Response to clothing

[LongingForLight]

Someone of the Latin-Mass-only club made a remark that pants, especially blue jeans, show a woman’s curves and hind den and how enticing that is to a man.

I quit wearing dresses outside of church circles / special dress occasions when I realized that I couldn’t stop blushing when wearing even ankle-length dresses or skirts. I felt over-sexualized in secular circles, and the attention my body was receiving was disconcerting. I certainly did not feel modest.

However, I also work in a workplace where dress is casual and a woman wearing a skirt is either an immigrant wearing clothing from her own culture (this is acceptable), someone trying to look sexy (this is just fine, sadly), or someone in a lower-paying job who doesn’t have the freedom to dress casually (looking like this can get you branded as inept). In fact, wearing a skirt to an interview can easily lose you the job by giving a wrong first impression (cultural dress would probably be OK). There are few exceptions, especially in my age group (where sexy dress is common - 45+ can get away with skirts and look modest, but mid-20’s doesn’t work so well). When I dress in skirts at work, I feel like I am telling a basic lie about myself - saying that I want to draw attention to my body, even in very modest dresses. Moderately tight pants, even, don’t draw that kind of immodest attention (I suppose super-tight jeans that barely fit might, but the only women who wear those also are the ones who wear skirts so it’s hard to know).

Similarly, when I wear pants to Mass I also feel dishonest (excepting very skirt-like pants, or the college Newman Center where many students can’t afford Sunday dresses). I feel like I’m denying the value of femininity if I wear pants, since to most people at church longer dresses symbolize wholesome feminine virtues like grace, modesty, patience, and humility (not that these virtues are purely feminine, men have them too - but they are more frequently recognized in women and have been devalued along with many other traditional feminine things). Pants on a woman imply ambition, strength, independence - traits people already assign to me as the sole income for my family. I feel I need to dress more femininely to offset those assumptions and reveal myself as the woman God made me to be.

I’ve come to realize that I live in two very different cultures, so I dress modestly for each of those two cultures as I interact with them.

I also have practical issues with keeping track of my keys and wallet without pockets (DH carries them for me when we go to church - I love that man!), and I also find skirts hard to work outdoors in / bike in / run in. Modern skirts are not designed for busy mothers, IME - at least, not the ones I can afford (another point: dresses are almost always more expensive than pants). And like a previous poster, sewing is not an option - financially, or in terms of time. Not to mention that it would take a four-year degree in design to be able to make skirts that work for my lifestyle and still look good! Finally, I don’t feel comfortable in dresses, and as soon as I get home from church I change into pants and feel so much better. Outside of church, dresses are dishonest and get the wrong kind of attention, and I don’t feel like myself until I’m wearing pants again. Plus, DH doesn’t like my dresses They don’t really show my real personality.

I think every person needs to pray about how God is calling them to dress. And we should expect people to come to different conclusions. God created a diverse world with many cultures for a reason, IMO.

 

[dakotagirl]

The Vatican’s website has proper dress attire for visiting the Vatican, it is not as strict as you listed.

Sorry I don’t have time to look it up tonight, although maybe tell them what the Vatican fees in appropriate attire to visit them in.

I do know a couple of things about this requirement and one of them is simply that women may not wear shorts.

 

[dakotagirl]

LongingForLight,
Kudos for using your brain. I do think though that skirts get more attn, but it might not be the “wrong” kind, it might be one of a million reasons, among them that skirts are rare or that they are simply feminine.

 

[purplesunshine]

LongingForLight,
Kudos for using your brain. I do think though that skirts get more attn, but it might not be the “wrong” kind, it might be one of a million reasons, among them that skirts are rare or that they are simply feminine.

As someone who’s gone to college with “kilt clubs” of somewhat irish boys wishing to reclaim their heritage and who firmly only wear kilts. Of course, a kilt is not a skirt but there was a whole lot of free-flowing garment going on among the menfolk at my school and I’ve noticed that it’s beginning to take root among guys at other colleges.

And. Men are only as lustful as they are taught to be. In Little House on the Prarie, Pa is embarrased because he sees ankles. They caused him scandal and he quickly turns the page of the catalogue to avoid lust. He had been engranined in that fact. Now I’m not saying we should all make bikinis ok but lust has alot more to do with environment than primitive nature.

