D
Debora123
Guest
I don’t really know why either.
Eufrosnia, what I am asking and what wanderer is asking are 2 different things.
- Status
Eufrosnia, what I am asking and what wanderer is asking are 2 different things.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I was thinking even more than that, I haven’t said one word about what particular articles of clothing I think are modest and what aren’t,so I don’t really understand why Eufrosnia would assume anything about what I think about specific standards of modesty, let alone assume that I think the exact same as any other particular person on this thread.
D
Debora123
Guest
True. You have not stated at all what you do and do not consider modest.I was thinking even more than that, I haven’t said one word about what particular articles of clothing I think are modest and what aren’t,so I don’t really understand why Eufrosnia would assume anything about what I think about specific standards of modesty, let alone assume that I think the exact same as any other particular person on this thread.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
I don’t know how you missed this but you seem to be oblivious that I told you the following regarding how refined the values would beYou certainly do sure seem to be making all sorts of assumptions about my understanding of modesty. I don’t really know why you are lumping me and Deborah together on this matter, but that point aside, I really don’t have a hard time at all picturing what a modest society would look like. And, guess, what, the particular little society I am talking about does, in fact, as I have previously said, have a positive attitude towards modesty. It encourages modesty and chastity and discourages promiscuous behaviour. But I have already told you that.
- Proximity of its members
- Size of the population
- Age
- members are dispersed
- small population with no defense mechanism against influence from the larger society it occupies
- Age of 70 years or less
So this is why I am hesitant as should anyone else be to call any random society modest. One has to look in to things like the above that I listed to better understand how modest the society actually be.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
You cannot just follow any standard because your type of dress may be entirely different. If you want to know how to wear pants modestly, you cannot look at a society that has no concept of pants and only knows of gowns.
But if you are willing to even change your type of dress, or just pick up some tips in general and adapt them, you can pick any society with a culture that has had a positive attitude toward modesty for a long time. Since you seem to live in US, would presume you could pick the pre-sexual revolution Western Culture and learn about it more easily than anything else.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Sure. No ingredients, just directions…stop posting! And on that note, I’m going to do my part to save a deceased animal of transportation from further abuse…
(Oh, yes, the PETA chapter for metaphorical forum animals could have me up on charges many times over, and we all know it!!! I need to REPENT!!)
Ok… I better do my part as well.
D
Debora123
Guest
Gotcha.
Can you please name a society in existence right now that has these standards you speak of?
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Well, how about pre-sexual revolution US or any other pre-sexual revolution European country of your choice?
T
thewanderer
Guest
Since you are sounding as though you are, in the end, willing to continue this conversation, can you please tell me how to tell if a society is close enough packed together, whether or not it has defence mechanisms against bad influence from the larger society, and why 70 years is such an important age? I guess my main problem is that while you give criteria, they always seem to be too vague to actually help one determine whether or not a society fits your definition because when I tell you they fit you keep looking for further clarifications.
D
Debora123
Guest
Ah, I see what you’re saying. So basically, whatever Americans wore before the 1960’s is how we should dress now. Thanks!
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Well ideally, a society needs to be proximate enough for other members of the society to comment and correct.
As for age, older the better. I only said 70 because your society sounds to be that age. We are honestly comparing thousands of years against your 70. So even if you wanted to boost it to a 100, it will still be suspicious in terms of refinement level of its values. It could be like visiting the nudist colony on the second day since it decided to have a positive attitude toward modesty.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Well I guess it depends on who you listen to I guess. Some see the Sexual revolution as having started from the 40’s.
That being said, you don’t need to wear the actual dress itself. You can follow the guidelines regarding those dresses and adapt it to whichever type of dress you wear today. You don’t have to go and buy stuff off of a museum to wear
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
I have to disagree with those who are saying it doesn’t matter because these are little girls. No, they are not dressing that way to be sexy, but it’s not appropriate Mass dress. If they aren’t taught to wear proper attire to church as a child, how are they supposed to know how to do so as they get older? Light sweaters and wraps are so in style right now, it’s easy to find a white one. Also, it’s extremely easy to find white dresses for young girls with shoulders because of flower girl dresses. There isn’t really a good excuse to need to have a spaghetti strap showing. If anything, I’d say it’s harder for adult women to find appropriate dresses for Mass because very few adult dresses are cut to cover everything without adding layers to them and making a conscious effort.
S
Sarabande
Guest
I’m wondering, though. There were a number of smaller sexual revolutions in western culture prior to the most well-known (at least in recent memory) sexual revolution. ie. Prior to the '60s, think about the huge syphillils outbreak during the early 20th century due to a lot of sleeping around… it was also when there was a shortening of the hemline for women at above the ankle. Then you have the roaring 20s where the youth rebelled, really shortened their dresses, sleeveless dresses, cut their hair (which was really considered crazy and practically immodest back then), promiscuity, etc. Although the Victorian age encouraged a prudity, there was a lot of hypocrisy going on in all aspects of life… ie. The Guilded Age in the late 19th century. People would be scandalised about so many things, but then for their evening wear and such, they’d wear sleeveless gowns, plunging necklines, etc. Yet, that was ok and appropriate. Regency Period had very “immodest” clothing in terms of the plunging necklines, although rather forgiving, loose-fitting umpire-cut styles. 18th century… again lots of plunging necklines, (although they had fichus - modesty cloths - to wear in church or for those who didn’t want to show so much cleavage due to the fashion dictates of the time.) Also, when you think about it, up until about the mid-19th century, women always covered their heads even if their cleavage were showing, in order to show that they were modest women.
