Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Portrait]

The following responses are from a Christian fundamentalist forum. They respond to the same topic --same type of argument put forth by Edward H, Portrait, etc.

If these protestant men – —can see the error, the dishonesty --of shifting the blame for men’s ill thoughts —to a women’s manner of dress— what the heck is happening to our supposedly Catholic men.

These protestant men know — that the illness – is in men’s hearts-- and it is up to them with God’s help to transform themselves out of darkness.

What does this say about our supposedly Catholic men–who have access to the graces of the Sacraments–yet will not see/acknowledge — that the darkness is in their own hearts and need to raise themselves up–transform themselves. Seems to be Catholic men have become a sorry lot.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings.

The above is a sham argument since no one on the current thread is denying that men are not responsible for the custody of their eyes (Job 31: 1). What has been said is that a realistic acceptance of the effects of the Fall and concupiscence, demand that we all, men and women, take sensible action to minimise the strength of evil desire. This is not a novel opinion concocted by some spineless moralistic fuddy-duddies, but rather authentic Catholic teaching that has always been accepted as normative. To quote Killigan and Webber again, “The virtue of modesty is the virtue which protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not to invite temptation, and to be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause temptation in others” (Christ in Us, Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 269). Our only plea is that men and women don modest and decent attire (as they are bidden to do by Sacred Scripture and the Church) and *“be considerate in (their) dress and ***behaviour, so as not to cause temptation in others”. The only people who appear to challenge this basic teaching are radical neo-Catholics who are not grounded in Catholic moral theology and hence do not think with an authentic Catholic mind. Much of this is down to defective catechesis and its natural corollary, a hand in hand with the world type of religion that refuses to live up to the arduous rquirements of the Faith.

Of course the interior life is not inconsequential and a proud and immoral heart is sometimes concealed behind a mask of pretended modesty. However, generally speaking those who dress with a proper reserve and avoid voluptuous clothing, are expressing a pious inner modesty and sober outlook on life.

The reason why the traditional Catholic position is challenged nowadays is owing to the impact of the moral revolution of the 1960’s, even upon our beloved Church. Seductive clothing for young women, such as the mini-skirt, was a sad consequence of those morally degenerate times; far from liberating women it only enslaved them by causing them to be objectified by men, who regarded them as sexually available.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JimG]

The reason why the traditional Catholic position is challenged nowadays is owing to the impact of the moral revolution of the 1960’s, even upon our beloved Church. Seductive clothing for young women, such as the mini-skirt, was a sad consequence of those morally degenerate times; far from liberating women it only enslaved them by causing them to be objectified by men, who regarded them as sexually available.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Reading this part of your post stirred a memory in me of a more modest decade. I’m old enough to recall once riding the bus downtown in the early spring before the sexual revolution. A lot of girls were out shopping in their colorful Spring clothing. I thought how pretty they all were. Pretty. How odd that strikes me now. They didn’t incite lust but appreciation for women. A decade later they had nothing to wear which would simply make them look pretty and attractive. All the fashions then seemed to incite lust.

 

[Elven_Maid]

Reading this part of your post stirred a memory in me of a more modest decade. I’m old enough to recall once riding the bus downtown in the early spring before the sexual revolution. A lot of girls were out shopping in their colorful Spring clothing. I thought how pretty they all were. Pretty. How odd that strikes me now. They didn’t incite lust but appreciation for women. A decade later they had nothing to wear which would simply make them look pretty and attractive. All the fashions then seemed to incite lust.

Thank you sir, you have just put into words exactly why I choose to dress modestly.
I also make an effort to dress femininely (sp?) because not inciting lust only gets us halfway to where we were that day when you saw those girls. Women and girls must also dress in a way that is beautiful and feminine. When a man sees me I want him to think what you did that day.
God bless you

 

[Walking_Home]

Thank you sir, you have just put into words exactly why I choose to dress modestly.
I also make an effort to dress femininely (sp?) because not inciting lust only gets us halfway to where we were that day when you saw those girls. Women and girls must also dress in a way that is beautiful and feminine. When a man sees me I want him to think what you did that day.
God bless you

---

What I got to say is women like you are part of the problem. Instead of calling for Catholic men to transform/raise/purify their hearts —your kind just enable their darkness of hearts.

The more a man transforms/raises/purifies his heart – the less attention his will place on how women dress and the less it will affect him.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;7995877:

The following responses are from a Christian fundamentalist forum. They respond to the same topic --same type of argument put forth by Edward H, Portrait, etc.

If these protestant men – —can see the error, the dishonesty --of shifting the blame for men’s ill thoughts —to a women’s manner of dress— what the heck is happening to our supposedly Catholic men.