 

[phoage]

Riding modern bikes in a dress is either dangerous (chance of getting the dress jammed in the chain) or pornografic (if the dress is short enough to avoid jamming). Older bikes were built differently for women, in fact, there was such a thing as a womens bike. Instead of crossing streight from the top of the fork head to the top of the seat tube,the top tube curved down to the bottom of the seat tube. The chain guard also covered 1/2 the front sproket and the chain return almost back to the rear sproket.
(Example: s7.sears.com/is/image/Sears/00641817000 )

This changed in the late '60s and early '70s with the popularity of racing/touring type bicycles. The new designs that emphasized light weight and speed were structurally too weak if built with a woman’s frame and the few that were built that way had frames that broke.
(Example: thisoldbicycle.com/wp-content/gallery/raleigh-capri/raleighcapri-0.jpg )

Making clothes: I realize that I am just a man but I actually made money when I was in the military doing (light) tailoring for others. Now I can sew but it is not something you learn in a minute and it can take years of practice before you are able to do more than minor alterations. Having a sewing machine does not change this. It just allows you to make mistakes much more quickly and efficiently. It is certainly worthwhile to learn to sew and a sewing machine is a usefull tool if you do a lot of sewing, but it does not replace skill and it is not inexpensive. Generally it is not practicle for most people unless one of the parents is a homemaker and clothes are made/repaired rather than replaced. Generally today, when manufacture/repair time is taken into account, it is less expensive to buy than to make/repair clothing. Of course then, you are limited to what is on the shelves.

Modesty is not just what you wear as others have said. It is also (again as others have said) dependant on location, activities, and cultural background of the viewer and the viewed persons.

I would also like to point out a scriptural quote that everyone hear has probably heard but may need reminding of; “Judge not lest ye be judged”.

Full Disclosure: I am one of those lustfull males who only needs to see a woman between 7 and 70 to drool and trip on my tongue. And is does not matter how she is dressed either.

 

[Sabda]

Riding modern bikes in a dress is either dangerous (chance of getting the dress jammed in the chain) or pornografic (if the dress is short enough to avoid jamming). Older bikes were built differently for women, in fact, there was such a thing as a womens bike. Instead of crossing streight from the top of the fork head to the top of the seat tube,the top tube curved down to the bottom of the seat tube. The chain guard also covered 1/2 the front sproket and the chain return almost back to the rear sproket.
(Example: s7.sears.com/is/image/Sears/00641817000 )

This changed in the late '60s and early '70s with the popularity of racing/touring type bicycles. The new designs that emphasized light weight and speed were structurally too weak if built with a woman’s frame and the few that were built that way had frames that broke.
(Example: thisoldbicycle.com/wp-content/gallery/raleigh-capri/raleighcapri-0.jpg )

The bikes I had growing up all looked like those two. You can still find those bikes. My mom bought one from Wal-Mart last year that looks like the one in your first link. It’s just a plain Jane bike. It’s not a ten-speed or any speed. Those old bikes are still out there. I personally prefer them to any other type. They are a lot less complicated when it comes to riding a bike.

 

[Ghoti]

I would also like to point out a scriptural quote that everyone hear has probably heard but may need reminding of; “Judge not lest ye be judged”.

There’s judging and there’s judging. While I imagine we all agree that a burqa is going too far in terms of modesty, I am sure that we will equally agree that, say, pasties and a thongs are too far in the opposite direction, and do need to be commented on. I believe our difference comes where we might draw the line.

phoage:

Full Disclosure: I am one of those lustfull males who only needs to see a woman between 7 and 70 to drool and trip on my tongue. And is does not matter how she is dressed either.

“” indeed – I do hope you meant “between 17 and 70”…

 

[Jacafamala]

Clothing in western (European) society changed very little for hundreds of years. The last century saw incredibly radical changes in ‘societal’ definitions of modesty. . .and the fruits of those changes. . .look at the objectification of women, the incredible proliferation of eating disorders, poor self esteem, the sexualization of children. Yes, these things ‘existed’ in the world before the mini skirt. . .but they have skyrocketed and are being seen by many now not even as problems. What we call ‘objectifying’ women they call “giving the woman power” or ‘recognizing woman’s sexuality.’ Every time we bring up anorexia and bulimia’s effects, we get told how ‘obese’ Americans are anyway. Poor self esteem isn’t blamed on women trying to look like airbrushed models but on the “puritan thinking” that supposedly represses these women and is the real reason they aren’t gracing the latest Cosmo cover. And the people who scream at the ‘pedophile priests’ don’t even blink when their 4 year olds sashay in wearing midriff shirts proudly proclaiming, “Hottie”.

