Spaghetti straps are immodest - why exactly?

[lifeisbeautiful]

There are times, also, when you could dress in the equivalent of a burlap sack and the drunk would claim that you were “trying to be sexy” - it is best to travel in a large group when going to a bar, don’t stay very long, and avoid the loud unruly drunks as much as possible. And never, ever, ever leave your drink unattended.

I agree… and make sure you have a buddy or two in the group that keeps track of where you are (and you of them) so you don’t get lost in the shuffle, etc etc. There was a lot of stuff we would tell these freshmen, but I was just pointing out that clothing choice could have an effect on all this (policewoman included this in the list of things that she mentioned to me in conversation, with alcohol of course, being on the top).
Lol, anyways, I think I went off a bit on a tangent here, since most of us here aren’t college barhoppers with poor clothing judgement I was just pointing out some cases in which the way a woman chooses to physically present herself can be a factor.

 

[peregrinator_it]

You know, I am not sure about what the pp meant with that quote, but I still think the advice of dressing modestly is good regardless. In your case, a pair of comfortable modest jeans and a modest shirt that does not have hanging bits (and a good pair of sneakers like you said ) would be both modest and safer for you than other modest but not practical options.

You know, I think the OP on this thread was correct in her definition of modesty (probably not from this thread, but from one of the similar ones) as being akin to “not bragging, etc.”

If modesty “means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” (CCC 2521) it follows that modesty in clothing would entail not needlessly flaunting one’s body.

I don’t think this means not flaunting by just not showing skin (take, for example, “Madonna’s” costumes in 80s (?) - underwear on top of clothes isn’t modest, either.) And as everyone on this thread knows, clothes which are unecessarily tight can also be immodest.

Not flaunting is partly determined culture (CCC 2524) and more finely determined by what activities a person is engaged in. To go around showing more skin/shape than is acceptable in a culture without good reason would be flaunting one’s body.

If a person living in a culture where the customary clothing was just a grass skirt were to start going around without the grass skirt for no good reason, the person would be immodest within his/her own culture. Wearing a swimming suit to do clerical work would be flaunting one’s body as there’s no practical reason to be that scantily clothed while filing.

Because much of what makes clothing modest or immodest is circumstantial (dependent on the culture & era and what activities one is engaged in) to try and define modesty according to specific articles of clothing is not a valuable exercise.

Modesty is an expression of intention, as well, as has already been discussed. Obviously, if you’re intending to attract sexual attention or lead others into sin you’re not being modest.

But, I think if you choose clothing that is practical for the tasks one is undertaking and does not show any more of the body than is acceptable in the culture and necessary for the task, then you’re doing fine. (Hence the absurdity of the “no-pants-for-women” arguments.) Clothes are just clothes; not that important in the grand scheme of things, and I must admit I can’t justify giving them much more thought than the preceding couple of sentences.

@chevalier et. al. The above is why I think spaghetti straps aren’t considered acceptable for Mass; the only reasons for wearing them are either a) to keep cool or b) to show off one’s beauty as a part of a formal celebration.

As to a) most churches are climate-controlled as to b) while we ought to dress for Mass in a way that acknowledges how important the occasion is, glamorous clothes are out of place because we aren’t there to celebrate our own beauty (I think this is also why the tux for men idea in another thread doesn’t fit.)

I don’t like spaghetti straps because of the bra-strap showing issue; underwear should never be visible, IMO.

 

[savienu]

I have no idea when or why strapless wedding outfits came into style, but I do think it’s inappropriate. I believe a wedding dress or bridesmaid’s dress should have either wide straps or, ideally, sleeves, should never expose cleavage, and should reach the mid-calf at the highest; it’s a wedding. It’s a time to dress up.

I knew someone was going to bring up that two of the dresses were strapless. Guess I shouldn’t tell them about my strapless/converts into spaghetti strap wedding dress that comes with a coat.

 

[Litcrit]

You know, I think the OP on this thread was correct in her definition of modesty (probably not from this thread, but from one of the similar ones) as being akin to “not bragging, etc.”

If modesty “means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” (CCC 2521) it follows that modesty in clothing would entail not needlessly flaunting one’s body.

