Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[JimG]

Remember in 1921 skirts that were short enough to show the calves were themselves an innovation, but were nonetheless commonly worn by women. Two decades earlier anything above the ankle would have been socially (let alone religiously) condemned as immodest, scandalous, and doubtless tempting men to lust.

Why is it that in the first two decades of the twentieth century women were permitted to change their dress in accord with the mores of the times and don something that earlier generations would have deemed scandalous, and yet in the 2010s we are not allowed to do the same?

The Flapper Era, with it’s short skirts occurred during the good times of the 1920’s and a rising stock market. During the Depression Era, hemlines fell again. There have in fact, been several attempts over the course of the 20th century to correlate the rise and fall of hemlines with the rise and fall of the stock market. I have my doubts, though, whether it is a leading indicator or simply a concurrent indicator.

If one believes in the dire predictions for the world economy, fashions might face a rather dismal period.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Let me restate but shorten my point that you skipped over.

Control over one’s eyes is comparable to control over one’s mouth.

You don’t provoke and antagonize a person who eats too much, someone who comes over to your house. You instead show caution and charity.

If someone has a temper…you use tact, caution, moderation > modesty with them…you don’t provoke them visually or verbally. You adjust your actions somewhat within reason.

Nice but I’ve seen this comparison before which is why I skipped it. Your false comparisons are an obvious habit.

Clothes = Appearances =/= Actions (Ticking someone off. Saying something offensive. Viewing someone with lust etc.)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I have my doubts, though, whether it is a leading indicator or simply a concurrent indicator.

If one believes in the dire predictions for the world economy, fashions might face a rather dismal period.

…or it could be coincidence.

 

[Debora123]

By way of reply, let me say that irrespective of your motive for wearing a seductive style garment, that does not make it any less a seductive style garment. Moreover, it should be remembered that the mini-skirt, which shamefully flaunts a woman’s legs, owes its origin to one Mary Quant here in the UK. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘sixties swinging’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Women’s Liberation movement. The mini-skirt became a symbol of a woman being able to choose how she wanted to dress and of exercising some power over men, who had supposedly repressed her for so long. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it soon became a powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the dreadful effects of which continue to be felt today. For example, we now have seductive style clothing being manufactured specifically for little girls, including mini-skirts, thus robbing them of their innocence and encouraging them to grow up into adulthood much quicker. Alas, this is where our sexually permissive society is taking us and only God knows where it will all end.

This is it. THIS is the problem right here. You take an article of clothing that is completely basic and proper in this culture, and YOU deem it “shameful,” “immodest” and “scandalous.”

With all do respect, but who are YOU to make such claim? God? The Catholic Church? The Pope???

Please, get over yourself… and your judgmental, prideful and demeaning mentality towards people with different “fashion” standards than you.

Aside from its blatant indecency, why would any Catholic woman worth her salt wish to wear a garment that has contributed to the moral decadence with which we are now surrounded everywhere in the Western world?

Contributed to the moral decadence???

Let me ask you something, portrait,

Do you think women should still dress like this?



…Because back in the day, anything LESS than this on a women was considered scandalous. Men used to get aroused simply by catching a glimpse of a women’s ankles!

So do you think the transition from the above outfit to something that showed some ankles was a great evil happening? Because it was these same types of “transitions” that brought about the mini skirt - and everything else we have today. Any new style that shows more skin than what was used to is considered scandalous at the time, but that is how fashions change - otherwise, heaven forbid, women would still be walking around wearing what is shown in that picture, and men would still be going crazy over a pair of ankles.

The point is it ISN’T considered scandalous anymore. I highly doubt you think a women’s arms or ankles are scandalous.

Which proves this next point to be true…

… there is no set, universal standard of modesty. It changes with the culture, and what is appropriate at the time.

Now to answer your question, why would a Catholic woman (me) wear a mini skirt? I wear mini skirts because I think they look nice on me and because they are very refreshing to wear on a hot Florida day.

Regardless of what you think, there is nothing scandalous about legs here in the 21st century of the Western World. And that is a FACT. Our human bodies in themselves are not scandalous or indecent - it is what *our culture deems indecent that makes certain exposed body parts indecent. *

catechism 2524
The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.

