Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Portrait]

Show me where this is ever expressed by God through Scripture or the Church. Quite frankly, I’m not concerned with bare-bones logic but theology. I can give you 1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire. Sounds like you’re arguing against the word of God to me.

Dear Mark David,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Not only do some arrogantly rebel and argue against Sacred Scripture, but they spare no effort in employing any amount of sophistry and fallacious reasoning to justify the wearing of indecent apparel. This, as I have previously contended, is proof if it were needed of the seismic shift in opinion among Catholics since the moral and cultural revolution of the Sixties. As this current thread evinces all too clearly, many neo-Catholic orthodox types have abandoned thinking with an authentic Christian mind upon such issues as modesty in vesture and the need for a proper reserve. On the contrary, there is every indication that they have adopted the debased standards and styles of the world. In defence, it is often said with passive resignation that fashions merely represent current tastes and are hence not ‘unseemly’ by current standards - even if those lowered standards emerge out of moral/cultural deterioration! Now, if that is not a glaring example of warped un-Catholic thinking then, quite frankly, I do not know what is. Fashions express the decision and moral direction that a particular nation intends to take; either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilisation. We know, I think, which direction we have taken here in the West, but what is shocking is just how many professing Catholics have also jumped on the bandwagon and warmly embraced this new and godless direction, especially since Vatican II. Had they zealously adhered to traditional and modest clothing they would have surely have had a positive, moralizing effect upon the pagan world around them. By so doing they might have gone some way, perhaps a long way, in reversing the damage of the moral and cultural revolution and restoring Christian civilisation to its rightful place. What a missed opportunity!

Regarding the the Timothy text, yes, the words are quite clear and unambiguous: “Women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9). It should be observed that the word ‘modesty’ here denotes a sense of shame and a devout recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety. Therefore, it is manifestly self-evident that a woman’s attire should be expressive of an interior modesty and a sober outlook upon life. In other words an authentic Catholic outlook that is thoroughly consistent with taste and decency. It is as basic as that. Now if words mean anything at all, it is obvious that such seductive style garments as mini-skirts, bikinis, tight-fitting clothing that accentuates body parts and low-cut tops revealing cleavage, hardly measure up and pass St. Paul’s strict standards for dress. Clearly, such indecent clothing as that mentioned offends any devout man, but, more importantly, it offends God. Why are some defending such unseely garb in the light of the biblical prohibition against it? An appeal to the Catechism is of no avail, for whatever the prevailing cultural considerations (which may and often do simply reflect moral declension), we are still warned to “resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies” and are distinctly told that “Modesty is decency. It is inspires ones choice of clothing” (paras. 2523).

God bless, dear friend

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mark_David]

On the contrary, there is every indication that they have adopted the debased standards and styles of the world. In defence, it is often said with passive resignation that fashions merely represent current tastes and are hence not ‘unseemly’ by current standards - even if those lowered standards emerge out of moral/cultural deterioration!

That’s the impression I get as well - that’s why it’s a blurry issue for them; it’s social pressure more than anything else. But modesty is modesty. Yes - it may be necessary to wear less in the Amazon Jungle due to the frequent humidity… but there’s no confusion about women wearing low-cut clothing in Canada. Similarly, a swimsuit may be appropriate at the beach, but not something akin to it in commercial or residential areas.

God bless you too.

 

[Debora123]

**Originally Posted by Debora123 **

What’s this supposed to mean? We are talking here in reference to THIS thread, and the people within THIS thread making judgements and assumptions on other based on what they are wearing.

Originally Posted by Debora123

1. who is responsible for men lusting
   Depends on the scenario. Give us one and then maybe we’ll see.

Depending on the scenario? So are you telling me that in some scenarios, men are not responsible for their own lust?

Originally Posted by Debora123

1. what constitutes as modest/immodest clothing, and who decides
   God? The Church?
   2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love… Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.
   2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law…

Sgh…

You still don’t understand. But that’s good that I know that now, so I can explain something that I’ve already explain 9 million times on this thread. Let me break it down for you:

Ok, so the catechism quotes above that yes, modesty is important, and protects dignity, and yadda yadda yadda… no one here, let me repeat NO ONE here condones immodest clothes. What we are arguing about is WHAT is considered modest/immodest. Because as we all know, there is no Universal, Church based standard of modesty.

For example. There is no Catholic rule saying “modesty means having the knees covered up at all times, making sure sleeves come down to the elbow, neck line must cover collar bones, etc etc…”

Rather, the Church teaches that modest varies from culture to culture:

Catechism section 2524 - The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.

Which makes sense, because in some cultures, women walk around completely topless, and yet it is not immodest bc it is their cultural norm. While a few dozen years ago, it was considered immodest to show an ankle bc the cultural norm was to have long dresses that covered almost every inch of a women.

See? Modesty changes depending on cultural norms… and on time and place. The Church has no universal standard of what is modest.

