Questions about modest dressing

[strugglingalong]

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

No just not super short like my own

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

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.

You’re absolutely right! Modest goes for men too. They can’t go walking around dressed like slobs while the women are held to a higher level. Both are called to modesty.

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.

BUT the point here is the general way in which genders work. Men and women are simply not the same. Women tend to be more emotionally attracted than men while men tend to be more physically attracted. That is just how it goes. Now, there may be more or less for one person or another, but there is a general way in which different genders work. You can disregard it if you’d like but it is true. I know it from experience and from talking with women about it.

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

Absolutely agreed and I never said otherwise.

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.

You may think as you please but I respectfully disagree. If you research it, trousers didn’t enter into women’s fashions until around the industrial revolution, around the same time when women were starting to work more and when they started to cry out for equality with men. There is far more to women wearing pants than just “it is comfortable.” And it is just a fact that men’s eyes are drawn differently to a woman’s body when she wears pants then when she wears a skirt or dress. So I disagree with you and I guess we are at a stalemate.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[chevalier]

Strugglingalong, it depends how you define immodest. You cannot come up with an objective standard of modesty which would work for everyone in any situation. Dictionaries define the adjective “modest” as intended to avoid attracting sexual attention. That’s subjective. Objective is only the tightness, the size, the fabric.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Strugglingalong, it depends how you define immodest. You cannot come up with an objective standard of modesty which would work for everyone in any situation. Dictionaries define the adjective “modest” as intended to avoid attracting sexual attention. That’s subjective. Objective is only the tightness, the size, the fabric.

Good point. I know that my trousers are not attracting any male attention whatsoever, sexual or otherwise. If their eyes are drawn up or down my body, they see very little, because I generally wear long, tunic-y vests over my shirts. I am exposing far less skin, and far less body shape than 99% of women I’ve seen wearing skirts/dresses.

Regarding how men and women are attracted differently, it just isn’t so clear-cut. It depends on which women or men you talk to. Before I trust any research that says “women are like this and men are like that”, I want to know the sample size, and how the sample was obtained.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society (Mudgie/Junkie Hybrid)
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[sanctamaria17]

I’m so sick of hearing the “women shouldn’t wear pants because of (insert reason here)”. Didn’t St. Gianna wear pants?

I wear pants all the time but I have to. I take two science courses so it’s easier on lab days (don’t have to worry about ruining a nice skirt or spilling caustic chemicals on my legs). I also babysit and it’s easier and more modest to run after two boys in pants or capris than in a dress. Exercising is no easy feat in a skirt and neither is walking to the bus stop in freezing cold, windy weather. I also do a lot of service activities, which involve fixing houses, and again, pants prove much safer and more modest than a skirt.

I try not to wear pants that are freakishly tight or low. In fact, my mom and I are hunting for more modest clothing and I always wear long shorts or capris in summer. I just bought a few gorgeous summer dresses that I love to wear to Mass and on special occasions. They do have a bit of cleavage, but I solve that problem by wearing a cute jacket over it. I like to dress girly when I have a good reason but usually practicality wins out over beauty.

Yes, we need to practice modesty. But that doesn’t mean covering every available inch of skin. It means treating the body with respect and dignity. I believe the whole “a woman’s pants point a line to her genitalia” is just as bad as saying “sleeves point to a woman’s breasts”. Besides, not to be crass, but wouldn’t a guys pants be more, should I say, obvious, if you were using that logic? Guys aren’t the only ones who sin with their eyes, girls can be pretty visual too.

I love dressing girly, but again, I don’t have much of a reason to do so. That does not mean I’m being immodest, it means I have no time to beautify in the morning, or I could severely injure myself for dressing that way. Though when my boy comes up, I will definitely get out the skirts:blush:

 

[strugglingalong]

Strugglingalong, it depends how you define immodest. You cannot come up with an objective standard of modesty which would work for everyone in any situation. Dictionaries define the adjective “modest” as intended to avoid attracting sexual attention. That’s subjective. Objective is only the tightness, the size, the fabric.

