Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right…to the extent that there’s poor or no interior life, we are buffeted about in our choices by the world.

To not actively struggle and regularly struggle to rectify our intention so that it is oriented on God runs the risk that we will “be motivated in party [or whole] by culture and incidental circumstances.”

Living a life in union with God “is very hard”, yes.

Go against the grain of the world daily, and seek to please only God. These are good guides to follow.
 
You have appealed to your husband. Mine is amazed that we are even having a debate; he remembers only too well practically every young man he ever knew! They love to look at immodestly-dressed young women. When they can, they will vie with each other to demonstrate lust the most openly (“Charlie’s Angels” being my husband’s specific memory). But this is common knowledge.
There could be a couple possibilities here.

possibility #1: Men do sit and talk about beautiful women who walk by, and they enjoy seeing a nice figure. Anything wrong with that? No. Once again, this is not lust. Just because your husband over hears men talking about an attractive women’s “hotness” doesn’t necessarily mean they are lusting.

…You used the term “immodest clothes.” Once again, we have acknowledged that the church has no set standard of modesty. So when you say immodest, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you referring to culture’s definition of immodesty, or are you referring to yours? Are you talking about a basic pair of shorts with a tank top on a hot day? (lets call it outfit #1). Or are you talking about a shirt that shows 1/2 of the women’s breasts and shorts that may as well be a thong? (lets call this outfit #2). Here in America, outfit #2 is immodest, while outfit#1 is not. Which leads me too…

possibility #2: Those men really were truly lusting over outfit #1 (not just admiring). IF that’s the case then they need to look at their own perversions, because there is no excuse for allowing yourself to get all lusty over regular clothing. They need to look inside their own hearts, because if that’s how perverted they are, covering up more isn’t going to make them into more pure men.

possibility #3: Those men really were truly lusting over outfit #2 (not just admiring). In which case I have nothing to say, because those types of clothes ARE immodest and I don’t condone immodest clothes. Of course, I still think those men are 100% responsible for their actions and they need to grow up, but that’s beside the point I’m trying to make here.
 
This alone should help to eliminate clothing such as the minishirt and others similar to it, since it reveals some much of the person to anyone who is willing to look.
No it does not. Where is your logical proof that the phrase “that what should remain hidden” refers to body parts? I for one don’t see anything special about body parts. It’s man’s shallow tendencies that see something special. Does the shape of your leg reveal your personal life? Does a small chest express insecurity?

Following this line of thinking, one can easily see that it will inevitably lead to ridiculously obscure questions like:

Does wearing black leather mean you are evil?
Does wearing a hood means you’re up to something?
Is the McDonald’s sign a subtle symbol of the Masons?

Yes, appearances can be very revealing about a person indeed. :rolleyes:
Modesty is all about having the common decency not to incite and tempt other people’s weaknesses. One tempers their dress so as not to invoke lust. One tempers their speech so as not to invoke anger. Our Lord spoke unequivocally about a persons ultimate responsibility to control their own lust and anger. He talked about the absolute requirement to address these “thought crimes” with the promise of hell if not taken seriously. But what about those who incite and tempt other people’s weaknesses?
You’re comparing apples to oranges and no, decency does not necessarily mean tempting people’s weaknesses. My dictionary does not suggest any of the sort when defining immodesty.