…Which is exactly why a lot of women in indigenous tribes walk around topless all day and the men in those tribes don’t bat an eye. Because breasts aren’t considered a private part in THEIR culture, just as legs are not considered a private part in OUR culture.

 

[jobelorocks]

So true.

This is it. THIS is the problem right here. You take an article of clothing that is completely basic and proper in this culture, and YOU deem it “shameful,” “immodest” and “scandalous.”

With all do respect, but who are YOU to make such claim? God? The Catholic Church? The Pope???

Please, get over yourself… and your judgmental, prideful and demeaning mentality towards people with different “fashion” standards than you.

Contributed to the moral decadence???

Let me ask you something, portrait,

Do you think women should still dress like this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pofpa7CZ-Vg/SNbuJlH6OMI/AAAAAAAACwQ/_LwwaBnIk0Q/s400/1850gown1.jpg

…Because back in the day, anything LESS than this on a women was considered scandalous. Men used to get aroused simply by catching a glimpse of a women’s ankles!

So do you think the transition from the above outfit to something that showed some ankles was a great evil happening? Because it was these same types of “transitions” that brought about the mini skirt - and everything else we have today. Any new style that shows more skin than what was used to is considered scandalous at the time, but that is how fashions change - otherwise, heaven forbid, women would still be walking around wearing what is shown in that picture, and men would still be going crazy over a pair of ankles.

The point is it ISN’T considered scandalous anymore. I highly doubt you think a women’s arms or ankles are scandalous.

Which proves this next point to be true…

… there is no set, universal standard of modesty. It changes with the culture, and what is appropriate at the time.

Now to answer your question, why would a Catholic woman (me) wear a mini skirt? I wear mini skirts because I think they look nice on me and because they are very refreshing to wear on a hot Florida day.

Regardless of what you think, there is nothing scandalous about legs here in the 21st century of the Western World. And that is a FACT. Our human bodies in themselves are not scandalous or indecent - it is what *our culture deems indecent that makes certain exposed body parts indecent. *

…Which is exactly why a lot of women in indigenous tribes walk around topless all day and the men in those tribes don’t bat an eye. Because breasts aren’t considered a private part in THEIR culture, just as legs are not considered a private part in OUR culture.

 

[Debora123]

Remember in 1921 skirts that were short enough to show the calves were themselves an innovation, but were nonetheless commonly worn by women. Two decades earlier anything above the ankle would have been socially (let alone religiously) condemned as immodest, scandalous, and doubtless tempting men to lust.

Why is it that in the first two decades of the twentieth century women were permitted to change their dress in accord with the mores of the times and don something that earlier generations would have deemed scandalous, and yet in the 2010s we are not allowed to do the same?

My questions exactly…

 

[Debora123]

I guess that’s our cue not to waste our times.

Now what was this about pants??

 

[Catholic41506]

Why not walk around naked? Society continues to tell us that less clothes are better, to hell with what the Church says.
Why not start having sex outside of marriage. Sex is fun and it doesn’t matter what my wife says, she’s responsible for her own thoughts and feelings, not me. It doesn’t matter what I do as long as I AM HAPPY. ME, ME, ME. What I want, not what Christ wants or what His Church tells me, it is what makes me happy.

Trying to shop at Wal Mart tonight with my six year old son and having to constantly shield his eyes from the women who feel it is their right to flaunt their flesh however they want too.
I am done being charitable. Trash walks around showing their goodies, not a lady. God bless my wife, walking in the 80 degree heat with a full length skirt, long sleaves and a snood. That is a woman!

(BTW, in case you accuse the men of taking it easy, all the men in the family wear dress pants and polo shirts when exiting the home.)

 

[Catholic41506]

and she is pregnant to boot.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Trying to shop at Wal Mart tonight with my six year old son and having to constantly shield his eyes from the women who feel it is their right to flaunt their flesh however they want too.
I am done being charitable. Trash walks around showing their goodies, not a lady. God bless my wife, walking in the 80 degree heat with a full length skirt, long sleaves and a snood. That is a woman!

Ladies and gentleman, I give you the Catholic version of Shallow Hal.

