Questions about modest dressing

[mapleoak]

Going a little OT here, doesn’t that make men appear as to not be in control. Why are women being held accountable for what men think… So basicly, what’s being said is that women are “controling” the men. It’s our fault that they have lecturous (sp?) thoughts?

Due to the fallen nature of our world, both men and women are at the mercy of their animal like instincts, but for the grace of God. The majority of people choose to reject that grace and follow their instincts. Women suffer from the desire to seduce. Why should women not flaunt their bodies to seduce? Why should men not pay mind to women who seduce?
Women who try to seduce men or dress in such a manner as to be a source of temptation are no different than the men who steal the womens’ hearts and crush them while making the women believe they couldn’t find true love without being a seductress.
Attempts to rationalize ones behaviour by saying the other person should be able to control him/herself are inherently flawed. It is a two way street for which both men and women are responsible.
It is incorrect though to say that women are “controlling” men, however.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[strugglingalong]

Going a little OT here, doesn’t that make men appear as to not be in control. Why are women being held accountable for what men think. Honestly, anything can “turn a person on”. Recently, some Muslim women I know were saying they wouldn’t post pictures of themselves in traditional Muslim dress because some men found that exciting. So basicly, what’s being said is that women are “controling” the men. It’s our fault that they have lecturous (sp?) thoughts?

I’m not slamming you Strugglingalong. Just trying to figure out that thinking.

Back on topic. What about swimsuits? I personally prefer a two piece with a longer top and boy shorts. My dd likes a two piece with long board shorts over it.

Actually, in Theology of the Body John Paul II said that women are held responsible for men and men held responsible for women in the area of modesty and purity, basing it on Christ’s teaching on the Sermon on the Mount (can give you a reference if you really want). So, at least in charity, we ought to give utmost concern for doing what is best for our neighbor and that includes making sure we aren’t a problem for their thoughts and hearts.

It is not women’s faults that men think and respond the way they do BUT women do need to realize that men are different. Women are aroused in a far different way. They aren’t as visual. Men can struggle and be aroused visually very easily. So what they see can be more of a problem for men than women. The two genders just do not work the same way and we must keep that in the equation. We cannot say, “Oh well, it’s not my fault men are different and get aroused by what they see.” If Christian women are going to be pleasing to God and live a true life of vibrant, sacrificial charity, they will take utmost care for their neighbor and do what they can to help and protect them and not lead them to temptation.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

Due to the fallen nature of our world, both men and women are at the mercy of their animal like instincts, but for the grace of God. The majority of people choose to reject that grace and follow their instincts. Women suffer from the desire to seduce. Why should women not flaunt their bodies to seduce? Why should men not pay mind to women who seduce?
Women who try to seduce men or dress in such a manner as to be a source of temptation are no different than the men who steal the womens’ hearts and crush them while making the women believe they couldn’t find true love without being a seductress.
Attempts to rationalize ones behaviour by saying the other person should be able to control him/herself are inherently flawed. It is a two way street for which both men and women are responsible.
It is incorrect though to say that women are “controlling” men, however.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

Yes, very well said. It is true.

Incidentally, I saw an article online once that said, basically, that women can sort of rape men in the way they dress. If they dress very revealing and seductive, then it is a sort of rape as what the man has to see is overpowering and is almost like taking a man by force. Something like that. I’d have to find it and read it again. It was a sort of reverse-rape thing and while it may sound extreme, I think they have a valid point. A woman flaunting her body in the open is very difficult for a man to see because of the way men are attracted which differs from women.

Sadly, many people, even otherwise faithful Christians, aren’t always willing to see this point and the point you made, viz. that the argument that “if the other can’t control themselves it is their fault” is inherent flawed and at least it goes against the Christian’s call to sacrificial and vibrant charity in their hearts and lives.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[chevalier]

Incidentally, I saw an article online once that said, basically, that women can sort of rape men in the way they dress. If they dress very revealing and seductive, then it is a sort of rape as what the man has to see is overpowering and is almost like taking a man by force.

That’s true. They want a sexual reaction and they get it by force with the power of the imagery, trapping the beholder’s will. The discussion of the beholder’s own responsibility is pointless on the part of the “flaunter” because the flaunter’s intent is to elicit a sexual reaction despite the beholder’s will. So if that intent is already there, then if it actually happens, we have a ready “crime” because both the intent and the result have happened.

