kind of like tattoos - which I have several off - I hate some types of tattoos on people while I very much like others. But a guy in the tattoo scene who I thought would agree with me pointed out that that was just my opinion and flavor and that does not make another persons quite different tastes wrong.

So, while I do have some views on fashion - maybe one or more might constitute “strong views” - overall I probably don’t have all my views etched in stone and inflexible on the issue at large. But I do have unanswered questions on the issue related to modesty and artistic beauty and not just opinions. I might never answer those questions for myself.

But objectively speaking, some cultures, like Afghanistan, have clothing fashions that - as Fernand Braudel that great mind pointed out - have virtually never changed for 2,000 or more years. Some of these people are dressing the same way people did during the time of Christ. It all begs questions about our constantly and rapidly changing fashions in the West.

Hey, we even have famous clothing fashion centers of the world in the West. Think of London, New York, Paris, Milan, and now Sao Paulo is increasing it’s global influence.

Within the Hip Hop culture of the United States I can tell you that the East Coast, West Coast, and Midwest typically have different general styles of dress. We in the Midwest - which I’m biased for and believe dress the best - tend to have a more reserved style in casual apparel. I’ve been told by a New Yorker that we in the Midwest (Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit) can dress more slick or “pimp-like” when it comes to wearing suits and choice of shoes to go with them (e.g., ostrich, crocodile).

Here is a link to some cuts of female Tango dresses: tangoleva.com/dress.html

Also, in PM, someone wrote me and stated a good point about dressing in the fashion that is customary rather than not and standing out. I know the Church Bishops have held a similar view about the cassock. And I understand those positions and sympathize to a degree. However, like I told the person in PM, this last summer I upgraded some of my wardrobe and cut entirely against the cultural grain of my town (dare I say country today). I essentially invested in, and wore, casual slacks, shoes, and long sleeved, button-up, collard shirts. All pressed before worn. A style I think more typical and customary to the times of the 1950’s or any times before the 1960’s.

That drew a lot of attention and inquires of course. Which was a risk. But most people seemed to have thought well about.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Addendum to post #77.

I bought my shirts and pants (and colored, casual socks) from Boston Store. This is more the way I was dressing during the summer. bostonstore.com/shop/men/casual-shirts/facet-brand_Kenneth+Roberts+Platinum/

http://s7d4.scene7.com/is/image/BonTon/417451?$ibm_medium$

I have jeans and I wearing those now during the cold. But even those are bought from the Buckle with more expensive brands like Rock Revival and Big Star. The architecture and stitching are a great improvement in the genre of jeans in my opinion. I used to briefly visit an online discussion site for men’s fashion that championed bespoke clothing. It was advised that denim or jeans typically do not look well on men. But even if that is true I think brands like Rock Revival and the store called the Buckle are seriously changing all that.

But I would say that Catholics are either followers of secular progress and fashion trends or Catholics become the trend setters themselves. Something that really irritates me is when I see a Catholic priest wearing a shirt with Roman collar that totally does not fit him well. It really irks me when the gap between his collar (with Roman Collar) and neck is so wide that I could fit my whole fist in it.

I’m sure wearing a cassock would be standing out and cutting against the cultural grain of our time but I think I would risk it.

In slightly similar vain… it’s been said with some truth I think that, “Today’s conservative is last years liberal.” Which is my point about Catholic women in jeans. Where the demarcation line is I don’t know. But it reminds me kind of like the debates of legalized gambling through an Indian casino in the center of the City of Milwaukee that took place years ago. When they allowed the Indians to have it they said only X number of slot machines. Later they said only X number of blackjack tables. Then every so many years they would let them expand the numbers (as long as they contractually gave the city government X amount of the cut, of course ). Where the moral demarcation line is in number of blackjack tables is I don’t know. Well… I think I do. If 1 is okay why isn’t 20 or 60 or 6,000? Some might say 20 are morally okay but 21 is a decent into immorality.