Sure but circumstance can change the objective moral character of any act but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything objective to it. Murder is murder, but in the situation of self-defense it is justified but that doesn’t mean there is no such thing as murder in the objective sense. The subjective intent, i.e. to defend oneself, may change the character of the act but that doesn’t do away with the objective standard.

Objectively, clothing either does or does not sexual attraction. While I did not say you can do away with the subjective, you cannot do away with the objective either. Clothing is objectively either modest or immodest. You simply cannot reduce it to neutral, depending on intent. That is ridiculous. But, as I said, there is of course a subjective aspect. But a woman may not intend to attract sexual attention, but if her cleavage is showing it will do that because the shirt is objectively immodest.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

Regarding how men and women are attracted differently, it just isn’t so clear-cut. It depends on which women or men you talk to. Before I trust any research that says “women are like this and men are like that”, I want to know the sample size, and how the sample was obtained.

So your claim is that men and women are attracted in pretty much similar ways? That there is no general way in which men tend to be attracted and no general way in which women tend to be attracted, both of which differ to some degree?

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

Yes, we need to practice modesty. But that doesn’t mean covering every available inch of skin. It means treating the body with respect and dignity. I believe the whole “a woman’s pants point a line to her genitalia” is just as bad as saying “sleeves point to a woman’s breasts”. Besides, not to be crass, but wouldn’t a guys pants be more, should I say, obvious, if you were using that logic? Guys aren’t the only ones who sin with their eyes, girls can be pretty visual too.

Again, I think men are attracted differently then women. We can’t take all this equality junk we’re fed and think genders are the same. We’re not. I do believe men and women are attracted differently, which is why something like pornography tends to engulf men more then women. Why? Because men tend to be attracted more visually. That is just the fact. We can sit here and try to say, “No, no, we’re all attracted in similar ways. There is no gender-specific modes of attraction.” But there are.

A woman can see a man’s body and not usually be entirely affected by it. The majority of men, however, once they get a visual image of the woman’s body, struggle with it. It affects them in a way women do not know. You never hear of women hanging out at the beach, checking out men’s bodies and wanting them for their bodies. Why? Because women tend not to work that way. Men end up doing that because they are more physical, more visual, from the start.

That is why pants do cause a problem. I’ve noticed it. My eyes are drawn to a woman’s behind in pants more than in a skirt or dress because the pants hug the behind more. Sorry. It is true. Maybe men don’t always realize how it affects them or that they see it. Maybe some more than others. But the fact is that skirts and dresses to reveal the woman’s shape and form as much as pants.

I’m not saying everyone that wears pants are evil. Many holy women may wear pants without realizing. And I know that there are circumstances where a woman has to dress differently, such as when exercising or playing sports etc.

I know this is a hard view and many people don’t agree. That is okay. The world has spun in circles in our modern age. In the 1930’s we had this from the Vatican:

“We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.”

Today that is laughed at and mocked, but it sure did respect women more and safeguard purity/chastity. Now we see women at Mass in short skirts and tank tops. The other day I saw a girl with a skirt so short it was scandalous. Why? Because we have no objective standards.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

So your claim is that men and women are attracted in pretty much similar ways? That there is no general way in which men tend to be attracted and no general way in which women tend to be attracted, both of which differ to some degree?

Christ’s peace to you.

I’m saying there can be differences, but it’s more like a continuum than a black-white sort of difference. Men may tend to fall on one side of the continuum, and women on the other, but there’s a lot of overlap. Plenty of women are visually-oriented (I’m one of them, and have to avert my eyes from men wearing certain types of shorts), and their eyes can definitely be drawn to certain portions of mens’ attire (trying not to be vulgar here).

I’ve simply never seen any convincing argument that trousers on women are immodest merely by the fact of being trousers. It depends on the style and the cut. There are very modest trousers, and very immodest dresses. I almost always wear trousers, and my clothing is extremely modest; I show very little in the way of either shape or skin, because of the cut of my clothes. If someone comes up to me and tells me I need to wear a dress, I have to assume that person is pushing an agenda which has very little to do with modesty.