I don’t think this means not flaunting by just not showing skin (take, for example, “Madonna’s” costumes in 80s (?) - underwear on top of clothes isn’t modest, either.) And as everyone on this thread knows, clothes which are unecessarily tight can also be immodest.

Not flaunting is partly determined culture (CCC 2524) and more finely determined by what activities a person is engaged in. To go around showing more skin/shape than is acceptable in a culture without good reason would be flaunting one’s body.

If a person living in a culture where the customary clothing was just a grass skirt were to start going around without the grass skirt for no good reason, the person would be immodest within his/her own culture. Wearing a swimming suit to do clerical work would be flaunting one’s body as there’s no practical reason to be that scantily clothed while filing.

Because much of what makes clothing modest or immodest is circumstantial (dependent on the culture & era and what activities one is engaged in) to try and define modesty according to specific articles of clothing is not a valuable exercise.

Modesty is an expression of intention, as well, as has already been discussed. Obviously, if you’re intending to attract sexual attention or lead others into sin you’re not being modest.

But, I think if you choose clothing that is practical for the tasks one is undertaking and does not show any more of the body than is acceptable in the culture and necessary for the task, then you’re doing fine. (Hence the absurdity of the “no-pants-for-women” arguments.) Clothes are just clothes; not that important in the grand scheme of things, and I must admit I can’t justify giving them much more thought than the preceding couple of sentences.

@chevalier et. al. The above is why I think spaghetti straps aren’t considered acceptable for Mass; the only reasons for wearing them are either a) to keep cool or b) to show off one’s beauty as a part of a formal celebration.

As to a) most churches are climate-controlled as to b) while we ought to dress for Mass in a way that acknowledges how important the occasion is, glamorous clothes are out of place because we aren’t there to celebrate our own beauty (I think this is also why the tux for men idea in another thread doesn’t fit.)

I don’t like spaghetti straps because of the bra-strap showing issue; underwear should never be visible, IMO.

Thank you! This is exactly my reasoning as well! But you said it in a sane, calm, reasonable tone, while I’ve obviously been offending people all this time.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Also, no one is saying that dressing modestly will keep you from being raped, there are too many tragic cases out there that prove otherwise.

I find this hard to agree with in general. (I’ve read your subsequent posts about being an RA.)

In my neighborhood, I get the impression that if I were to dress less modestly, I’d blend in better and be less of a target. Around here trashy tends to communicate “Street smart - not safe to harass,” whereas modest says “One of those religious people, easily intimidated, too nice to fight back.” (There are quite a few religious institutions with headquarters in my area; it’s their employees that tend to be targets of crime.)

I think a “closed” situation like a frat party or bar is a completely different case.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Thank you! This is exactly my reasoning as well! But you said it in a sane, calm, reasonable tone, while I’ve obviously been offending people all this time.

No, I don’t think you’re necessarily offending people… anyway, I would have gotten just as many displeased responses if I had posted this earlier.

I think it’s just easier for us limited human beings to deal in specifics rather than principles. Anyone who maintains that there isn’t a universal dress code is going to catch some flack.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I find this hard to agree with in general. (I’ve read your subsequent posts about being an RA.)

In my neighborhood I get the impression that if I were to dress less modestly, I’d blend in better and be less of a target. Around here trashy tends to to communicate “Street smart - not safe to harass,” whereas modest says “One of those religious people, easily intimidated, too nice to fight back.” (There are quite a few religious institutions with headquarters in my area; it’s their employees that tend to be targets of crime.)

I think a “closed” situation like a frat party or bar is a completely different case.

I’m not sure I understand your post… You disagree that “no one is saying that dressing modestly will keep you from being raped, there are too many tragic cases out there that prove otherwise.”?

 

[peregrinator_it]

I’m not sure I understand your post… You disagree that “no one is saying that dressing modestly will keep you from being raped, there are too many tragic cases out there that prove otherwise.”?

Huge apologies, I completely misread your post:blush:. (Trying to speed through too many responses.)

I deleted the offending reply. Sorry.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Huge apologies, I completely misread your post:blush:. (Trying to speed through too many responses.)

I deleted the offending reply. Sorry.

