Spaghetti straps are immodest - why exactly?

[jmcrae]

It’s actually cooler to wear a loose white cotton shirt than a spaghetti strap, since white deflects the heat away from your skin.

Clothes that look easy to remove are “sexier” than clothes that look like they’re meant to stay on - and since spaghetti straps practically remove themselves unless they are taped in place, that’s what makes them “sexy.”

 

[Catholic90]

It’s actually cooler to wear a loose white cotton shirt than a spaghetti strap, since white deflects the heat away from your skin.

A loose white shirt doesn’t let me get a good a tan as a spaghetti shirt does . I prefer the tan to being cool, personally.

Clothes that look easy to remove are “sexier” than clothes that look like they’re meant to stay on - and since spaghetti straps practically remove themselves unless they are taped in place, that’s what makes them “sexy.”

I’m not sure what spaghetti straps you are familiar with, but none of mine come off easily. They are pretty much in place. I have the thin white untanned lines to prove that!

 

[shannyk]

Hehe, me again… What’s immodest about a person’s shoulders?

Litcrit,

Rather than go body part by body part, and clothing item ad nauseum, why not try to ask what IS modesty, because I think this argument goes round and round in circles because of a lack of agreement of what ‘modest’ means.

Since this is a Catholic forum, I think we would take a Catholic view/definition, which of course would be based in the Truth of the human person and the sacredness of our bodies.

Either that or we can move our way down to armpits and elbows in the next thread

 

[SarahR]

Clothes that look easy to remove are “sexier” than clothes that look like they’re meant to stay on - and since spaghetti straps practically remove themselves unless they are taped in place, that’s what makes them “sexy.”

I don’t see anything wrong with wearing spaghetti straps (not to Mass), but you do have a point here. They do fall off the shoulder (at least sometimes for me). Easy to see how that might be suggestive to some guys. Will have to keep an eye on that. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[shannyk]

Just wanted to add, don’t know if it’s been quoted already, but the catechism has absolutely simple and beautiful definitions of modesty.

Also remember modesty is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

I think that is important to remember, because it seems the tone here often seems to be that we hold modesty as an unnecessary or unfairly imposed standard, rather than something that should be sought after and prayed for.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

beautiful:thumbsup:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness.** It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.**

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. **Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies. **

2533 Purity of heart requires the modesty which is patience, decency, and discretion. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person.

1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity."

Knowing that the fruits of the Holy Spirit are attributes we NEED to attain salvation, I can’t imagine why we would clamor for it rather than resist it’s supposed ‘imposition’.

 

[ack]

The world does not begin and end with America and America’s standards of decency. A lot of Americans think breastfeeding is indecent; doesn’t make it so. As Litcrit and other non-Americans have shown, modesty IS different depending on the culture. Let us remember God gave Adam and Eve FIG LEAVES…and the fig leaf probably left Eve’s top exposed.

I agree that modesty is different depending on the culture. So what’s wrong with Americans discussing what is and isn’t modest in their own culture?

If all modesty is cultural, and discussing the modesty standards in a certain country are off-limits, then there would be no possibility of discussion at all on this thread. (And besides, didn’t the OP indicate interest in learning more about American modesty standards in his/her other thread?)

 

[dakotagirl]

Haha, God gave Eve and Adam skin coverings, I believe they chose leaves themselves…

There are so many excellent points on this thread, but I still wish to offer my two cents…

Ladies, who would WANT to RISK men having nasty thoughts about THEM as a result of their covering or lack thereof?
YES, men are fickle, strange creatures, but we must not encourage them! ICKY, ICKY, ICKY would be my response to anything I thought could cause a reasonable man to lust. whew.

 

[Nepenthe]

Oh heck, some guys will get all ‘incited’ staring at linoleum. I wouldn’t worry about it, although it can be impractical if you don’t make sure those straps are stitched down well.

 

[dakotagirl]

Oh heck, some guys will get all ‘incited’ staring at linoleum. I wouldn’t worry about it, although it can be impractical if you don’t make sure those straps are stitched down well.

Exactly. Hence the word “reasonable”. One example of reasonable: skirts below the knee. Unreasonable: not wearing skirts because they imply “easy access” (definately not something I thought of)

Another reasonable: not showing off half your upper body. Unreasonable: only wearing dark clothes to hide your curves (again, not something I thought of, but something I saw a crazy wrote once).