Crazy Internet Junkies Society (Mudgie/Junkie Hybrid)
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[strugglingalong]

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.

Men never wore dresses or skirts. They may have wore robes or tunics but not dresses and skirts. Are you referring to kilts or something? But kilts were for men, they weren’t something women wore and then men started wearing too.

You’d have to give an example of something only women wore until a time, and then men started wearing it too. It’d be like men starting to wear high heels. Pants were clothing for men until women wanted equality, then they started wearing them too. Hence we get the phrase, “wearing the pants in the family” referring to a woman taking on a man’s role.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

I’m saying there can be differences, but it’s more like a continuum than a black-white sort of difference. Men may tend to fall on one side of the continuum, and women on the other, but there’s a lot of overlap. Plenty of women are visually-oriented (I’m one of them, and have to avert my eyes from men wearing certain types of shorts), and their eyes can definitely be drawn to certain portions of mens’ attire (trying not to be vulgar here).

There may be some overlap, I wouldn’t say there is alot. I think there are modes of attraction that tend to be for a specific gender, although it may be more or less. I still think that a woman who is more visually attracted is still not as visually attracted as a man. But I don’t know that you’ll ever get convincing proof since we’re talking about the depths of gender psyche.

I don’t see how, though, the millions of men addicted to pornography doesn’t show a vast difference. You hardly ever hear of women having that problem. Why not, if they are just as visually stimulated? It should be more equal, but it’s not.

I’ve simply never seen any convincing argument that trousers on women are immodest merely by the fact of being trousers. It depends on the style and the cut. There are very modest trousers, and very immodest dresses. I almost always wear trousers, and my clothing is extremely modest; I show very little in the way of either shape or skin, because of the cut of my clothes. If someone comes up to me and tells me I need to wear a dress, I have to assume that person is pushing an agenda which has very little to do with modesty.

Well, assuming is always dangerous. I have no agenda and I believe firmly all the points I have asserted. You can disagree with them but, honestly, it is a bit immature to blame it on an agenda. It is better to disagree and state your disagreement than to claim some subjective malice in the arguer.

I’ve stated my arguments and I can respect that you disagree, although I think you’re wrong. I do agree that some pants are less modest than others, but I think no pants can compare to the modesty exhibited by skirts or dresses, which conceal far more than pants can. But again, I know you disagree. And thus we part ways on the issue.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[sanctamaria17]

It affects them in a way women do not know. You never hear of women hanging out at the beach, checking out men’s bodies and wanting them for their bodies.

I beg to differ. If you met a bunch of girls I know, that’s exactly what they do.

 

[SeekerJen]

I beg to differ. If you met a bunch of girls I know, that’s exactly what they do.

Agreed. I’m remembering my middle school and high school groups of friends. We were VERY visually oriented, especially with respect to men in well-fitted pants or snug/unbuttoned shirts.

Regarding women’s pants attracting unwanted attention: considering the outright gawking I receive when I wear a modest skirt (vs. my normal jeans, which attract little obvious attention)- I’ve even been hit on while minding my own business in calf-length skirts and loose blouses, and I am certainly not looking for that attention as I’m married, thanks very much- and the comments I’ve heard from guys that skirts both show more leg and make for “easier access” and are thus sexier… I’ll keep my trousers, thanks.

 

[chevalier]

Sure but circumstance can change the objective moral character of any act but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything objective to it. Murder is murder, but in the situation of self-defense it is justified but that doesn’t mean there is no such thing as murder in the objective sense. The subjective intent, i.e. to defend oneself, may change the character of the act but that doesn’t do away with the objective standard.

Nope, objective murder is only with subjective intent to kill. You can’t have “objective” murder without intent to kill or with the intent to defend yourself even at the cost of the assailant’s life. What’s objective is a man dying. Crimes are a combination of 1) objective harm (someone dying, someone getting robbed), 2) subjective circumstances such as intent or clarity of mind.

Objectively, clothing either does or does not sexual attraction.

