The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

[Debora123]

1. To say “if you want to be treated like a lady, dress like one” is to give “valid reasons” for men to devalue women based on dress alone.

Precisely.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

It depends. Mini skirts would not be inappropriate for Church or to a nice dinner, but I wouldn’t consider them immodest if worn to a park on a hot day, for example.

appropriate*

Debora, I know a little bit about your background since you’ve shared it with us here. You are from Brazil and now live in Florida. You have been around the hot climate for most or all of your life. I can give you the benefit of the doubt since you have not known anything else, but let me just say that a Chasity speaker by the name of Leah Darrow who was a fashion model at one point and had a reversion back to the Catholic Faith, loves the beach and lives on the beach too. Let me explain. Ms. Darrow has fully changed her lifestyle around since her conversion, as I’m sure you can imagine. Her clothing choices have drastically changed along with her lifestyle and she is a modesty advocate too.

I invite you and others to watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=M9M5yv7DoB8

As for bikinis, that depends as well. Wearing them to the beach or the pool is one thing, and perfectly appropriate… as for wearing them to the grocery store… now that is something entirely different, and very immodest, yes.

Why not? Same kind of people show up at the grocery store.

That could be an example. Pretty much anything that is flattering to your figure or to any characteristics of your face. Within the realm of respectable and appropriate, of course.

Agreed.

I have to disagree, that is not what I got from the article. I have posted on that and even referred to his words appearing to make the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Beauty includes the inside, the soul. Pretty is about externals, superficial and pretty in the article is for having a certain look, demure etc which he equates with innocence and which it appears is what some men want according to him.

I suppose that is just your interpretation - not what he truly meant. He was not just talking about externals.

“Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl.”

 

[chevalier]

Children learn by example. The son will learn to be a virtuous man by seeing his father as a virtuous man. The way his father behaves around a woman, no matter how she is dressed, is how the son will perceive it is supposed to be done. That’s why men should be treating all women, no matter what they wear or how, with dignity.

The problem with blaming it on concupiscence is that we are saying, we are tempted, so it’s not our fault. Just because we are tempted to look lustfully at a woman because of her clothes, does not make it her fault. Men have different temperaments. What I may find to be tempting, you may not see as tempting at all. I might find a woman in shorts to her knees as unbearable to see, while you might be fine with daisy dukes and a halter top.

And daughters will dress the way they saw their mother dress or behave, or at least will think it’s okay to do so. The problem with oversexualised fashion cannot be blamed in its entirety on men being concupiscent, the way it is often done in this type of threads, which is unfair. Male concupiscence plays a role and female desire for attention also does. It is unfair to blame women for men’s eyes. But it’s equally unfair to blame men’s eyes for women’s desire for sexual attention.

 

[Debora123]

appropriate*

Debora, I know a little bit about your background since you’ve shared it with us here. You are from Brazil and now live in Florida. You have been around the hot climate for most or all of your life. I can give you the benefit of the doubt since you have not known anything else, but let me just say that a Chasity speaker by the name of Leah Darrow who was a fashion model at one point and had a reversion back to the Catholic Faith, loves the beach and lives on the beach too. Let me explain. Ms. Darrow has fully changed her lifestyle around since her conversion, as I’m sure you can imagine. Her clothing choices have drastically changed along with her lifestyle and she is a modesty advocate too.

I invite you and others to watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=M9M5yv7DoB8

I don’t have anything against modesty, neither do I think I dress immodestly. I understand you disagree, in which case we must agree to disagree.

Why not? Same kind of people show up at the grocery store.

The fact that it’s the same people, doesn’t matter:

Quote by JPII-
When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.

 

[severus68]

I do understand the article point.

The author try to relate pretty with women’s innocent beauty, and thus condemn “hot” as related to “dirty beauty”.

My points are

1. Women are created to be beautiful. There is nothing wrong with a woman who try to look beautiful.
2. To relate the way women dress with her innocence is being unfair to women, because both men and women aren’t completely innocent. Thus if one expects innocence from women, they must expect innocence from men too. If one forgive sinful men, he must forgive sinful women too. In otherwords, if men are innocent, why would they bother complaining about women’s dress? They complain because they aren’t innocent, and therefore they have no right to expect innocence from women, for they aren’t innocent either.
3. To say “if you want to be treated like a lady, dress like one” is to give “valid reasons” for men to devalue women based on dress alone.

 

[severus68]

I don’t have anything against modesty, neither do I think I dress immodestly. I understand you disagree, in which case we must agree to disagree.