Words are within the realm of personal responsibility because they are not as easily misinterpreted (however, as a writer I’ve still seen many times where this may not be the case so either way, you’re comparison is still weak in that both words and appearances can never be what they seem). Appearances however have proven themselves easily as the most likely to be misunderstood. This is so because when it comes to aesthetics, man is so fickle. Standards for expressions of beauty, art, emotions and what have you will always change (and a rate that is significantly faster than the creation of new words). For example, I cannot say that the word “peace” means “war” (though theoretically, that is still possible if strong sociological forces make it so) as easily as I can say that black is a color of peace.
I realize I forgot to address a point made to me by Servus that some men have unusual attractions (fetishes) about certain types of women’s clothes, like nurse’s uniforms or what have you.
That would be me, not severus.
This is why I would say the standard has to be what a reasonable portion of males would find alluring (or problematic if the man is striving for purity). It is about the common and the normal. Fetishes and modesty standards dictated by ulterior motives don’t really apply.
That is still not enough. You go to a convention like Comiket or hang around the internet long enough and you will see that even what you perceive as a “minority” of fetishists isn’t always so. If you ask me, I’ve been unlucky enough to be heavily exposed to that type of media. People in the porn industry equally target all kinds of pervs. Even if you come up with your own study and conduct your own research, the numbers you come up with aren’t necessarily going to stay solid.
What should be said rather is that it is not a place for especially lusty men. Most males have a fairly strong sex drive. Rembering the alluring girl in order to take deliberate sexual pleasure in her features is normal and hard to resist, yet not permissible. It is difficult to be pure according to Catholic standards, and our culture makes it unreasonably so.
The problem is you blame the sex appeal on something as superficial as appearance when it is clearly the fault of a person making it so in his perverted mind.
 
Nothing wrong with thinking a member of the opposite sex is physically attractive. Nothing wrong with being sexy (your quote)
So we have no way of knowing whether or not a sexual/physical attraction will lead to marriage, but every marriage/courtship starts with those forms of attraction. Either way, as those attractions are involuntary and natural, they cannot be sinful in and of themselves.
Otherwise, it is quite normal but needs to be kept at a very casual aesthetic level. I do notice, and sometimes remark, that a certain man may have an alluring body or manner. Beyond that, I need to forget him and focus on my husband. I find this pretty easy, but men generally do not find it so easy. So women help them by means of modesty.
Once again, “modesty” is subjective to cultural standards. I do not condone immodest clothes. However, if I knew someone who wore immodest clothes, I would suggest that she take a better look at what she’s wearing, not because of other MEN, but out of respect for HERSELF.

I don’t approve of the whole men men men mentality, bc if a man does not have enough discipline/self control in public, then he won’t have enough of it alone when he’s sitting in front of the computer and debating looking at porn.
Primitive cultures can’t settle a discussion like this. They are very small, insulated and stable (or were until the Western world started in with its influence). There are rules and a mindset at work there that are radically different. Exposure of the breast may have maternal implications. Traditional art is filled with images of Our Lady’s bared breast(s).
The “discussion” I am settling here is I am using them as an example that modesty depends on culture, time, place, function… etc etc. Basically I’m trying to get the point across that there is no universal, definite standard of modesty.
I think you are marginalizing the very men who should concern us the most, those who are trying to practice purity of mind and heart. Yes, they are a minority. For the Christian woman who is also trying to be pure, they are an important one. A Protestant Christian group did a survey of men about modesty and what they need. It may only be a start, but it is interesting. The vast majority of these respondents did report that a bikini is a struggle for them.
Probably because they are either deprived/sheltered from outdoorsy/warm climate life style, or they cannot distinguish the difference between sexual attraction and lust. A lot of young christian men feel arousal and feel sexual attraction for another woman and immediately perceive that to be lust, when it is not.

I come from a family of devout Catholic men and have male friends that are Christian. I’ve told them about this mentality and they think it’s ridiculous.
Btw, what is pushing the envelope? Once again, there is no set line, meaning there is no envelope to be pushed. (your quote)
As far as the statements of the Church, I can only say again that your approach (summed up above) means they have virtually no force, and could just as easily have gone unsaid. I see no reason to suppose that the Church says anything for trivial reasons, especially not in the Catechism.
Right, so then some people here need to stop pushing their own strict standards onto others and claiming that their standards are the Church’s. It is not! The Church’s standard is that we follow what is culturally accepted when it comes to modesty of dress. It is no more, and no less than that.
 
“Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.”

“The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man.”

I have given two longer quotes from the Catechism, including the section you cited. Looking at the entirety of what the Catechism says about modesty, it is clear that we need to resist the culture and not conform to it. No, we no longer need to veil our heads or cover our ankles. But we do need to watch what we wear on the beach, and not just with an eye to avoiding disapproval.

God Bless,
Joan
“It is clear that we need to resist the culture and not conform to is?”