I’ve never thought of it that way. Thanks for the perspective.

that the argument that “if the other can’t control themselves it is their fault” is inherent flawed and at least it goes against the Christian’s call to sacrificial and vibrant charity in their hearts and lives.

Absolutely. It’s incorrect to put the responsibility for our choice of outfit on the beholder, absolutely. But at the same time, we can’t take it all on ourselves and shouldn’t be expected to. The beholder’s responsibility for the way he or she looks is also there and can’t be placed on the person he’s looking at.

In many situations, the responsibilities overlap, but if a normally modest outfit causes a certain beholder to sin, it’s the beholder’s responsibility in so far as the person he’s looking at didn’t intend to seduce, flaunt etc, didn’t know about the beholder’s reaction and ignore it, etc.

For example, if someone has impure thoughts from seeing men in suits or women in conservative dresses, that’s the person’s own problem. We may only be responsible if we know about the person’s problems and still wear that outfit while we reasonably could choose something else (imagine one visits the person on his house or invites him over, then one should consider his personal circumstances so long as one knows about them), but not normally. The fact that some men are extremely easy to lead to sexual thoughts doesn’t mean a woman is obliged to wear a potato sack. There are people aroused by that anyway, as are those aroused by burkhas or religious habits.

Besides, I think many men these days are hypersensitised. I feel somewhat demeaned by the idea that a scantily clad or tightly wrapped bum could take my will away or imprison my eyes. Which doesn’t make it right to wear such outfits, so it’s no excuse, but still. If the perspective is taken too far, it looks like men can’t control themselves.

 

[strugglingalong]

Yes, I agree. The responsibilities overlap and neither side can be without their own responsibility - both for themselves and for the other.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[CarrieH]

How gorgeous is that 1950’s style red dress on the opening page. It is exactly my taste.

I’m more into the 1930’s styles myself – I would love to show up for Mass in one of those ankle-length dresses with the little hat!

My next skill to learn is sewing my own clothes. I just can’t find the exact styles that I like, with the right amount of modesty, in fabrics I like.

Go for it! Do yourself a favor and get a nice machine, though. A mediocre sewing machine makes for more work because you have more trouble with seams not coming out with the right tension, threads getting tangled, etc., and then you have to tear out the seam and do it over, ugh! Maybe you could borrow one to get started? The beginner patterns are quite easy and don’t take long to make, and then you can advance from there. My biggest challenge is finding the time to sew, though. :juggle:

 

[puzzleannie]

My next skill to learn is sewing my own clothes. I just can’t find the exact styles that I like, with the right amount of modesty, in fabrics I like. I favour things that are a little bit unique - I tend to only find stuff like that in op-shops. I used to to be a big op-shopper in my student days but I just don’t have the time these days; and it’s a bit hit and miss.

this brings back memories. I grew up in the 60s when we had the same problem you face today shopping for clothes, everything out there was outrageous, so I learned to sew in self defense. did have home ec in school, by my girl friends really taught me. Did my whole college wardrobe – kicky plaid skirts and vests, with sweaters and blouses from Penney’s, and got a lot of requests. I decided I would forgo the whole jeans and love beads thing and be unique, which I was, for that time and place.

I also made several “decent” prom dresses for myself, sisters and friends over the years to combat what was being pushed in the stores.

then when my daughter was in school the fad was for vintage clothing, and she put together some fabulous outfits from thrifts and 2nd hand shops, and was definitely a fashion leader in her school. She does sew but just for her daughters now.

 

[Zooey]

You’re right. The few LDS who I know, dress pretty much like me, jeans and t-shirts.I found the Shade and Mobe sites have some really cute clothes. There was another one that I can’t think of right now, that had nice stuff.

My first post referred to the people I’ve seen on TV. The Warren Jeffs group. I didn’t mean to pigeon-hole all LDS. I know that particular group isn’t recognised by the offical LDS church, so I shouldn’t have said what I did.

Kim

No, that’s fine. I knew what you meant…I just wanted to say, that real Mormons, as opposed to the :whacky: :whacky: , have some of the nicest, most modest & ladylike clothing for sale that I am aware of.