The fact that it’s the same people, doesn’t matter:

I must say you are being very charitable and restrained. I take off my proverbial hat to you, I would not have been so restrained.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

1. To relate the way women dress with her innocence is being unfair to women, because both men and women aren’t completely innocent. Thus if one expects innocence from women, they must expect innocence from men too. If one forgive sinful men, he must forgive sinful women too. In otherwords, if men are innocent, why would they bother complaining about women’s dress? They complain because they aren’t innocent, and therefore they have no right to expect innocence from women, for they aren’t innocent either.
2. To say “if you want to be treated like a lady, dress like one” is to give “valid reasons” for men to devalue women based on dress alone.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the same vibe from both of these points:

Why try to fix it? You’re just setting yourself up for failure.

Let me tell you something. Jesus died for us. In the passion of His Death and the glory of His Resurrection, we are made new. He LOVES us. He does not want us to settle in the sludge of this world. He CALLS us to something so beautiful and sacred, our minds cannot comprehend it. And we settle for the sludge? Isn’t that a spit in the Eye of our Creator? Isn’t that saying that what He did means nothing?

You and others are justifying a woman’s right to wear whatever she wants, because all men are going to devalue her anyway. Think about that.

Yes, we HAVE fallen. We ARE in need of grace. But God has never said, nor will he EVER say to us, “Well, since you cannot do any better, you might as well not try.”

I say act like a lady because that is being confidant in the joy and love of Jesus Christ. He calls us to something better. We respond, not sit back and complain about what others have failed to do. Therefore in Christ Jesus I have found reason for boasting in things pertaining to God. For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me! …

 

[Debora123]

I must say you are being very charitable and restrained. I take off my proverbial hat to you, I would not have been so restrained.

Thank you. It’s actually been pretty easy because posters here are actually being quite charitable with me themselves. I think this is probably the most civilized modesty thread I’ve ever seen.

I’ve stated a couple times here on CAF that I’ve actually had a poster on a modesty thread say to me “if you think it’s so hot in Florida, what do you think Hell will be like??”
She said this to me when I told her that wearing shorts and tanks are the norm here in FL because of the climate, and are not seen as immodest. Lol, so yeah, everyone in this thread has been very nice, especially in comparison.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I don’t have anything against modesty, neither do I think I dress immodestly. I understand you disagree, in which case we must agree to disagree.

If that is what you want. Although, I did not at all mind answering your questions or giving you an honest opinion of the views you defend quite adamantly.

The fact that it’s the same people, doesn’t matter:
Quote by JPII-
When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.

Our dear, holy pontiff was not talking about just any kind of bathing suit. Obviously, the term modest swimwear goes without saying.

 

[chevalier]

Just to let you know that women are sinless in their call to look beautiful. Such call comes from God. Thus if a woman dress-up to make herself beautiful, unless she commit sin with her body, she is sinless in making herself look beautiful. God meant women to look beautiful, to receive praises and flatters and to be adored and loved.

Please don’t confuse “beautiful” with “sexy”. You are twisting my words in saying I have an issue with women’s desire to be beautiful. The desire to be beautiful is different from the desire to be sexually desired. That latter desire is natural too and is not sinful because it is morally neutral as any desire is. But it needs ordering and it needs restraint. Modesty, among other things, is about exercising restraint in our desire for attention. Any kind of attention but especially the sexual attention.

I wholeheartedly agree with the bolded part. And “adored and loved” is totally different from “lusted for”. Raunchy, oversexualised clothing leads to being lusted for, not adored and loved. And you would be wrong if you believed that all any woman wants is to be loved and adored and it’s the evil men who twist that and lust for them, essentially sinless women. Nope.

For the record, men also have a desire to be admired, also for their looks. Women are also visual, capable of lusting for what they see. Men too are capable of exploiting that weakness in women (Chippendales for example, and male strippers also exist).

It is very unfair for men nowadays to have prejudice over women’s intent to look beautiful.

I am not. In fact, I wish more women desired to be beautiful and I am always very happy to see one that is beautiful. But what I often see instead is not aesthetic beauty but an appeal to male physiology, or base sexuality.

And only based on that women has to endure a lot of prejudices throughout their life time since very young age (such as what you wrote above}.

And women are not prejudiced against men in the slightest. And how you’ve judged me is not prejudiced at all.

Nowadays many women think that they have to be this and that just so the world will respect them, eventhough those things doesn’t really make them happy, they are willing to go through so many things. Some of them are humilating and degrading instead of gaining respect. What a paradox situation for all of us and our children.

The way I see, oversexualised clothing is degrading and humiliating to the wearer and also, basically, to the whole of the fallen humanity. Nor does it make anybody happy. Any happiness that sexual activity outside marriage brings is fake, as we will all agree. The problem is that I seem to be unable to find agreement that as looking for arousal is sinful for a man who is not his wife, it is equally sinful for a woman to want to arouse a man who is not her husband (because she does not have the right to receive the sexual response from him that she’s looking for).

