Thought on modesty

[Dan_Daly]

This is a followup thought to several recent modesty related threads.

Modesty isn’t just about covering up skin. Modesty isn’t just about protection from sexual temptation and sin. Yes, those things are part of modesty, but they are not all that it is. Modesty is being true to who you are. A layman who goes out dressed as a Priest, would be commiting and act of extreme immodesty, all while being dressed in a very non-revealing manner.

I think this is the missing connection when faithful Catholics completely miss what others are saying about pants. We know men should dress as men and women should dress as women. I think most people on here would agree that a man going around town in a dress was immodest. But we have a great divide on pants for women. Why? Because our culture has effectively eliminated clothing that is particular to men. But the question is can adoption of a new cultural norm eliminate a sin? In San Francisco, perhaps it may be culturall acceptable for a man to wear a dress. Does that mean it’s a sin in Ohio but not in San Fran? No. Just the same we should not have a myopic view of how we define our culture. 50 years do not a culture make. If we go back beyond that we see that our culture quite clearly thought trousers were for men and dresses/skirts were for women. This distinction was partially taken away during the so-called sexual revolution, which also swept in widespread acceptance of contraception, adultery, abortion, and divorce. Is wearing pants equivalent to those things? Absolutely not. But the point of divergence in our culture wear they come from is the same. So we should think carefully before justifying behavior because it is the social norm. As “same sex unions” continue to gain legal status and cultural acceptance, will sodomy cease being a sin? No.

Modesty isn’t just about tight or revealing clothes. It isn’t even just about clothes. It is about keeping ourselves internally and externally true to who God has made us to be.

Pax.

 

[Crumpy]

I haven’t followed the threads on modesty, so I cannot comment strictly on any misconceptions that Catholic may have.

I suppose I have seen a couple threads about appropriate attire in church, but really the same ethic applies to clothing anyplace, and for the same reasons, too, no?

Right, it goes beyond the idea of how much flesh is exposed, and it also gets into the whole idea of being overdressed in church and perhaps even showing off and competing with other people. It’s not just clothing, but jewelry and hair styles, too.

In the Psalms, in two places, it says “worship the LORD in holy attire.”

 

[Cran]

The ring is free for the next round in the wrestling match between “No Pants for Women!” And “Pants for women”!

Ladies and gentlemen, enjoy the show and don’t forget your popcorn.

 

[ibo]

The ring is free for the next round in the wrestling match between “No Pants for Women!” And “Pants for women”!

Ladies and gentlemen, enjoy the show and don’t forget your popcorn.

Hey, what a sexual discrimination !!!
What about Scottish Kilts for men?
I would not dare suggest skirts for men ?
Did I says skirts for men?
In all SouthEast Asia, men wear batik and my students in East-Timor would say it was much cooler! Shame on me! I did not dare to try!

 

[Sherry_G]

Cultural shifts are like water dripping on stone. A little bit at a time, almost imperceptibly eroding our moral values. The “norm” for women is now to show a tittilating amount of cleavage or more, anywhere and everywhere. We did not suddently wake up one day and this occurred. So, as an older woman, I recall the first pair of pants I got to wear…under my uniform skirt to school on a day with below zero temperatures. Once at school, I hurried to quickly remove the pants and put them in a bag under my desk. That was in approximately 1954, in the Midwest. Girls absolutely did NOT wear pants in my part of the midwest at that time. The barriers move ever so slowly, as this example illustrates. By the time I was in highschool in the 60’s, my gym uniform had sleeves down to the elbow, with flaps so I could raise my arms to play volleyball or basketball, and bloomers under a skirt which also came down to my knees, with flaps so I could move quickly. Girls rules basketball stated that a girl could “run” only three steps, then stop and shoot or pass. To run fult tilt would have been an outrage for a young lady!. I’m just sayin…like water dripping on stone. Almost imperceptibly, things change just the tinest bit. Sort of like a snail moving along, hardly noticed at all. Then one day, he’s gone. He moved so far we can’t find him anymore. I am still modest in dress and action, but I’m considered a “Prude”. I like that in a person!

 

[music2]

Hey, what a sexual discrimination !!!
What about Scottish Kilts for men?
I would not dare suggest skirts for men ?
Did I says skirts for men?
In all SouthEast Asia, men wear batik and my students in East-Timor would say it was much cooler! Shame on me! I did not dare to try!

And Samoan men skirts

OP-Perhaps it could be the context.Not all here are American.I’m not aware of San Francisco culture but i hear it is a largely gay friendly population(?) so if assuming if SanFrancisan men were wearing skirts with purpose to get rid of male/female gender differences or trying to send some sort of message that they believe that gender shouldn’t matter or whatever-then this would be a different context then other places/countries where men wear skirts/skirtlike.
Eg:look at Spartacus with Kirk Douglas,and Gladiator with Russell Crowe,or Scots in kilts for example,they wear skirtlike clothes but arn’t in noway feminine or doing it for “gender distorting purposes”.
Same likewise for women.Majority of women who wear pants arn’t doing it for “gender distortign purposes”.There’s a few exceptions-KD Lang comes to the top of my mind.

 

[karebear92]

But the point of divergence in our culture wear they come from is the same. So we should think carefully before justifying behavior because it is the social norm. As “same sex unions” continue to gain legal status and cultural acceptance, will sodomy cease being a sin? No.

Modesty isn’t just about tight or revealing clothes. It isn’t even just about clothes. It is about keeping ourselves internally and externally true to who God has made us to be.

Pax.