On another note, I usually wear pants instead of skirts or dresses to church, simply because I like pants…
The last time I wore what I thought of as a “nice modest Christian dress”…No low neckline, long skirt, sleeves to the elbow… My own cousin told me that I looked “sexy”!!

I give up. I mean, nobody has ever said that to me in church, when I’m trying to just be myself…

 

[apriltherese]

I consider the majority of my wardrobe to be modest, though I have mostly pants. I need more skirts, but I’m what some might call “sway-back” (my tush sticks out), so I usually have to have them custom made in order for them not to look funny on me.

A long while back, I was in another online community and got into this HUGE argument over women wearing pants. I certainly don’t wish to get too far into that, but suffice to say, I believe a woman can wear pants and still be modest. After all, back in Christ’s time on earth, pants did not even exist, so I don’t see how it can’t be a unisex clothing item.

I have played with the idea of wearing a head covering in Mass - it’s not only a reverant thing to do (IMO), but it’s also so pretty. I wonder if I’d look funny wearing one with my usual pants, though? I usually dress fairly casually, you see…

 

[aboverubies]

I’m more into the 1930’s styles myself – I would love to show up for Mass in one of those ankle-length dresses with the little hat!

I’ve just bought a 1920’s style “cloche” hat for winter…woollen…red. I like it very much indeed.

 

[aboverubies]

then when my daughter was in school the fad was for vintage clothing, and she put together some fabulous outfits from thrifts and 2nd hand shops, and was definitely a fashion leader in her school. She does sew but just for her daughters now.

LOVE vintage style…this is definately the type of thing I’d like to learn to sew. I’d like to sew for our kids too but boys clothes are so boring! lol! Bring on the girls already!

 

[Biblioassistant]

I certainly don’t wish to get too far into that, but suffice to say, I believe a woman can wear pants and still be modest. After all, back in Christ’s time on earth, pants did not even exist, so I don’t see how it can’t be a unisex clothing item.

Thank you for saying that. Yesterday was our first 80 degree plus day, with accompanying humidity and I was so hot! I wore my capri pants and a t shirt, and as I was out taking a walk, I saw a Muslim woman wearing long pants, a coat and a headscarf. She looked so hot. She had her little boy with her and he was wearing shorts and a t shirt.

 

[chevalier]

The last time I wore what I thought of as a “nice modest Christian dress”…No low neckline, long skirt, sleeves to the elbow… My own cousin told me that I looked “sexy”!!

I give up. I mean, nobody has ever said that to me in church, when I’m trying to just be myself…

I can explain that one. Or rather those two. If you’ll abide my lengthy outpourrings for a while.

Basically, we men, or rather the more reasonable of us, realise that sexiness of the flaunty kind is an untenable position. It just can’t drag on forever. Some of us will like it because it means some easy fun. Some of us will welcome an illusion of the chance of making it permanent by marrying a woman dressing and acting like that. But not all. “Would you like your wife to dress like that?” rings somewhere, even if it’s not a question consciously posed.

As for “sexy” in that context, it probably meant attractive and some kind of desirable. Good catch perhaps? In addition to looking good. After all, I see it on myself that ladies dressed in conservative knee-long skirts and nice blouses and nice shoes, with ladylike hairdos, work on me much much more than the young & flaunty common style of late teens and early twenties. Guess which kind makes it more difficult for me to tear my eyes off? Your outfit simply looked more feminine and it underlined the good feminine qualities instead of degrading them.

Oh, and being ourselves, without our “best face” on, is when we seem to appeal the most to other people. At least in the sense of seeking partners, at least according to some stuff I’ve read.

 

[strugglingalong]

Thank you for saying that. Yesterday was our first 80 degree plus day, with accompanying humidity and I was so hot! I wore my capri pants and a t shirt, and as I was out taking a walk, I saw a Muslim woman wearing long pants, a coat and a headscarf. She looked so hot. She had her little boy with her and he was wearing shorts and a t shirt.

I hate to say it but this is little reason for why pants and stuff are okay. Maybe they are more comfortable or maybe they are cooler, but modesty and virtue must rank higher on our priorities than comfort. I respect Muslim’s alot for being willing to be uncomfortable to stick with what they believe is right. Christians ought to do so even more for we have the truth, we possess Christ. I highly recommend Colleen Hammond’s book, Dressing with Dignity. She explains the reasons why pants are both immodest and not feminine.