In whom? What if a legitimate outfit arouses someone? What if the outfit is legitimate in the wearer’s country and the arousal is normal in the beholder’s, and there’s complete lack of any knowledge of each other’s culture? In such a situation, you cannot speak about objectively immodest outfits.

On the other hand, if you really want something objective, the existene or absence of subjective intent to cause arousal is an objective fact. However, one may so intend using clothing which is not by anyone termed immodest. For example, you can have the intent and perpetrate the act of titillation using even a potato sack or a burkha if someone’s invincibly attracted that way.

While I did not say you can do away with the subjective, you cannot do away with the objective either. Clothing is objectively either modest or immodest.

Nope. There’s the fact that within a certain culture people of the same sex generally tend to share some of the attraction factors. That’s intersubjective more than objective. There’s difference here.

You simply cannot reduce it to neutral, depending on intent. That is ridiculous.

Hard to grasp, yes. Ridiculous no. Clothes are neutral on their own but the acts of designing or wearing particular items may carry moral value. It’s like with pleasure - of itself it’s morally neutral but the acts that cause it make it a good or a bad thing.

But, as I said, there is of course a subjective aspect. But a woman may not intend to attract sexual attention, but if her cleavage is showing it will do that because the shirt is objectively immodest.

Not really. She may be committing some venial sin of immodesty (and in the category of neglect rather than act), but the clothing is intersubjectively understood by most men as sexually attractive. If her cleavage could be called immodest, that would be because of a combination of circumstances, such as her own negligence or the designer’s, the audience’s attraction to that kind of display, and so on. Remember that sexual attraction doesn’t make something immodest, by the way. You can’t say nude bodies are immodest just because most people will be attracted if the bodies are pretty and of the right sex. Face it: it’s convention. A concept. Face it: it’s what people choose (to attract illicitly) or neglect to do (to make sure whatever the particular audience shouldn’t see doesn’t show) that imbues clothing with any value it might possibly have.

 

[chevalier]

Men never wore dresses or skirts. They may have wore robes or tunics but not dresses and skirts. Are you referring to kilts or something? But kilts were for men, they weren’t something women wore and then men started wearing too.

Please check out historical armour designs for skirts, take a look at kilts for the same, check out historical male fashion from the antiquity and compare with simple ladies dresses. There’s nothing inherently masculine in trousers or feminine in the way a dress or robe doesn’t have legs. The problem with dresses/skirts/robes vs trousers is not with them being dresses or trousers, the problem is with 1) male or female association (and that’s an intersubjectively verifiable concept, not an objective circumstance), 2) the way they may cause sexual attraction. If it’s wrong for a man to wear a skirt or a woman to wear trousers, it’s because of defying sex roles or causing illicit sexual attraction. You prove this by pointing out kilts are intended for men, whereas the typical plaid skirt is most commonly considered female garment. It’s not objectively masculine or feminine, it is so as a matter of convention and the sin consists in violating that convention.

Pants were clothing for men until women wanted equality, then they started wearing them too. Hence we get the phrase, “wearing the pants in the family” referring to a woman taking on a man’s role.

Yep, that’s correct (by the way, there’s nothing wrong with equality, just with uniformity, and keeping in mind the Ephesians about the man being the head of the family), although the reasons why women wouldn’t have been allowed trousers before were not all connected with modesty. Men had no right to reserve for themselves the use of trousers with the exclusion of women, without women’s consent. Therefore, in so far as modesty isn’t violated and a (truly and really) male role is not usurped, it may be right for women to wear trousers if circumstances warrant it. It’s wrong to cross-dress, it’s not wrong to change the standard on what’s masculine and what’s feminine if it’s not reflective of natural body builds.

 

[strugglingalong]

I beg to differ. If you met a bunch of girls I know, that’s exactly what they do.

Please explain to me then the reason why the majority of people who struggle with pornography are men?