 

[Litcrit]

I agree that modesty is different depending on the culture. So what’s wrong with Americans discussing what is and isn’t modest in their own culture?

If all modesty is cultural, and discussing the modesty standards in a certain country are off-limits, then there would be no possibility of discussion at all on this thread. (And besides, didn’t the OP indicate interest in learning more about American modesty standards in his/her other thread?)

Yes, I did, that’s why I ask these things. I have a curiosity about American culture.

I have discussed every issue of personal clothing with my confessor years ago, so this is not why I ask.

I find the attitudes on these forums fascinating and am interested in what’s behind them and why people feel the way they do.

I do believe modesty to be cultural, and that to me does not mean ‘it’s all relative, do what you please’.

These things are different in my culture, and I’m asking about yours. Please don’t be upset or think I’m teasing. I’ll start a new thread on modesty, as has been suggested, because I don’t think the nuance of meaning used in America for ‘modesty’ even has a translation in my language. I kid you not. Modesty is for us not showing off, intentionally, for the purpose of impressing others, either your body or your riches in your clothes, house, car… Not bragging… That sort of thing…

 

[laariii2]

^^^^

I don’t know what country you are from but i am Australian & i also find these forums rather fascinating for there cultural perspectives.

I don’t think spaghetti straps are immodest - i had never even heard of the idea until i started reading these forums. Americans seem to be far more occupied with these things (& appearances in general) than Australians.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I’m an American and I’d have to agree with you!

 

[savienu]

I agree that modesty is different depending on the culture. So what’s wrong with Americans discussing what is and isn’t modest in their own culture?

If all modesty is cultural, and discussing the modesty standards in a certain country are off-limits, then there would be no possibility of discussion at all on this thread. (And besides, didn’t the OP indicate interest in learning more about American modesty standards in his/her other thread?)

American’s have a long history of puritanism. This time is a time of rampid sexual immorally, and yet most American’s don’t like to see a woman breastfeed in public. (Sorry to keep going back to that, but I think it demonstrates the point nicely.) A woman can be half naked at the beach, but God forbid she feed her child. My point is America has some learning to do. If we saw the body doing “normal” things rather than sexual things from an early age, skin exposure would not be automatically sexual. As Litcrit pointed out about the naked children at the beach in her culture; that would be frowned upon here- and they’re KIDS!

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

American’s have a long history of puritanism. This time is a time of rampid sexual immorally, and yet most American’s don’t like to see a woman breastfeed in public. (Sorry to keep going back to that, but I think it demonstrates the point nicely.) A woman can be half naked at the beach, but God forbid she feed her child. My point is America has some learning to do. If we saw the body doing “normal” things rather than sexual things from an early age, skin exposure would not be automatically sexual. As Litcrit pointed out about the naked children at the beach in her culture; that would be frowned upon here- and they’re KIDS!

Although I do agree that there can be extremes (take our muslim friends for example), being ok with extra skin exposure may just be desensitization to modesty and not desexualization. Also, I don’t understand the argument of “desexualizing” the body. We are sexual beings, made male and female… There are many Church writings on this.

Also, I don’t think that just because a culture starts taking a turn towards being ok with certain ways of dressing (like the example I gave on another thread, how low cuts seemed to have gotten lower after J Lo wore that awful dress, thus making regular low cuts seem not so bad), does not mean what was immodest before became suddenly modest.

 

[savienu]

Although I do agree that there can be extremes (take our muslim friends for example), being ok with extra skin exposure may just be desensitization to modesty and not desexualization. Also, I don’t understand the argument of “desexualizing” the body. We are sexual beings, made male and female… There are many Church writings on this.

I don’t mean de-GENDERING, I mean making sure that the naked body isn’t just an object of lust- because we are MORE than that. And you are still thinking like an American when you are saying it would just be desensitization. It’s the difference between shamelessness (which we have now) or being “naked without shame.” Which we can get to, I think, with Christ.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I don’t mean de-GENDERING, I mean making sure that the naked body isn’t just an object of lust- because we are MORE than that. And you are still thinking like an American when you are saying it would just be desensitization. It’s the difference between shamelessness (which we have now) or being “naked without shame.” Which we can get to, I think, with Christ.