The fact of the matter is that pants allow a man to have his eyes drawn to the woman’s behind in a way a skirt never does, unless the pants are baggy or loose but even then, the cut of pants - with the cit in the crouch - draws the man’s eyes to that part of the body. Men visualize things more than woman so then a man may struggle with thoughts of images of the feminine body. A skirt or dress just doesn’t do that because there is no cut leading the eyes nor does the way they are made draw attention to the behind.

As Christians, there are many things we must do to please God and love our neighbor which are not comfortable. I’m not saying you just blatantly disregard God for comfort. I don’t know you but God does. I’m just saying that we need to put what is right and honorable and virtuous far above comfort.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

As for “sexy” in that context, it probably meant attractive and some kind of desirable. Good catch perhaps? In addition to looking good. After all, I see it on myself that ladies dressed in conservative knee-long skirts and nice blouses and nice shoes, with ladylike hairdos, work on me much much more than the young & flaunty common style of late teens and early twenties. Guess which kind makes it more difficult for me to tear my eyes off? Your outfit simply looked more feminine and it underlined the good feminine qualities instead of degrading them.

Yes! Right on! As a man - and I think any genuine, real man - doesn’t want a woman to flaunt her body. He wants to see a beautiful woman who embraces her womanhood, who dresses like a woman and whose outfit reflects her awareness of her beauty, worth, and dignity. The most attractive women I have ever seen dress in that way, with long dresses that are attractive and lady-like hairstyles and such. I don’t want to see parts of the woman’s body and, as you said, some “men” may like it because it gives them some quick pleasure and the idea of no-strings fun, but it is dangerous and empty in the end. It lacks respect for both people. Diamonds are buried in the earth, not on trees, and the woman’s body ought to be respect, covered, until that day when it is right to reveal it to the right man in marriage. But a woman who dresses very modestly, attractively, and feminine is just a really, really attractive woman, I’d say.

My few cents in the jar.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[maria29]

Yes! Right on! As a man - and I think any genuine, real man - doesn’t want a woman to flaunt her body. He wants to see a beautiful woman who embraces her womanhood, who dresses like a woman and whose outfit reflects her awareness of her beauty, worth, and dignity. The most attractive women I have ever seen dress in that way, with long dresses that are attractive and** lady-like hairstyles** and such. I don’t want to see parts of the woman’s body and, as you said, some “men” may like it because it gives them some quick pleasure and the idea of no-strings fun, but it is dangerous and empty in the end. It lacks respect for both people. Diamonds are buried in the earth, not on trees, and the woman’s body ought to be respect, covered, until that day when it is right to reveal it to the right man in marriage. But a woman who dresses very modestly, attractively, and feminine is just a really, really attractive woman, I’d say.

My few cents in the jar.

Christ’s peace to you.

what do you consider a lady like hairstyle? Super long hair like Crystal Gale?

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

I hate to say it but this is little reason for why pants and stuff are okay. Maybe they are more comfortable or maybe they are cooler, but modesty and virtue must rank higher on our priorities than comfort.

But apparently, it is only the women who have to give up comfort, not the men. This sends the false message that modesty is only important for women. I always find it ludicrous to see a woman covered up head to toe, walking with a man wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops.

I’ve heard all that tired hoohah about men being “visual” a thousand times, but the fact is, women can be just as “visual” as men. Her eyes can be drawn just as easily as his. Just because one woman isn’t attracted in that way, she should not assume that is true for all other women.

Modesty is either important or it isn’t, and if it is, it should be equally so for women and men.

And yes, there are many modest ways for women to wear trousers. I believe that the historical insistence on dresses or skirts for women (at a place and time where men wear trousers) involves many motivations having nothing to do with modesty.

 

[chevalier]

Yes! Right on! As a man - and I think any genuine, real man - doesn’t want a woman to flaunt her body.

Yup. I don’t think a man can actually trust a woman with flaunting habits. I suppose it’s possible in the modern culture when people see it as normal, but I don’t think that culture inspires trust as a whole anyway.