If only I had a daughter, I would not teach her to believe that her value is in her clothing.

Her value is not in her clothing. But her clothing should reflect her value.

I would not let her feel guilty for the stare of others.

Neither would I. But I’m pretty sure you would not allow her to seek that stare.

I would not let others to have “valid reason” to accuse my daughter for her beauty.

Seeking attention does not come down to beauty and cannot be justified by it. Beauty is fine. Seeking validation in the lustful gazes collected from the opposite sex (whichever applicable opposite sex it is) is not fine. A man sins when he fishes for lustful gazes from women, by the way. The standard is pretty much equal and doesn’t have much to do with any discrimination based on one’s sex. It can only be said that men have a stronger desire to look whereas women have a stronger desire to be looked at, neither sex being immune to the other desire by any means

As in wearing a sweater that brings out your blue eyes?

I do not find mini skirts, hot pants, or bikinis appropriate or respectful. What do you think?
Thank you.

That is a valid point and one I have also been trying to make. There’s a difference between a sweater that brings out the lady’s blue eyes, and hot pants that bring out her perceived bedroom potential. For the record, there is nothing wrong with bedroom potential but it’s just supposed to be lived out in the privacy of the marital bedroom, not out in the street, and the purpose is the unity and procreation of the marital union, not a lustful gaze from a passer-by who has been made to think about sex (that is, the choice to engage in any fantasies or reject them was his but the impulse came from the outside).

We should not be tempting others to desire us in inordinate ways, and neither should we even be careless if attention is what we’re looking for (legitimate desire for attention is a weaker argument than temperature, which in turn is a weaker argument than medical necessity when we are weighing the potential consequences of our decision).

 

[severus68]

=lil_flower_luv;8794471]
appropriate*

Debora, I know a little bit about your background since you’ve shared it with us here. You are from Brazil and now live in Florida. You have been around the hot climate for most or all of your life. I can give you the benefit of the doubt since you have not known anything else, but let me just say that a Chasity speaker by the name of Leah Darrow who was a fashion model at one point and had a reversion back to the Catholic Faith, loves the beach and lives on the beach too. Let me explain. Ms. Darrow has fully changed her lifestyle around since her conversion, as I’m sure you can imagine. Her clothing choices have drastically changed along with her lifestyle and she is a modesty advocate too.

I invite you and others to watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=M9M5yv7DoB8

Aren’t you being rather patronising and preaching to Debora? Watched the video, thank you. I have also read what Colleen Hammond has to say. I would not presume to tell them how to live their lives and I do not have to agree with all they say.

Why not? Same kind of people show up at the grocery store.
.

Isn’t it also about intent ?

I suppose that is just your interpretation - not what he truly meant. He was not just talking about externals.

"Nobody wants to be thought of as innocent, the good girl

."

Everyone here is giving his/her opinion.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Please don’t confuse “beautiful” with “sexy”. You are twisting my words in saying I have an issue with women’s desire to be beautiful. The desire to be beautiful is different from the desire to be sexually desired. That latter desire is natural too and is not sinful because it is morally neutral as any desire is. But it needs ordering and it needs restraint. Modesty, among other things, is about exercising restraint in our desire for attention. Any kind of attention but especially the sexual attention.

Very good response.

Her value is not in her clothing. But her clothing should reflect her value.

 

[Debora123]

I invite you and others to watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=M9M5yv7DoB8

I just watched the video. Thank you.

I agree with what the lady said, and I thought she was very attractive. I thought her clothes were perfectly appropriate. I think my clothes are appropriate as well.

However, there are plenty of people out there (traditionalist forum!) who would argue against her clothing being appropriate and would say that she shouldn’t be in tight jeans and heals.

Likewise, there are people here who would argue against MY clothing being appropriate as well.

You can’t really please everyone. I’ve stated earlier on in this thread that I honestly believe (well, I KNOW) that at least 99% of the people within my cultural boundaries would think my clothing to be perfectly appropriate.

I do my best. I know I won’t always please everyone, but I don’t think anyone ever will.

 

[severus68]

Thank you. It’s actually been pretty easy because posters here are actually being quite charitable with me themselves. I think this is probably the most civilized modesty thread I’ve ever seen.

I’ve stated a couple times here on CAF that I’ve actually had a poster on a modesty thread say to me “if you think it’s so hot in Florida, what do you think Hell will be like??”
She said this to me when I told her that wearing shorts and tanks are the norm here in FL because of the climate, and are not seen as immodest. Lol, so yeah, everyone in this thread has been very nice, especially in comparison.