Hey no apologies necessary, I wasn’t offended by your post, just confused Bellieve me, I have done it plenty of times, maybe even in this thread…

 

[AshleyBelle]

Wow, this has been quite a thread!

Concerning dressing for mass, I have one basic principle I always try to maintain, and I intend to teach my Children.

If you were invited by Christ Himself to a dinner in His home...how would you dress? Would you approach our Lord at His table in spaghetti straps and sandals, or would you approach in fear, awe, and humility, clothed in modesty and purity?

Because that’s exactly what the mass is.

I understand it is very cultural, but we are speaking of CATHOLIC culture on these forums. We're not part of any tribe or culture where grass skirts and topless women are a natural occurence.  I like the poster who mentioned that as Catholics we are all called to STRIVE for holiness!  I personally feel that it's good to dress in a manner that shows I accept my femininity and RESPECT my sexual dignity and integrity.  

Spaghetti straps in particular, I will only wear at home or the beach. What purpose does it serve to go in public with that much of my upper body uncovered?  Unless I'm trying in some way to entice men, OR to make myself feel more attractive. I think as women, sometimes we subconsciously do this to ourselves. We feel like dressing a certain way will make us feel more attractive to ourselves, or catching a man's eye makes us prettier... But it's a LIE that society has perpetuated through objectification of women.

Please, wear clothes that you feel good about wearing, that are flattering to your figure. But don’t feel like you have to show as much skin as possible to “really” be sexy or attractive, kwim?

 

[AshleyBelle]

I didn’t mean to kill the thread!

 

[Miles_Mariae]

If you were invited by Christ Himself to a dinner in His home...how would you dress? Would you approach our Lord at His table in spaghetti straps and sandals, or would you approach in fear, awe, and humility, clothed in modesty and purity?

I agree. The standard objections (and their answers) are:

1. Well, I think spaghetti straps and sandals are just as good as formal clothing (exhibits gross ignorance of culture)
2. I can’t afford Armani suits (straw man fallacy - wearing decent clothing doesn’t mean top of the line suits)
3. What’s important is on the inside, not the clothing (forgets that outward appearance both affects the interior disposition, affects the attitudes of others, and demonstrates the interior to outsiders who might be watching)

Anyway, yeah that is just a long way of saying that I agree with your way of looking at this.

 

[peregrinator_it]

AshleyBelle:

If you were invited by Christ Himself to a dinner in His home…how would you dress? Would you approach our Lord at His table in spaghetti straps and sandals, or would you approach in fear, awe, and humility, clothed in modesty and purity?

I agree. The standard objections (and their answers) are:

1. Well, I think spaghetti straps and sandals are just as good as formal clothing (exhibits gross ignorance of culture)
2. I can’t afford Armani suits (straw man fallacy - wearing decent clothing doesn’t mean top of the line suits)
3. What’s important is on the inside, not the clothing (forgets that outward appearance both affects the interior disposition, affects the attitudes of others, and demonstrates the interior to outsiders who might be watching)

Anyway, yeah that is just a long way of saying that I agree with your way of looking at this.

Miles Mariae, I don’t see anything like the above in this thread (I just re-read it.) In fact, for all that there’s not much agreeing going on the recent threads on modesty have been blessedly free of cranks and fairly full of good reasoning/opinions.

Or maybe you’re trying to be funny & I’m humor-impaired.

---

Ashley, I personally haven’t responded because I don’t think you’d find my response enlightening.

My reaction tends to be: Were I to visit Christ in Jerusalem during His life on earth (provided I were transported to roughly the same position in society that I hold now) I wouldn’t be thinking about clothes at all. I figure I’d only have one option. And it would probably include sandals (again only option, if I could afford footwear at all .)

Were Christ to walk this earth has He did 2000 years ago and I were priviledged to visit Him privately, I don’t think I would care what I wore. Clothes would be at the absolute bottom of my worry list.