 

[jobelorocks]

Society dictates what is modest and immodest. You are going too far with this. By the way 80 isn’t hot. try 100+, that is hot… if you are wearing a long skirt and long sleeve shirt, you pass out. Plus a gentleman does not talk that way about anyone. They are people. One question, long sleeve polo shirts? If it isn’t okay for a woman to show her arms, then it isn’t okay for males either.

Why not walk around naked? Society continues to tell us that less clothes are better, to hell with what the Church says.
Why not start having sex outside of marriage. Sex is fun and it doesn’t matter what my wife says, she’s responsible for her own thoughts and feelings, not me. It doesn’t matter what I do as long as I AM HAPPY. ME, ME, ME. What I want, not what Christ wants or what His Church tells me, it is what makes me happy.

Trying to shop at Wal Mart tonight with my six year old son and having to constantly shield his eyes from the women who feel it is their right to flaunt their flesh however they want too.
I am done being charitable. Trash walks around showing their goodies, not a lady. God bless my wife, walking in the 80 degree heat with a full length skirt, long sleaves and a snood. That is a woman!

(BTW, in case you accuse the men of taking it easy, all the men in the family wear dress pants and polo shirts when exiting the home.)

 

[Catholic41506]

Society dictates what is modest and immodest. You are going too far with this. By the way 80 isn’t hot. try 100+, that is hot… if you are wearing a long skirt and long sleeve shirt, you pass out. Plus a gentleman does not talk that way about anyone. They are people. One question, long sleeve polo shirts? If it isn’t okay for a woman to show her arms, then it isn’t okay for males either.

She chooses the long sleeves, not me. She brought us into conformity with a modest dress code, not myself.

The truth hurts, it always has.

 

[Catholic41506]

and what gives women the right to corrupt my children by their immodest dress? A six year old doesn’t need to know every nook and cranny of the female body at that age.

 

[jobelorocks]

You are talking about people as if they are worth nothing. Even Jesus forgave and showed love to a prostitute, an adulteress, ect. How are we ever going to reach people for Christ if we strip them of all of their value because of the way they dress. It is hard for people to be interested in entering the Catholic church when they do not see the love of Christ in his followers. You are being way harsh and degrading.

She chooses the long sleeves, not me. She brought us into conformity with a modest dress code, not myself.

The truth hurts, it always has.

 

[severus68]

So you’ve never ever modified your approach with people based on your read of the larger picture.

Never. Right!

You’re a closet collectivist.

I know you were not addressing this to me but I would like to say that I would accomodate and modify my approach to an obviously insane person. All men are not insane and have to take responsibilty for themselves.

In some jurisdictions, a limited/partial defence to a crime is that of “irresistable impulse”. The criteria for that partial defence are very specific.

No, no and no. No man should get away, even partly, by saying he could not help it.

 

[jobelorocks]

I hope you don’t talk about people in the manner you did earlier in front of your 6 year old. They shouldn’t hear people being degraded, no matter who they are or how they dress. It is an unfortunate side-effect to life in seeing that. It does not mean we tear other people down.

and what gives women the right to corrupt my children by their immodest dress? A six year old doesn’t need to know every nook and cranny of the female body at that age.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

and what gives women the right to corrupt my children by their immodest dress? A six year old doesn’t need to know every nook and cranny of the female body at that age.

Tell that to my ancestors.

 

[Catholic41506]

I hope you don’t talk about people in the manner you did earlier in front of your 6 year old. They shouldn’t hear people being degraded, no matter who they are or how they dress. It is an unfortunate side-effect to life in seeing that. It does not mean we tear other people down.

No, I don’t verbalized my anger with my bretheran in front of my child. He knows it is wrong, I don’t have to tell him that.
Telling someone they are not dressed appropriatly isn’t tearing someone down, it is saving their soul.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Telling someone they are not dressed appropriatly isn’t tearing someone down, it is saving their soul.

Had God not chastised Samuel for thinking as you did, David would not have been anointed.
Had the French continued thinking like you towards St. Joan, I’d shudder to think what the English would’ve done.

 

[Catholic41506]

Had God not chastised Samuel for thinking as you did, David would not have been anointed.
Had the French continued thinking like you towards St. Joan, I’d shudder to think what the English would’ve done.

Different circumstances and different time. You don’t have children, do you?