I can go further back in history (as I love history and the history of fashion), but I won’t bore anyone further. My point… I think one would have to go far, far back in time to name a time when western culture truly had “modest” fashion. Perhaps pre-Rennaissance times? (And I’m not saying that our fashion should go back to that.
)
T
thewanderer
Guest
ok, well, then the society I am talking about certainly fits that primary criteria, as I already said. The people definitely live close enough to talk with each other, in person, on a daily basis.
As for the age thing… I guess I don’t entirely understand that one. What determines the age of a modest society? I guess I mean, if a particular sub-society is started by people who have personally lived in a larger society that valued modesty and chastity and who personally kept those same values of modesty and chastity and made sure that they were an important part of the new sub-community that they started why would that new little “modest society”, if you will, not be just simply a continuation of all the countless years before?
Although, to be honest, I don’t know how to determine whether previous societies really cared about modesty nearly as much as this particular one I’m talking about… I’ve heard that there were a shocking number of children conceived shortly before a couple married… as well as many other things which make me hesitant to call any particular society from the past a modest society without a lot of historical research into that particular society. But I guess thats a different issue entirely, as that starts to get into the particulars again rather than focusing on the universal “how to determine whether or not a society can be considered modest for the sake of determining the universal standard of modesty”.
D
Debora123
Guest
Personally, I don’t believe there is some sort of universal standard of modesty that applies to all people of all places at all times.
If there was, I think the Church would have addressed it by now, and would have made rules like “Exposing the knees, shoulders, collar bones, etc etc (whatever it would even be)… is immodest.”
I disagree with Eufrosnia and with other posters here on CAF who have tried to say there is a particular standard.
If we look back in history, and we look around the world, we will see that the standards of modesty change drastically.
As an example, we can look at the Bushmen from Africa. They wear hardly anything. The women walk around with nothing on their chests except beads and necklaces. Are they being immodest? In my opinion, no. Not where they are, and not in their culture. (Heck, they haven’t even been hit by any sort of “sexual revolution” and for the most part, their society doesn’t even have a sexual/lustful view of the human body.) But if someone were to dress like that here in the States, then yes, absolutely that would be very immodest!
On the opposite extreme we have traditionalist Islam in the middle East, where it is considered immodest to expose the eyes. Would I be immodest if I was Muslim living in the Middle East and I stripped down to pants and a sweater? Yes, absolutely. Would I be immodest if I did that here in the States? Absolutely not.
We go back 100 years ago in Europe and it was indecent for women to expose their ankles. Would it be indecent if I did that now in Europe? Nope.
So, which is it? Since there is no set standard, I think we just follow whatever is considered modest in whatever society we are in.
If there was, I think the Church would have addressed it by now, and would have made rules like “Exposing the knees, shoulders, collar bones, etc etc (whatever it would even be)… is immodest.”
I disagree with Eufrosnia and with other posters here on CAF who have tried to say there is a particular standard.
If we look back in history, and we look around the world, we will see that the standards of modesty change drastically.
As an example, we can look at the Bushmen from Africa. They wear hardly anything. The women walk around with nothing on their chests except beads and necklaces. Are they being immodest? In my opinion, no. Not where they are, and not in their culture. (Heck, they haven’t even been hit by any sort of “sexual revolution” and for the most part, their society doesn’t even have a sexual/lustful view of the human body.) But if someone were to dress like that here in the States, then yes, absolutely that would be very immodest!
On the opposite extreme we have traditionalist Islam in the middle East, where it is considered immodest to expose the eyes. Would I be immodest if I was Muslim living in the Middle East and I stripped down to pants and a sweater? Yes, absolutely. Would I be immodest if I did that here in the States? Absolutely not.
We go back 100 years ago in Europe and it was indecent for women to expose their ankles. Would it be indecent if I did that now in Europe? Nope.
So, which is it? Since there is no set standard, I think we just follow whatever is considered modest in whatever society we are in.
S
Sarabande
Guest
I think you have a point and which is why I brought up how in many previous centuries, there was “immodest” dress, even though they were supposedly “modest” cultures. It was often ok to expose the cleavage, yet, expose an ankle or elbow… or your hair, you’d be considered immodest. Of course, I think common sense works, although some people don’t use common sense. I think of a wedding I did last year where the bride make sure that her bridesmaids’ shoulders and cleavage were covered (as per the church’s requirements), yet the dresses were so short, when they bent over, you could see EVERYTHING. I still don’t know if this was purposeful to “stick it” to the church for making them cover their tops or if she truly didn’t think anything was wrong.
D
Do_Good_Then_Go
Guest
I agree Debora. I also think that sometimes people get immodest mixed up with inappropriate.
Swimwear is appropriate at the beach but inappropriate in the boardroom. That doesn’t mean that swimwear is immodest.
D
Debora123
Guest
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Eufrosnia,Well I guess it depends on who you listen to I guess. Some see the Sexual revolution as having started from the 40’s.
That being said, you don’t need to wear the actual dress itself. You can follow the guidelines regarding those dresses and adapt it to whichever type of dress you wear today. You don’t have to go and buy stuff off of a museum to wear
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your counter-cultural sanctified common sense in this thread. Your posts are first-rate and I wholeheartedly agree with your argumentation - please keep on posting, dear friend.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
- Status