The JPII talks about it in his book:

Pope John Paul II -------in Love and Responsibility:

While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. **If then we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. 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.

 

[Mark_David]

Depending on the scenario? So are you telling me that in some scenarios, men are not responsible for their own lust?

No, but women are being irresponsible when they dress provocatively in public, especially around less disciplined men.

What we are arguing about is WHAT is considered modest/immodest. Because as we all know, there is no Universal, Church based standard of modesty.

No, there are standards - intuition alone should dictate them to the enlightened Catholic, so I don’t know why there’s any argument here to begin with. This isn’t some Great Mystery; it’s fairly simple stuff. At least if we’re not appealing to the standards of Britney Spears or Katy Perry. Are you?

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.

I wasn’t even aware of this comment by JPII, but I literally paraphrased it earlier. Again, I have no idea what there is to argue about here. Perhaps you should be clearer and more concrete. If it’s only about the psychology behind why a person dresses a certain way, or why a person judges another according to how they dress, which is not what I’m arguing (and isn’t the topic headline), then why are you responding to my posts to begin with?

 

[severus68]

What does it matter when something is objectively wrong. Sexuality, on the whole, is something reserved for the married - not for public display or anything else. Her (or his) reason

My question is whether you consider those who disagee with you to be loose or have loose values. Are you saying yes?

 

[Young_Thinker]

It is my hope and personal beliefs that most women do behave morally decent.
Sadly; its the few women that don’t behave morally that societal media blows out proportion which in turn has most of society believing the worst about women.

While I might not be as optimistic as you are regarding contemporary female behavior. To me, it seems that many men and women who engage in erotic immorality are otherwise good people (i.e. think of all the scandal-ridden actors who who play the part of humanitarian in real life). But to say that most ladies in our society do not live with men or lose their virginity before marriage would be an overstatement in my opinion. I have encountered enough of women who have behaved like that to believe that women in general display irreproachable character.

Naturally the first to criticize women due to the excesses of societal media are men.
If we men are honest enough to criticize our own gender, a good place to start is to look at our overwhelming prison populations globally.

Indeed. As men, we often preach without taking the rods of out of our own eyes. However, someone must be willing to recognize and fight against all of the decadence in today’s world, which resolves around the attititudes and behavior of both men and women. The media is largely to blame, though not exclusively. We must not think that the free will of the individual is totally non-existent.

 

[Mark_David]

My question is whether you consider those who disagee with you to be loose or have loose values. Are you saying yes?

I’m saying, it’s an indication of that - though not a certainty.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Please ponder prayerfully, what Pope Benedict XV said in more sober and God fearing times when the wearing of immodest apparel was not tolerated by our Church:

"One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by the desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would have formerly blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one recieves the heavenly author of purity (Sacra Propediem, 1921).

These words could well have been spoken to our own generation, for they have certainly not ceased to be relevant in our own morally degenerate age. If they are sneeringly dismissed as belonging to a different and remote world with very different standards of decency, then we would retort by saying that yes, indeed, they belong to an age which had the good fortune not to have experienced the moral and cultural revolution of the Sixties. It was from these morally permissive times that the mini-skirt emerged, that tarty garment which has undeniably contributed to the rising tide of immorality and mortal sin. To say nothing of its association with the anti-Christian Women’s Liberation movement and its very skewed and wrongheaded notions regarding the supposed empowerment of women.

Beloved, I fear that far too many Catholics nowadays are becoming virtually indistinguishable from their pagan neighbours, so much have they been absorbed and contaminated by the godless non-Christian culture and its many impurities. Instead of being the ‘salt of the earth’ we have, alas, become saltless salt that is useless and might as well be discarded and trodden under foot by men. This thread makes for very sad reading and it does rather seem that far from being saviours of society, some Catholics are supplying materials for footpaths.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mark_David]

Apart from a few other posts, this thread is a lost cause. The line between modesty and immodesty isn’t blurred by God; modesty is both clearly taught in Scripture and by the Church, and also a matter of common sense. Any argument to the contrary is wrong and very suspect. You can try to blur the line if you like, and dance all around the topic and play the philosopher - but none of it will change God’s objective reality of what modesty is. That’s my final statement on this thread.

 

[Portrait]

Apart from a few other posts, this thread is a lost cause. The line between modesty and immodesty isn’t blurred by God; modesty is both clearly taught in Scripture and by the Church, and also a matter of common sense. Any argument to the contrary is wrong and very suspect. You can try to blur the line if you like, and dance all around the topic and play the philosopher - but none of it will change God’s objective reality of what modesty is. That’s my final statement on this thread.

Dear Mark David,

Thankyou for your contributions to this thread, which I have appreciated.

A hearty Amen to your remarks above. My sentiments entirely, old chap.

Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[MissRose73]

Men should show respect for women and vice versa. I am not fond of those who say its all on women to watch what they wear. I believe its a 2 way street for each gender to show the other respect.