I agree with wearing dresses and skirts to mass, but I don’t think that we should be required to wear them at all times. It is not the sinfulness of immodesty that has changed, but immodesty has changed.

I will admit, I do not wear a dress everyday, but that is not because I am not true to my femininity. A dress is just clothing. It is also cultural. Modesty in America is much different than modesty in Iran, so if you expect it not to change based on social preference, well, we have a long way to go. If you expect modesty not to change from fifty years ago why change from 400 or even 2,000 years ago? I guess we will all have to go back to wearing robes…

Abortion and sodomy can not change based on social circumstance because they are directly offensive to God. I sincerely hope that God does not feel offended when I wear pants.

 

[starsmurf]

This is a followup thought to several recent modesty related threads.

Modesty isn’t just about covering up skin. Modesty isn’t just about protection from sexual temptation and sin. Yes, those things are part of modesty, but they are not all that it is. Modesty is being true to who you are. A layman who goes out dressed as a Priest, would be commiting and act of extreme immodesty, all while being dressed in a very non-revealing manner.

I think this is the missing connection when faithful Catholics completely miss what others are saying about pants. We know men should dress as men and women should dress as women. I think most people on here would agree that a man going around town in a dress was immodest. But we have a great divide on pants for women. Why? Because our culture has effectively eliminated clothing that is particular to men. But the question is can adoption of a new cultural norm eliminate a sin? In San Francisco, perhaps it may be culturall acceptable for a man to wear a dress. Does that mean it’s a sin in Ohio but not in San Fran? No. Just the same we should not have a myopic view of how we define our culture. 50 years do not a culture make. If we go back beyond that we see that our culture quite clearly thought trousers were for men and dresses/skirts were for women. This distinction was partially taken away during the so-called sexual revolution, which also swept in widespread acceptance of contraception, adultery, abortion, and divorce. Is wearing pants equivalent to those things? Absolutely not. But the point of divergence in our culture wear they come from is the same. So we should think carefully before justifying behavior because it is the social norm. As “same sex unions” continue to gain legal status and cultural acceptance, will sodomy cease being a sin? No.

Modesty isn’t just about tight or revealing clothes. It isn’t even just about clothes. It is about keeping ourselves internally and externally true to who God has made us to be.

Pax.

In **MY **culture, Scottish - which a huge influence on US culture, men wear kilts which are not skirts. But to the untrained eye it can look like men and women attending a wedding, say, are wearing the same type of clothing. Stop getting so tied up over how women dress/behave/think. Women are not different to men, even St Paul says so. Women wearing trousers/pants has been acceptable for over 80 years. It is not immodest. And modesty is for men too, I’ve seen women dressed modestly while the men were in t-shirts, shorts and sandals. Not appropriate for Chruch.

I thought the religion that is supposed to get all tied about about female dress/behaviour was Islam…

 

[starsmurf]

And don’t start a thread entitled “No Pants for women”. In most of the UK, pants describes a different article of clothing, you would attract some rather “strange” types…

 

[music2]

To give you an idea about how different cultures are different-I’ve lived in Australia for all of my life and not on even one of those days/all my years have i ever heard anyone talk about or suggest that women shouldn’t wear pants or take issue with it.
It was only when i started to look online at American Christian websites did i see people taking about this.

 

[MarisaJean]

Maybe my thoughts are different. We all go to mass on Sunday and we go God’s house, right? I think we need to dress appropriate…period. God doesn’t love us if we have skirts, dresses, pants, or shorts on. He loves us because we came to his house. I think we all know we shouldn’t walk in with a tight red dress with 4 inch heals that leave nothing else to imagine!!! It’s common sense. I think we are all missing the big picture here. It doesn’t matter what you wear, it’s that you are there is what counts in Gods eyes.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

So it’s a sin for a woman to wear pants to Mass? My oh my…who made that up? Because it’s certainly nothing I have heard the leadership of the church say… So Jesus wore pants?

 

[CB_Catholic]

This is a followup thought to several recent modesty related threads.

Modesty isn’t just about covering up skin. Modesty isn’t just about protection from sexual temptation and sin. Yes, those things are part of modesty, but they are not all that it is. Modesty is being true to who you are. A layman who goes out dressed as a Priest, would be commiting and act of extreme immodesty, all while being dressed in a very non-revealing manner.

I think this is the missing connection when faithful Catholics completely miss what others are saying about pants. We know men should dress as men and women should dress as women. I think most people on here would agree that a man going around town in a dress was immodest. But we have a great divide on pants for women. Why? Because our culture has effectively eliminated clothing that is particular to men. But the question is can adoption of a new cultural norm eliminate a sin? In San Francisco, perhaps it may be culturall acceptable for a man to wear a dress. Does that mean it’s a sin in Ohio but not in San Fran? No. Just the same we should not have a myopic view of how we define our culture. 50 years do not a culture make. If we go back beyond that we see that our culture quite clearly thought trousers were for men and dresses/skirts were for women. This distinction was partially taken away during the so-called sexual revolution, which also swept in widespread acceptance of contraception, adultery, abortion, and divorce. Is wearing pants equivalent to those things? Absolutely not. But the point of divergence in our culture wear they come from is the same. So we should think carefully before justifying behavior because it is the social norm. As “same sex unions” continue to gain legal status and cultural acceptance, will sodomy cease being a sin? No.

Modesty isn’t just about tight or revealing clothes. It isn’t even just about clothes. It is about keeping ourselves internally and externally true to who God has made us to be.

Pax.

God made us externally naked. What are you talking about?