Sorry, but I don’t see how any quote from any Church official source says that we need to resist cultural norms when it comes to how we dress. If anything, it says the exact opposite on the site that you yourself quoted - Modesty varies from culture to culture.

So just to entertain your claim for a minute here, let me ask you this - must we always resist cultural norms of dress?? So in the indigenous cultures, are they doing wrong by following their cultural standards of being topless? And if we must resist our cultural norms, then what should we follow? How much skin is too much? What is modest, what isn’t? Bc the Church certainly doesn’t give us any standards to follow, other than our own culture’s.
 
Hi Debra (and Servus),

I realize I forgot to address a point made to me by Servus that some men have unusual attractions (fetishes) about certain types of women’s clothes, like nurse’s uniforms or what have you. On the other hand is the pants issue. Frankly, pants are so variable in terms of cut that I really can’t believe that those men who oppose them on modesty grounds are being completely straightforward. I would see them as being at least largely motivated by a desire to see more feminine dress. Modesty is the rationale, perceived as being more convincing to a larger number.
Once again, you’d be surprised. I’ve seen it. In fact, one of the very first threads I got involved in when I joined CAF was that one, and it almost made me want to leave.

here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474937

Go through that and you WILL come across men who think pants are immodest. heck, there are men who think showing HAIR is immodest.
As someone who grew up at the beach, I can tell you right now that it is not a place of lusty men.
What should be said rather is that it is not a place for especially lusty men. Most males have a fairly strong sex drive. Rembering the alluring girl in order to take deliberate sexual pleasure in her features is normal and hard to resist, yet not permissible. It is difficult to be pure according to Catholic standards, and our culture makes it unreasonably so.
Didn’t you just say we should refer to the standard male and not to men who are especially perverse?

I go to the beach all the time, and I can tell you it’s NOT like that.
Growing up in a beach culture means that your attitudes have been colored by what you have seen with extreme frequency. You have seen people with great human qualities wearing revealing garments, so it’s understandable that you see the garments themselves as okay. After all, these are your friends and associates. ** But we would be better off if swimwear covered a good deal more than it does, at least in recreational circumstances **(I can’t speak to atheltics).
You must have skipped over the post I wrote about the one and only time I had a one piece, and how horribly uncomfortable and inconvenient it was. I was not better off.
 
I don’t see how those outfits are immodest. These outfits seem to truly reveal the girls’ femininity in a much more beautiful way that outfits such as the minishirt.

Also if you want to see that as fact, fine. Whatever makes you happy.
Likewise, I don’t see how wearing a bikini to the beach, or shorts are immodest.

Wanderer was trying to prove a point.
 
True, there seems to be a relative nature in modesty in dress. But I believe one can also use something that is called common sense to help figure out what is modest. The CCC refers to modesty as discreet and protecting the intimate center of the person. Meaning refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.

This alone should help to eliminate clothing such as the minishirt and others similar to it, since it reveals some much of the person to anyone who is willing to look.
My common sense tells me miniskirts worn in the right time and place are ok. So are bikinis and shorts.
 
I don’t see how those outfits are immodest. These outfits seem to truly reveal the girls’ femininity in a much more beautiful way that outfits such as the minishirt.
Do you really want me to go down to the deepest, darkest pits of my mind and bring out the perverse imp I currently have in chains?
Also if you want to see that as fact, fine. Whatever makes you happy.
I don’t ‘see’ it as a fact. It is a fact. Granted that we’ve proven to death the relative nature of modesty’s form, I think it’s been established that I’m not giving an opinion here.
 
Hi Debra,

There is probably nothing I can write at this point that will not be a repeat of what I already said. I have made my case the best I can. I stand behind all the ideas I have shared here.

Thanks for taking the time for this discussion.

God Bless,
Joan Liut
 
Dear Joan,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post, dear sister…
You’re welcome. I hope I presented my case in a way that was respectful to everyone.

God Bless,
Joan
 
No it does not. Where is your logical proof that the phrase “that what should remain hidden” refers to body parts? I for one don’t see anything special about body parts. It’s man’s shallow tendencies that see something special. Does the shape of your leg reveal your personal life? Does a small chest express insecurity?