Yes, there are places and time where being modest is necessary and required. In my opinion those places are: business offices/most of places of work, places of worship, funeral homes, and certain special occasions/gatherings of family/friends where a party/formal outfit would look out of place.

Each item of clothing in our wardrobe does have purpose and a place. I would never wear a bathing suit with a short cover up dress to Mass, it is not the place but it is appropriate for a pool, beach, water park, or other body of water. I would wear a nice shirt that is not revealing, dress pants that aren’t tight, and dress shoes to the office and to Mass but not to the beach.

 

[severus68]

Enjoyed that video, thanks. Adding a line to the song “Some judge a book and its cover when they can’t read”.

 

[Catholic41506]

Apart from a few other posts, this thread is a lost cause. The line between modesty and immodesty isn’t blurred by God; modesty is both clearly taught in Scripture and by the Church, and also a matter of common sense. Any argument to the contrary is wrong and very suspect. You can try to blur the line if you like, and dance all around the topic and play the philosopher - but none of it will change God’s objective reality of what modesty is. That’s my final statement on this thread.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not arguing that people who dress immodestly are evil people or loose women.

If we dress in a way that is worldly (and yes I know that is subject to definition), then we are not being good witnesses.

The verse actually translates to a universal proverb: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”

It applies to everyone. Christian or not.

How about you stop being so derisive and referring to people as “the Party of Modesty”?

I’m derisive of people who judge others by their looks. If you have a problem with that, you can either come to their defense (at the risk of your integrity) or stop being like every other member of the Party and getting all riled over a label I simply use for the sake of a speedy discussion.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This has no bearing whatsoever on immodest dressing. It is never condoned in the Bible - only condemned.

It has every bearing against judging by appearances which is the very measure that the Party of Modesty holds dear.

Do no deny it. All you people do is place moral evaluation on something as superficial as clothing. Worst of all, the Party of Modesty thinks that our Lord, who sees past appearances, has the same shallow mindset as them.

If anything, your verse is only figurative with those wearing costly garments representative of, not immodest attire, but those extravagant with their looks and are as shallow as the Party because they think looks are everything.

 

[Walking_Home]

Apart from a few other posts, this thread is a lost cause. The line between modesty and immodesty isn’t blurred by God; modesty is both clearly taught in Scripture and by the Church, and also a matter of common sense. Any argument to the contrary is wrong and very suspect. You can try to blur the line if you like, and dance all around the topic and play the philosopher - but none of it will change God’s objective reality of what modesty is. That’s my final statement on this thread.

---

The “line” to some is not less than skirts to the ankles/ sleeves to the wrist/ covered up to the throat—even a snood. A few place the “line” at obliterating the female form altogether under layers of long loose clothing. Others the “line” is at mid-calf/ 3/4 sleeves/ a couple of inches from the throat. To others the “line” is knee length/ short sleeves/ a few inches from the hollow of the throat. Now —there are also the “sola skirtura/no pants” --which can fall within any of the above.

So really – where is this “objective reality” of modesty --when the modesty pushers are doing their own blurring and dancing.

 

[Walking_Home]

It has every bearing against judging by appearances which is the very measure that the Party of Modesty holds dear.

Do no deny it. All you people do is place moral evaluation on something as superficial as clothing. Worst of all, the Party of Modesty thinks that our Lord, who sees past appearances, has the same shallow mindset as them.

If anything, your verse is only figurative with those wearing costly garments representative of, not immodest attire, but those extravagant with their looks and are as shallow as the Party because they think looks are everything.

---

 

[Edward_H]

There aren’t just two sides to this argument. There are maybe 2 poles, with lots of room in between, and then there is God’s will for us.

When we forget God’s will, most of these debates turn into tug of war.

We should all be struggling, personally - not with each other, but with our own defects, weaknesses, gaps, proclivities that have developed over the years to understand God’s will in our own personal life. Sometimes what gets in the way of unity with God’s will is our indifference, our vanity, our pride, our laziness, our temporal desires, etc.

The Catholic Church tells us this struggle toward unity with God - toward true holiness - is a life long task and requires effort, and humility, and beginning again. It requires the development of an interior life, fueled by prayer and the Sacraments, and other wonderful things our Catholic Church has given us, like a spirit of sacrifice, Scriptural reading, etc.

Again, when we see just “two sides”…we need to remember the shape of the Cross and the vertical and horizontal directions its shape reminds us to consider in our daily life of choices.

 

[Debora123]

Well she couldn’t wear a fur coat, could she?

The basic argument here is that what constitutes “modest dressing” is blurry - and I’m saying, it isn’t.

Nope, she could not wear fur, or clothes.

There is no blurriness. There is nothing immodest about wearing a bikini to the beach.

 

[Debora123]

It’s not about being a bad thing, but it has its place.

And what is “it’s place?”

Sounds like a paraphilia, so that doesn’t help

Sounds like you don’t have a better argument and so you resort to making jokes.