You were told that? charming. Now I recall that thread. Well you are not alone. I have been called a child of Satan and told I was going to hell on one thread. Oh well. I read an article somewhere that people say things on the internet that they would never say face to face. The internet changes people like how driving a car does, lol.

 

[Debora123]

Our dear, holy pontiff was not talking about just any kind of bathing suit. Obviously, the term modest swimwear goes without saying.

What may be modest to me, may be immodest to you. What may be modest to you, may be immodest to someone more conservative than you.

All my bathing suits are completely appropriate/modest here in my beach.

 

[Nate13]

Everyone here is giving his/her opinion.

I don’t think this has ever been about what Debora is wearing. I have no doubt Debora’s judgment on the matter of what to wear is fine, considering the examples she has given.

This discussion has been about how best to present the Churches teaching on modesty, and add clarity behind the parts of the description in the Catechism that are somewhat ambiguous. Most of the arguments have occurred because of small details and we have gone back and forth. It is highly possible that the only reason this disagreement is occurring is because of a combined lack of ability to present our ideas perfectly in text form in the English language, as well as an inability to see past our innate biases that we all have.

 

[Debora123]

That is a valid point and one I have also been trying to make. There’s a difference between a sweater that brings out the lady’s blue eyes, and hot pants that bring out her perceived bedroom potential. For the record, there is nothing wrong with bedroom potential but it’s just supposed to be lived out in the privacy of the marital bedroom, not out in the street, and the purpose is the unity and procreation of the marital union, not a lustful gaze from a passer-by who has been made to think about sex (that is, the choice to engage in any fantasies or reject them was his but the impulse came from the outside).

We should not be tempting others to desire us in inordinate ways, and neither should we even be careless if attention is what we’re looking for (legitimate desire for attention is a weaker argument than temperature, which in turn is a weaker argument than medical necessity when we are weighing the potential consequences of our decision).

…Which is why I specified within the boundaries of what is “appropriate and respectable.”

With that being said, however, I’m not going to be as rash at to completely rule out “hot pants” and brand them with some sort of official immodesty emblem. I’m not quite sure what they are, or what pair of pants would constitute as being “hot pants.”

 

[Debora123]

You were told that? charming. Now I recall that thread. Well you are not alone. I have been called a child of Satan and told I was going to hell on one thread. Oh well. I read an article somewhere that people say things on the internet that they would never say face to face. The internet changes people like how driving a car does, lol.

Yes, haha. The lady who said it got banned though.

You are quite right about the internet bringing out the worst in people sometimes. I try to keep that in mind as well.

 

[Nate13]

I just watched the video. Thank you.

I agree with what the lady said, and I thought she was very attractive. I thought her clothes were perfectly appropriate. I think my clothes are appropriate as well.

However, there are plenty of people out there (traditionalist forum!) who would argue against her clothing being appropriate and would say that she shouldn’t be in tight jeans and heals.

Likewise, there are people here who would argue against MY clothing being appropriate as well.

You can’t really please everyone. I’ve stated earlier on in this thread that I honestly believe (well, I KNOW) that at least 99% of the people within my cultural boundaries would think my clothing to be perfectly appropriate.

I do my best. I know I won’t always please everyone, but I don’t think anyone ever will.

Lol it does not get much more ironic than that, to have people saying a speaker giving a modesty talk is immodest herself. I have seen her give an entire talk, and her story is pretty moving. I will be the last one in line as far as calling her immodest goes, we could all be taking lessons from her

However, I highly doubt you would like me putting words into your mouth on your views on another subject so don’t put words into those “traditionalist” Catholics mouths on how they would see something. I’m one of them and I don’t have that view.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I’ve stated a couple times here on CAF that I’ve actually had a poster on a modesty thread say to me “if you think it’s so hot in Florida, what do you think Hell will be like??”

I’m very sorry you were told that by a Christian, no less. As a Casting Crowns song goes, “They’re trying to get to You, but they’re tripping over me.” I may come on strong sometimes, but please know I only wish to help.

There’s only so much of an impression you can make on a message board.

However, there are plenty of people out there (traditionalist forum!) who would argue against her clothing being appropriate and would say that she shouldn’t be in tight jeans and heals.

Likewise, there are people here who would argue against MY clothing being appropriate as well.

You can’t really please everyone. I’ve stated earlier on in this thread that I honestly believe (well, I KNOW) that at least 99% of the people within my cultural boundaries would think my clothing to be perfectly appropriate.

I do my best. I know I won’t always please everyone, but I don’t think anyone ever will.

Your cultural boundaries and who you are in Christ are two different things. As Ms. Darrow said, we are “walking billboards for Christ” not our culture. So the culture has nothing to do with it.