These protestant men know — that the illness – is in men’s hearts-- and it is up to them with God’s help to transform themselves out of darkness.

What does this say about our supposedly Catholic men–who have access to the graces of the Sacraments–yet will not see/acknowledge — that the darkness is in their own hearts and need to raise themselves up–transform themselves. Seems to be Catholic men have become a sorry lot.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings.

The above is a sham argument since no one on the current thread is denying that men are not responsible for the custody of their eyes (Job 31: 1). What has been said is that a realistic acceptance of the effects of the Fall and concupiscence, demand that we all, men and women, take sensible action to minimise the strength of evil desire. This is not a novel opinion concocted by some spineless moralistic fuddy-duddies, but rather authentic Catholic teaching that has always been accepted as normative. To quote Killigan and Webber again, “The virtue of modesty is the virtue which protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not to invite temptation, and to be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause temptation in others” (Christ in Us

, Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 269). Our only plea is that men and women don modest and decent attire (as they are bidden to do by Sacred Scripture and the Church) and *“be considerate in (their) dress and ***behaviour, so as not to cause temptation in others”. The only people who appear to challenge this basic teaching are radical neo-Catholics who are not grounded in Catholic moral theology and hence do not think with an authentic Catholic mind. Much of this is down to defective catechesis and its natural corollary, a hand in hand with the world type of religion that refuses to live up to the arduous rquirements of the Faith.

Of course the interior life is not inconsequential and a proud and immoral heart is sometimes concealed behind a mask of pretended modesty. However, generally speaking those who dress with a proper reserve and avoid voluptuous clothing, are expressing a pious inner modesty and sober outlook on life.

The reason why the traditional Catholic position is challenged nowadays is owing to the impact of the moral revolution of the 1960’s, even upon our beloved Church. Seductive clothing for young women, such as the mini-skirt, was a sad consequence of those morally degenerate times; far from liberating women it only enslaved them by causing them to be objectified by men, who regarded them as sexually available.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax​

The sham is yourselves. You guys are no different than those men – who out in the open --ogle women. At least they are truthful about it. Your type hides it under the sham of trying to appear “virtuous” and such.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The more a man transforms/raises/purifies his heart – the less attention his will place on how women dress and the less it will affect him.

You know perhaps we need more guys with a history of actually being beat up by a number of women to keep 'em in line.

I’ve been beaten by my mother, my sister, and two female bullies. Now I tread carefully around a lot of women because of that.

Nothing like good 'ol physical discipline to drive a message into one’s head.

 

[Portrait]

Reading this part of your post stirred a memory in me of a more modest decade. I’m old enough to recall once riding the bus downtown in the early spring before the sexual revolution. A lot of girls were out shopping in their colorful Spring clothing. I thought how pretty they all were. Pretty. How odd that strikes me now. They didn’t incite lust but appreciation for women. A decade later they had nothing to wear which would simply make them look pretty and attractive. All the fashions then seemed to incite lust.

Dear JimG,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for reminding us of those far off halcyon days of sweet innocence, if only they could but return. Please God may it be so.

God bless you, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jobelorocks]

I do think men should dress modestly as well… as a very visual woman with a high sex drive this presents problems for me.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Cordial greetings and thankyou for reminding us of those far off halcyon days of sweet innocence, if only they could but return. Please God may it be so.

I’ve had a teacher who dressed like that once (as in straight from the 50s).

I’m being polite when I say that she was nothing more than a tyrannical, iron-fisted witch.

I’ve also seen women who dressed from the age of “halcyon days of sweet innocence” on YouTube.

They’re usually the wives and daughters of street preachers who label homosexuals as abominations, Catholics as stooges of the Whore of Babylon, and Goths as Satan worshipers.

Yeah, real innocent.

 

[Walking_Home]

You know perhaps we need more guys with a history of actually being beat up by a number of women to keep 'em in line.

I’ve been beaten by my mother, my sister, and two female bullies. Now I tread carefully around a lot of women because of that.

Nothing like good 'ol physical discipline to drive a message into one’s head.

---

I read somewhere – it is better to get our knocks-- here on this earth --than wait till we die.

But seriously – It has been an experience–to find such spiritual sloth in supposedly Catholic men.

Ps. I am not saying we should go about beating up our boys–but we do need to guide them so that they can grow to be strong moral fibered men.

 

[jobelorocks]

One more thing… It is society that dictates what is modest. In some tribes women walk around topless and it isn’t considered sexual or immodest whatsoever. Why? Because that society doesn’t deem it as so. Women shouldn’t have to dress like they are from the Victorian era, but should dress modestly according to their society and time period. I feel like some people think I should wear floor length skirts in the summer with long sleeve shirts, which is unreasonable. I think women should have a right to dress fashionably and weather appropriate as well.