Actually our sexuality is tied in with our gender, so if you try to suggest we are not sexual beings, you are affecting the difference in genders too, there is a connection. Also, I’m glad you brought up the “naked without shame” comment. After the fall (original sin) we cannot count on being able to be “naked without shame”. Clothes were not necessary before original sin, but they are now. Every comment on how people get used to seeing their moms and grandmas, friends etc in less clothing just seems to support the desensitization argument to me. For some people it is almost impossible at this point to see anything wrong with bikinis, short shorts, etc. I know it took be a long time to accept some things were actually immodest.

 

[SeekerJen]

^^^^

I don’t know what country you are from but i am Australian & i also find these forums rather fascinating for there cultural perspectives.

I don’t think spaghetti straps are immodest - i had never even heard of the idea until i started reading these forums. Americans seem to be far more occupied with these things (& appearances in general) than Australians.

I’m going to be flamed badly for this, but here goes:

I’m an American, and I would have to agree with you. I kind of feel as though my mind has been poisoned. Before these forums, I used to wear skirts and not give it a second thought, or a sleeveless sundress in the summer, or pants, or cute sandals. Now, although I still wear my knee-length or mid-calf length skirts, I worry about the “easy access” and the fact that I do get a lot more male attention when I wear skirts. I own a couple of sundresses with wide straps that cover the bra but I don’t wear them often and certainly not around other Catholics (my Protestant husband’s family doesn’t mind them). I wonder who might be scandalized by my sandals in church, even though they’re quiet and don’t have huge heels. Ditto for my pants- they’re of nice material, well-tailored, and not snug, but still. I’m ashamed to admit it, but there have been times in the past couple of years when I haven’t gone to Mass at all because the stress of picking out an outfit that wouldn’t give scandal was too much (yes, I suffer from a bit of scrupulosity, to the point where my husband has threatened to cut off access from these forums).

This is not something that was explicitly taught to me when I was a child, and I constantly worry that I am messing up. Mind you, I don’t buy things that are cut immodestly, or if I do buy something with a deep V-neck, for example, I will wear a higher cami underneath for modesty. This is how I was taught to dress by my well-endowed mother, who dresses very modestly herself. Even with clothing that would be considered modest on the average woman, I have breasts and hips and a small waist, and the only way to hide that is by wearing a sack. Sometimes I feel as though maybe I should, so as not to tempt the men. I’ve heard on these boards that men will get up and move away from pretty women in church, even if the women are dressed modestly and appropriately. If it’s to that point, what hope is there that women are not constantly causing men to sin? Knowing that men are constantly thinking about sex with all of us, that they store up these thoughts and entertain them later for their own pleasure- it’s frightening, to say the least. Sometimes I don’t even want to leave the house. I don’t like working in my front yard any more because of that. I’ve been swimming exactly once in the past 5 years because of that. I don’t like to exercise in public because of that.

Quite frankly, I was happier when I was naive and innocent as to the minds of men. I don’t like being paranoid and suspicious of any man I don’t know very well.

 

[SeekerJen]

I’m not sure why spaghetti straps are considered immodest now. I don’t think they are appropriate for Mass or school, but for a summer garden party or picnic or an evening dress- I don’t see the problem. Apparently neither did the designers and purchasers of the dozens of 1950s dress patterns I’ve found on vintage websites. Many of these dresses were spaghetti-strap or halter top. Heck, my aunt’s 1960 prom dress was strapless.

 

[Litcrit]

After the fall (original sin) we cannot count on being able to be “naked without shame”. Clothes were not necessary before original sin, but they are now. Every comment on how people get used to seeing their moms and grandmas, friends etc in less clothing just seems to support the desensitization argument to me. For some people it is almost impossible at this point to see anything wrong with bikinis, short shorts, etc. I know it took be a long time to accept some things were actually immodest.

I love the discussion, and you make great points!

True, we can no longer be naked.

But Adam and Eve only wore leaves after the Fall. I believe that to be the ‘bare’ minimum (pun intended), and other things to be cultural.

 

[savienu]

I love the discussion, and you make great points!

True, we can no longer be naked.

But Adam and Eve only wore leaves after the Fall. I believe that to be the ‘bare’ minimum (pun intended), and other things to be cultural.

Exactly, and that was my point.