I don’t want to see parts of the woman’s body and, as you said, some “men” may like it because it gives them some quick pleasure and the idea of no-strings fun, but it is dangerous and empty in the end.

Yeah. The no-strings approach is generally inherently flawed and destructive and no compromise with it will serve any purpose. All our actions and choices create obligations and liability, it’s not even true that if we have the right to something the manner of execution of that right is irrelevant. Basically, there’s no such thing as no strings and the more the lady realises this, the better from my point of view.

It lacks respect for both people.

Yup, flaunting is disrespectful of men as well. I don’t like some people’s idea that a woman must wear a potato sack or I’ll be lusting for her uncontrollably, but on the other side of the spectrum, the “liberated” outfits want to achieve just that with me.

Diamonds are buried in the earth, not on trees, and the woman’s body ought to be respect, covered, until that day when it is right to reveal it to the right man in marriage.

I don’t even think we have to make it look like property rights or something like that. Basically, dressing with moderation is a matter of self-respect, respect for other people and responsible sexual conduct.

But a woman who dresses very modestly, attractively, and feminine is just a really, really attractive woman, I’d say.

Umm… What do you mean by “very”? When I look at outfits specifically labelled modest, I find many of them to be over the top. I’m mostly fine with the lack of exposing and I don’t expect actual hiding, so to say (even if my favourites will likely fall under what most people would consider very modest). Most outfits that have no specific intention of exposing something to the male eye are fine by me, so I don’t really care so much about how many inches here or ther, it’s the obvious intent that makes it wrong, like when it’s two sizes too small on purpose, months ahead of the weather, or employs other titillating devices. As a rule, it takes some intent or chaotic attitude to dress immodestly. Without such intent or some chaotic vision of human sexuality, the person will at most be dressed inappropriately for the situation but not actually immodestly. This is because modesty is in the mind, ultimately, after all.

 

[chevalier]

But apparently, it is only the women who have to give up comfort, not the men.

Yeah, I find that somewhat sad. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with comfort. On the other hand, think about formal situations, when men are expected to wear more and in more layers, like when a dress can even have bare arms and shoulders, but a guy has to endure a shirt and a jacket, not to mention collar and tie.

This sends the false message that modesty is only important for women. I always find it ludicrous to see a woman covered up head to toe, walking with a man wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and flip-flops.

Yeah. That’s ridiculous. Personally, I’m for the same standards: no titillating, end of story. Some charity towards others and their temptations, but let’s not shift the burden.

I’ve heard all that tired hoohah about men being “visual” a thousand times, but the fact is, women can be just as “visual” as men. Her eyes can be drawn just as easily as his. Just because one woman isn’t attracted in that way, she should not assume that is true for all other women.

Agreed. And not all men are as visual as some. For example, I’ve seen handsome guys going out with girls I wouldn’t describe as attractive.

I believe that the historical insistence on dresses or skirts for women (at a place and time where men wear trousers) involves many motivations having nothing to do with modesty.

One of them would be gender roles, plus a lot of men will link trousers to feminism. Besides, while I can’t think of a historical moment when women would wear trousers before the modern times, I can surely think of some when men would wear dresses or skirts or both sexes would wear tunics or robes. I think sometimes the problem with trousers may perhaps be a desire to be less feminine, which would be somehow unnatural. Personally, I don’t have a problem with trousers per se, but too masculine an outfit combined with a masculine haircut and somewhat masculinised behaviour will sometimes ring wrong with me.

 

[strugglingalong]

As a rule, it takes some intent or chaotic attitude to dress immodestly. Without such intent or some chaotic vision of human sexuality, the person will at most be dressed inappropriately for the situation but not actually immodestly. This is because modesty is in the mind, ultimately, after all.

No, I strongly disagree. Immodest is not in the mind alone. While the intention may make a difference between the degrees of culpability, i.e. someone who does not intend to be immodest is not as culpable as someone who does, but objectively speaking an outfit is either immodest or modest. It would be far too subjective to state that it is the intent that makes immodesty. Immodest is an adjective describing the type of clothing or the way of dressing, not just the heart. The heart is key and should not be left out but someone can objectively dress immodestly even if they do not intend to do so.

Christ’s peace to you.