For all the supposed freedom we women are supposed to get from wearing pants to wearing the latest hooker duds, what did we get? My generation (now 50) were told we could 'bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and do it all". What did we wind up with? Most of us wound up with much more difficult marriages than our parents had. . . and those are the ones who managed to keep the family together. A lot of us wound up divorced single parents, scorned and sneered at, castigated by men and women alike, finding men being ‘conditioned’ to be selfish because, “hey, the woman wants to be in charge, let her --I’m off to greener pastures” and the women to be inimical “we don’t want you competing, so we’ll try to keep you feeling down because we want to be on top and have it all even though we see it doesn’t work for most. . .but we’d rather blame you than acknowledge society was wrong and this ‘have it all’ is wrong for both men AND women.”

And as we age we find that unless we’ve got the body of Cher that a simple and modest dress is actually more comfortable and flattering than those jeans we ‘lived in’ for decades. But boy, those modest dresses are hard to find. So many of us are relearning, or indeed learning, as a lot of us never bothered with the ‘domestic arts’ that were frowned on by the more vocal feminists most of us heard. . .to sew. We’re reclaiming our heritage as women. . .as CREATORS, as home-makers, without apologizing or feeling that ‘woman’s work’ was somehow LESSER than manly work.

Careers? Oh please. The average woman who works outside the home (and has children under 18 at home) works part-time, and doesn’t really get anywhere near a living wage. Plus, she has to make arrangements to have her OWN children cared for in order to do this glorious ‘paid’ work.

Now, for those woman who have satisfying careers, earn a decent wage, have excellent child care available, supportive spouses, etc. . . more power to them. I’m not going to tell them to quit. Society has always had women in this position–they used to be royalty, then nobility, etc. But there are a lot more women who are doing jobs they don’t particularly enjoy, and getting little satisfaction. . .while furthermore losing out in their own family lives. . .and there are a lot of men who have been made to feel miserable whether they ‘support’ their wife working outside the home or not. Just because they aren’t out there ‘pledging their faith’ to the Lord of the manor doesn’t mean they’re any more ‘free’; they have as much ‘tie’ to their employer as many villians did to their lord! Men who feel that no matter what they do, they aren’t really ‘important’ to their families and who are therefore much more inclined to walk away because, “She’s working, she can take care of them.”

Well, this didn’t all come about because of clothing changes. . .but clothing changes are a reflection of a society attitude that is I truly feel much less healthy than in the so-called ‘olden days’, especially when it comes to the area of modesty. . .and so the huge proliferation of immodest behavior, including immodest dress, is a symptom of society’s great illness that we should not be ignoring.

Remember, guys, dresses just below the knee, with elbow length sleeves, and high necklines, do NOT mean “Amish style.” Turn on TCM and look for a 1940s or 1950s movie. . .those women are NOT “AMISH style”. Far from it! A woman could be decently dressed and look downright alluring (yet modest). Doris Day, for example, Jackie Kennedy in her pillbox hat and suit. . .were wearing modest clothing that was current, stylish, and fashionable. So please, please, stop trotting out the old “do you want women dressing like Amish women?”. . the answer is NO. . .women can look modest and FASHIONABLE (even 2009 fashionable) and still confirm to the standards of the writing in the OP.

Yes. All true. Sounds like something I would say. Hey, I was at Mr. Jefferson’s University 'bout a year ago. Nice area.

 

[Jacafamala]

Nice slam on half of humanity, there…

I’m sure there are no lustful women anywhere…

Sexist much?

Mens is animals, animals!!!

 

[flyingfish]

“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 knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

–The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI

So what should I say when someone asks me what I think of their attire in todays times? Does the above quote still apply?

Modesty is not absolute, it really depends on the society you live in. In many Muslim countries it would be immodest for the woman to show her hair.

There are also practical considerations, like temperatures. I don’t think God wants you to get heatstroke or be unable to function in hot weather.

Just be reasonable, overly tight clothing or clothing where your breasts and butt are falling are
immodest. But there are many summer dresses with no sleeves and that go to the knees that are pretty modest.