Were He to appear in His body at public worship today (of course, He’s just as present during Mass; just under different appearances) and I was able to come, I’d wear my “church clothes” without a second thought (as I’ve determined them fit for public worship.) Again, clothes would not be the upper-most concern in my mind…

See, I told you. Not very enlightening.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Miles Mariae, I don’t see anything like the above in this thread (I just re-read it.) In fact, for all that there’s not much agreeing going on the recent threads on modesty have been blessedly free of cranks and fairly full of good reasoning/opinions.

Or maybe you’re trying to be funny & I’m humor-impaired.

Nope. She said that people should not wear casual clothes like sandals and spaghetti straps to Mass, and I let her know what replies to expect. And then you demonstrated beautifully. Thanks!

 

[peregrinator_it]

And then you demonstrated beautifully. Thanks!

Were Christ to walk this earth has He did 2000 years ago and I were priviledged to visit Him privately, I don’t think I would care what I wore. Clothes would be at the absolute bottom of my worry list.

Were He to appear in His body at public worship today (of course, He’s just as present during Mass; just under different appearances) and I was able to come,** I’d wear my “church clothes” without a second thought (as I’ve determined them fit for public worship.) **Again, clothes would not be the upper-most concern in my mind…

I don’t think you read my post at all. I fail to see how my reply matches your list.

 

[AshleyBelle]

I don’t think you read my post at all. I fail to see how my reply matches your list.

I think you kind of picked what you wanted to read out of my post as well… I wasn’t saying clothing should be first on your mind when you approach our Lord. I said would you approach him in spaghetti straps/flip flops (attitude both inner and outter implying a laid back, lazai-fare (lol I can’t spell that phrase) attitude, or would you approach him with fear, humility and awe, clothed in modesty and purity? The fear/humility imply a state of heart, and the clothed in modesty/purity implies you would have given SOME thought to your attire before attending a private dinner with our Lord.
I consider whether or not to wear my lounging/comfortable sweatpants/t shirts or a nice pair of slacks and sweater or something along those lines just to attend dinner with my IN LAWS. While I would definitely have my HEART more in mind when approaching our Lord, I should hope I’d at least TRY to dress my physical body in something that reflected my respect for HIM.

 

[AshleyBelle]

And I’m sorry if that previous post sounded too cynical, I really do understand what you’re saying. I just think you misread what I posted, and just like any internet forum all ideas tend to be picked apart and not taken for what the poster was intending them to mean.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I don’t think you read my post at all. I fail to see how my reply matches your list.

“I wouldn’t be thinking about clothes at all”

“Clothes would be at the bottom of my worry list”

“Again, clothes would not be the upper-most concern in my mind”

Assuming that you understand the meaning of “again” in English, you just stated 3 times that you couldn’t give a hoot about dress in worship. Now, I urge you to read point # 3 in my post. If this still isn’t clear, I’m not sure that I’ll be able to help you.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I gave different answers for different circumstances: which century; public worship or private get together.

I fail to see how you get the bolded bit in your quote from the bolded bits in my quote.

Now, I urge you to read point # 3 in my post. If this still isn’t clear, I’m not sure that I’ll be able to help you.

Were He to appear in His body at public worship today (of course, He’s just as present during Mass; just under different appearances) and I was able to come, **I’d wear my “church clothes” without a second thought (as I’ve determined them fit for public worship.) **Again, clothes would not be the upper-most concern in my mind…

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Let me do the bolding this time and I’ll give this one more shot.

My reaction tends to be: Were I to visit Christ in Jerusalem during His life on earth (provided I were transported to roughly the same position in society that I hold now) I wouldn’t be thinking about clothes at all. I figure I’d only have one option. And it would probably include sandals (again only option, if I could afford footwear at all .)

Were Christ to walk this earth has He did 2000 years ago and I were priviledged to visit Him privately,** I don’t think I would care what I wore.** Clothes would be at the absolute bottom of my worry list.

Were He to appear in His body at public worship today (of course, He’s just as present during Mass; just under different appearances) and I was able to come, I’d wear my “church clothes” without a second thought (as I’ve determined them fit for public worship.) Again, clothes would not be the upper-most concern in my mind…

Unless by “again” you mean “on the contrary, in this case” (the opposite of “again”)…?

In essence, you are suggesting by your post that clothing is not important. I counter this claim with my response to point # 3.

Hope that helps, I’m out.