 

[Demetra2]

You are a grown woman with a good head on your shoulders so continue to use it and dress the way YOU want with style and modesty. I think his request is a red flag that you should not ignore. You mentioned that other than this problem you “adore him”. Put him to the test and see if he also adores you. If he does he will respect your decision to dress the way you see fit and make you feel beautiful no matter what you are wearing. Proceed with caution because it is not a good sign when a man who is not even officially your boyfriend asks you to dress sexier .Look for other clues to his true character. He seems immature.

 

[johnnyjones]

Well, I’m happy you understand my view point. The issue of fashion or apparel is not something entirely new on my mind. As crazy as it might sound I wrote 2 or 3 Bishops an essay about my views on lay Catholics and fashion in our contemporary time.

I think that was well over 10 years ago I composed that essay. I don’t even remember everything that I said other than my disappointment in the general state of contemporary fashion and that I gave the Tango dresses as an example of what I thought was female clothing with nice architecture that’s sexy while edifying.

Of course these are my views and who says my views are some objective and universal truth? Kind of like tattoos - which I have several off - I hate some types of tattoos on people while I very much like others. But a guy in the tattoo scene who I thought would agree with me pointed out that that was just my opinion and flavor and that does not make another persons quite different tastes wrong.

So, while I do have some views on fashion - maybe one or more might constitute “strong views” - overall I probably don’t have all my views etched in stone and inflexible on the issue at large. But I do have unanswered questions on the issue related to modesty and artistic beauty and not just opinions. I might never answer those questions for myself.

But objectively speaking, some cultures, like Afghanistan, have clothing fashions that - as Fernand Braudel that great mind pointed out - have virtually never changed for 2,000 or more years. Some of these people are dressing the same way people did during the time of Christ. It all begs questions about our constantly and rapidly changing fashions in the West.

Hey, we even have famous clothing fashion centers of the world in the West. Think of London, New York, Paris, Milan, and now Sao Paulo is increasing it’s global influence.

Within the Hip Hop culture of the United States I can tell you that the East Coast, West Coast, and Midwest typically have different general styles of dress. We in the Midwest - which I’m biased for and believe dress the best - tend to have a more reserved style in casual apparel. I’ve been told by a New Yorker that we in the Midwest (Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit) can dress more slick or “pimp-like” when it comes to wearing suits and choice of shoes to go with them (e.g., ostrich, crocodile).

Here is a link to some cuts of female Tango dresses: tangoleva.com/dress.html

Also, in PM, someone wrote me and stated a good point about dressing in the fashion that is customary rather than not and standing out. I know the Church Bishops have held a similar view about the cassock. And I understand those positions and sympathize to a degree. However, like I told the person in PM, this last summer I upgraded some of my wardrobe and cut entirely against the cultural grain of my town (dare I say country today). I essentially invested in, and wore, casual slacks, shoes, and long sleeved, button-up, collard shirts. All pressed before worn. A style I think more typical and customary to the times of the 1950’s or any times before the 1960’s.

That drew a lot of attention and inquires of course. Which was a risk. But most people seemed to have thought well about.

My main thrust was to highlight that provocative clothes do effect the person wearing them and the person viewing it. What I mean by “effect” is a stimulus. Obviously if a certain style of clothing had no bearing on matters the OP wouldn’t even need to have a concern.

In this thread a young man wants his girlfriend to wear clothes that turn him on. She is resistant because she doesn’t feel good about putting such clothes on, where as another female would feel sexy wearing such clothes. What I see is a culture that puts many women (and men) in tight fitting or revealing clothes, not for comfort but to appeal to the opposite sex. Then someone, even a Catholic, will take a stance that apparel is subjective. You mean we don’t know what the purpose of wearing an evening gown is as opposed to wearing a short skirt?

If women are wearing clothes with the intent to induce lust, they are sinning, as well as the man who stares at such clothing. At home , in marriage this is not the case. Someone will always say, “how much skin is too much”. Again, if removing more of the evening gown makes it sexier, one must consider what the purpose of “sexier” is and what it is designed to do.

Our culture has become accepting of tight fitting and revealing clothes, they are mainstreamed causing a great deal of desensitizing but our innate inhibitions remain as the OP demonstrates.