Following this line of thinking, one can easily see that it will inevitably lead to ridiculously obscure questions like:

Does wearing black leather mean you are evil?
Does wearing a hood means you’re up to something?
Is the McDonald’s sign a subtle symbol of the Masons?

Yes, appearances can be very revealing about a person indeed. :rolleyes:
What the CCC is talking about here is modesty in dress. How would such revealing clothing be deemed modest IF these clothes reveals parts of yourself to the general public?

Again the CCC says:
2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
It seems to made pretty clear. Modesty is always changing and I do not deny that. But these aspects of modesty defined by the CCC should always stay the same.

Modesty in dress whole purpose is meant to please God and Him alone. One should rely on the his or her culture to deem what is modesty in dress BUT also rely on what God would be respectable for him by making sure all the styles one wears should flatter the figure, but not draw extreme attention to any certain area.
 
What the CCC is talking about here is modesty in dress. How would such revealing clothing be deemed modest IF these clothes reveals parts of yourself to the general public?

Again the CCC says:
Uh, no it does not. I don’t see anything pertaining to clothes anywhere whereas another part of the CCC specifically states that forms of modesty vary.

Here it is not so specific. It does not specify the exact, physical nature of what is to be hidden. What so special about a woman’s shoulders that it should be hidden? What about knees? Ankles?

The only thing “special” is a fictional value placed upon by perverts. Honestly, repeating your argument is not going to get you anywhere.
BUT also rely on what God would be respectable for him by making sure all the styles one wears should flatter the figure, but not draw extreme attention to any certain area.
Who are you to say that God is a fashion critic? To say so would be a direct contradiction 1 Samuel 16:7. I once said that I thought only the Devil was a fashion critic (she wears Prada after all).
 
I haven’t had the patient to read through everything but am surprised at how the thread turned out.

It seems like the more conservative men are being judged.

I enjoy meeting with a group of conservative Catholics after daily mass. They discuss modesty and feel that women should not wear miniskirts, short shorts or bikinis. I have never seen them be disrespectful to a woman based on how they are dressed. They are always polite and are true gentlemen. Just because they think a woman is dressed inappropriately doesn’t mean they treat that woman any differently than they would a more modestly dressed woman.

They have also discussed dressing modestly for mass. There are woman that were spaghetti strapped shirts that are low cut. How do you think a tall EM feels when serving them? They have to look down and it can be very distracting. Is this fair to the priest? It is not what they want to see in mass or anywhere else. They are human.

On miniskirts, I could never wear one. I have worn a dress as short as the one Debra has in her profile. BTW beautiful wedding pictures. But that is for a short period of time when I am going to special events. Where I will be mostly sitting or standing. How do you wear a miniskirt in the day without showing your panties? I am a little hyperactive and I could not sit still all day with my legs cross. I am cleaning, moving around, picking things up. In and out of the car. I would be so uncomfortable worried that I was constantly flashing guys. Shorts are much more comfortable.

Gym outfits. I train with mostly men. You should hear how they talk and view women. They take zumba classes just to shop for women. Do you want to have a skimpy outfit on while a guy is watching you jump around? They are not just viewing you and think wow she is really pretty. We are an oversexed country. Sex in every TV show., song or commercial. Using sex to sell everything. I don’t think the woman is responsible for the man’s sins but do you want to be someone’s sexual fantasy?

I am still working on dressing modestly. It is not easy to change but I do think it is important for my spiritual growth. I not only have to get rid of my mortal sin of lust but need to get rid of my attachment to lust. Which includes not dressing sexy and flirting with man that are not my husband.

This is just my opinion. I don’t tell anyone but my children how to dress.
 
If Mary was living in contemporary America today, this is what I suspect she would wear:

modestswimwearsolutions.com/

It just makes good sense.
I completely disagree. She wore what was standard at the time, and so I would assume she’d wear what is standard today. If anyone showed up to the beach like that, they’d draw negative attention to themselves and get a lot of stares.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top