If women are just as in to the physical, there should be equal women struggling with it too…not just some but equal.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

chevalier,

What it comes down to is a fact of fallen human nature. Karol Wojtyla says:

“Man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person, especially a person of the other sex, can arouse in him merely disinterested liking which develops into an innocent affection. In practice it also arouses concupiscence, or a wish to enjoy concentrated on sexual values with no regard for the value of the person.” (L&R)

This is the fact of the matter. Man is fallen. He battles concupiscence. The effects of original sin remain. We cannot be practical Pelagians. So if a culture says they dress in such a way that reveals the body, there is no way to say it is modest based on custom. No person - regardless of culture - can look at parts of the body of the other sex and had “merely disinterested liking.” This is why many cultures emphasize covering up, such as in the Middle East and in traditional cultures until the present time. Culture really isn’t the issue. The issue is fallen man. That is objective. So if a woman wears a shirt that reveals too much, that shirt is objectively immodest because it reveals too much. It doesn’t matter her intent. It is immodest. Regardless of culture, man cannot take seeing the other body which he should not see until the appropriate time.

This is the objective fact. Regardless of intention, man reacts a certain way when he sees or perceives the body of the opposite sex. Something is awakened in him. That is why we don’t walk around naked. That is why some clothing, and not others, are immodest. It cannot come down to subjective intent or else we’re all in trouble. Someone can say, “well my intent is not to awaken sexual desire in you” but if the clothing does it, then it does awaken that. Original sin requires certain clothing choices and although there may be some differences in cultures, the principle is the same: the body, when uncovered, awakens desire.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

If her cleavage could be called immodest, that would be because of a combination of circumstances, such as her own negligence or the designer’s, the audience’s attraction to that kind of display, and so on. Remember that sexual attraction doesn’t make something immodest, by the way. You can’t say nude bodies are immodest just because most people will be attracted if the bodies are pretty and of the right sex.

Her cleavage would not be in itself immodest. The fact of her revealing it, regardless of her intent, is an objectively immodest act. It does not come down to “the audience’s attraction to that kind of display,” as if in one place men are attracted to women’s bodies and in another they are not. There is a universal principle: we are attracted to each other’s bodies. Concupiscence is alive and well because of the fall and it is awakened at the sight of the other’s body parts which should remain concealed. It would be immodest to reveal a nude body to another person unless there were absolutely reasonable circumstances, such as an artist who is sure he is prepared to handle it. There is a reason why we wear clothing. It isn’t because of intent, it is because of the reality of the fall. We suffer greatly because of the effects of the fall - the malice of our will and our darkened intellect and our disordered passions. Those things are why the body cannot be revealed inappropriately and immodestly, not custom or culture. There is a deeper reality within fallen man that is the problem here.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[apriltherese]

Please explain to me then the reason why the majority of people who struggle with pornography are men?

If women are just as in to the physical, there should be equal women struggling with it too…not just some but equal.

Christ’s peace to you.

I have trouble with pornography, and I’m not a man. Also, I know lots of women who look at it. I am not saying it is okay do do so - far from it - but both sexes are (in my experience) equally in danger of being affected by such materials. But this is going off-topic, so I’ll get away from this subject now…

Back in Christ’s time on earth, men and women wore almost identical robe-like clothing. Kilts and skirts, while technically not the same garment, are essentially the same thing. It’s all a matter of culture and technicalities (such as names for particular garments). Cultures are made of people, and people are in a constant state of change. Just because there was a period of time when only men wore pants does not mean it’s wrong for that to have changed. Due to circumstances, the norm changed and it is now generally accepted that women also wear trousers. As women, all we can really do is dress modestly as we know how to do so.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Please explain to me then the reason why the majority of people who struggle with pornography are men?

If women are just as in to the physical, there should be equal women struggling with it too…not just some but equal.

Christ’s peace to you.

I’m not denying that that is true, however, a great amount of women struggle with sexual addiction, there’s just more of a stigma so women don’t feel comfortable coming out about that.

Tell me why many teen and women’s magazines include pull out posters of half naked men and refer to it as “eye candy”.

I fail to see how loose pants and a big T-shirt are automatically immodest. There are many “feminine” clothes that are even worse. My pants do not hug my behind, they’re actually very loose and I tend to wear big T-shirts. Tell me how that is somehow sexual.