 

[GraceDK]

“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 knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

–The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI

So what should I say when someone asks me what I think of their attire in todays times? Does the above quote still apply?

Pope Pius would have probably fainted if he saw how the young men in my country walk up the shopping street with no shirt on.

The Pope was a man of his time. Like some popes before and after him, he took liberties in defining things that were really not within what he should be worrying about.

 

[GraceDK]

(The super-skin-tight jeans that some women wear are another story, but I’m assuming that you are not wearing these.)

Why would you assume that?

I personally dont think such pants are sexually attractive… not on men and not on women. To me they are just ugly. They are modest in my oppinion.

 

[dakotagirl]

Why would you assume that?

I personally dont think such pants are sexually attractive… not on men and not on women. To me they are just ugly. They are modest in my oppinion.

Once again, we have a difference of opinion. My personal strategy has been to ask men, or to ask women who have asked men. Their consensus is no, these are not appropriate pants.

My, but I do love a good stiff modesty discussion.

 

[Jacafamala]

I love these threads! Can we get started with posting pictures of the fashionable, lovely outfits that meet the criteria opposed by the pictures of the gunny sack dresses advocated by the marginal protestant sects?! Oh and then we can get into the bathing suit wars. I love the suits that are cotton dresses with bike shorts underneath and are much uglier than anything the Victorians ever wore! :tanning:

Miss Crabtree



Grace Kelly

http://images.della.com/images/Fashion/Thenandnow/grace.jpg

 

[GraceDK]

Miss Crabtree

http://www.dspears.com/fio/f36a.jpg

Grace Kelly

http://images.della.com/images/Fashion/Thenandnow/grace.jpg

They are all immodest.
they are too tightly fitted, too bright in colour, above the elbow (shame on that little boy!), above the knee (shame on the little girl)…
the curls are too sexual… and I see angles!

And its tireing to be religious police so I’ll withdraw from to the cafeteria or into more important matters, and matters less prone to pharisaism.

Ps. the dog is absolutely immodest! so much skin…

 

[Jacafamala]

They are all immodest.
they are too tightly fitted, too bright in colour, above the elbow (shame on that little boy!), above the knee (shame on the little girl)…
the curls are too sexual… and I see angles!

And its tireing to be religious police so I’ll withdraw from to the cafeteria or into more important matters, and matters less prone to pharisaism.

Ps. the dog is absolutely immodest! so much skin…

Good bye!

http://www.1up.com/media/02/6/0/2/lg/834.jpg

 

[Consecrated]

Good bye!

http://www.1up.com/media/02/6/0/2/lg/834.jpg

and that is all I have to say

 

[chevalier]

Heh, I don’t believe in any “N inches long” kind of modesty standards, seriously.

At the same time, as a rule, I agree with the Cardinal (as long as I get my mind off the fact he’s giving precise inchings, which I’m not too fond of).

Personally, I see no good reason whatsoever for the existence of the institution of cleavage. I don’t see any functional reason in it and while in some cases it can be tasteful and asthetically pleasing without attempting to tempt the mind into awful things, more often than not, it’s just a culturally conditioned absurdiry as far as you ask me.

Now I don’t have a particular problem with elbows staying in the open. Not really with knees, either, although too short is not good.

Eh. Just as long as people give up the idea of trying to tempt the bad way (not as in, “what a pretty girl, I think I’m in love with her,” which is not the wrong way), then we should more or less be fine.

There’s nothing wrong with skin, but everything’s wrong with the notion to sexy it up.

 

[Tosk]

Personally, I see no good reason whatsoever for the existence of the institution of cleavage. I don’t see any functional reason in it and while in some cases it can be tasteful and asthetically pleasing without attempting to tempt the mind into awful things, more often than not, it’s just a culturally conditioned absurdiry as far as you ask me.

one of the great mysteries with cleavage is how on earth it became so popular during the victorian era. They were trying to make sure women’s ankles remained hidden but there were just boobies everywhere.

 

[BiologyBrain]

one of the great mysteries with cleavage is how on earth it became so popular during the victorian era. They were trying to make sure women’s ankles remained hidden but there were just boobies everywhere.

I’ve always wondered about that! Yet, today many people here think that my sleeveless dress w/ a button-up neck-line (ie collared) is immodest! Weird the way things change!