 

[Portrait]

I do think men should dress modestly as well… as a very visual woman with a high sex drive this presents problems for me.

Dear jobelorocks,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

Wholeheartedly agree with your remark above. Both sexes have a responsibility to ensure that they are clad in modest attire that does not trespass the boundaries of decency and propriety, for both sexes are fallen beings who are subject to evil desire.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jobelorocks]

Thank you!

Dear jobelorocks,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

Wholeheartedly agree with your remark above. Both sexes have a responsibility to ensure that they are clad in modest attire that does not trespass the boundaries of decency and propriety, for both sexes are fallen beings who are subject to evil desire.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear jobelorocks,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

Wholeheartedly agree with your remark above. Both sexes have a responsibility to ensure that they are clad in modest attire that does not trespass the boundaries of decency and propriety, for both sexes are fallen beings who subject to evil desire.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

Yea–but instead of putting a band-aide on the situation–we need to look inward and purify the darkness out of our hearts. That way we won’t be so affected --by what a person wears.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ve had a teacher who dressed like that once (as in straight from the 50s).

I’m being polite when I say that she was nothing more than a tyrannical, iron-fisted witch.

I’ve also seen women who dressed from the age of “halcyon days of sweet innocence” on YouTube.

They’re usually the wives and daughters of street preachers who label homosexuals as abominations, Catholics as stooges of the Whore of Babylon, and Goths as Satan worshipers.

Yeah, real innocent.

---

Look you said prior – we shouldn’t be judging a book by its cover. A womens wearing of long dresses/sleeves is in no way indicative of her interior state.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

One more thing… It is society that dictates what is modest. In some tribes women walk around topless and it isn’t considered sexual or immodest whatsoever. Why? Because that society doesn’t deem it as so. Women shouldn’t have to dress like they are from the Victorian era, but should dress modestly according to their society and time period. I feel like some people think I should wear floor length skirts in the summer with long sleeve shirts, which is unreasonable. I think women should have a right to dress fashionably and weather appropriate as well.

I would have to say that context is really what people should be discussing here. For the sake of debates like this, I’ve long contemplated just exactly what the word “modesty” means.

The Catechism admits that modesty has form. Therefore, just like in language where even a simple meaning has various forms in different tongues, the virtue of modesty can have different forms and thus, are separable from the virtue itself.

The CCC mentions that something should be hidden, but does that ‘something’ necessarily translate into a body part? I strongly doubt it.

This is why I find myself referring to the dictionary. Honestly, no matter how hard you claim to study Theology, even that subject is bound to follow the basic meanings dictated in a language.

So with that said, I read up on the dictionary and found that plenty of the definitions did not deal with clothing at all. Rather, it dealt with the idea of not drawing attention to one’s self. It was synonymous to terms such as simplicity and propriety. I said this on another thread recently that I saw more immodesty in people’s actions and words than in their clothes. The reason is because I’ve seen them draw more attraction to oneself than one’s clothing.

However, with the radical tendency of cultural contexts to change, what is perceived as “simple and proper” will not always be so. It is that fickle nature that prompted me to personally adopt the view of never trusting what my eyes perceive about a person’s physical appearance.

The Party of Modesty and the Party of Sex both fail to acknowledge this reality. Their focus is entirely upon the clothing and physical appearances (one can even say obsessed), giving no priority to the context nor care for how much it could develop their reasoning.

 

[Walking_Home]

Continuing with Blessed John Paul II. We know that the showing of skin/body is not a problem (immodest) with the proper context.

So applying what he said to the wearing of mini-skirts/shorts in proper context would be —at the mall, walking down a sidewalk, movies, etc. – as a form of every day wear. Mini-skirts/shorts would be out of context --like at Mass. Appropriate in some venues–inappropriate in another(s). His point was not what we wear – but in the context of where we wear the clothes. Custom/culture also need to be taken into account.

 

[Paxvobis]

That should be enough reason to tell you not to equate clothes you deem “immodest” as some sort of sign of low self-esteem.

No, it isn’t. I’m sure it is a motivation for some people.

Sorry but you’re sadly overrating appearances again and no, it is not a good thing. Again, read 1 Samuel 16:7.

Information such as profession are morally neutral pieces of info. That is not enough for you to say what kind of person they are. A nurse’s uniform may indicate that a person’s a nurse but is there anything else? What can you gain outside the assumption that the uniform indicates a person is a nurse? Will the uniform tell you what kind of nurse he/she is? You can’t do that. (Unless you’re CSI or something.)

No I’m not. You keep bringing up I Samuel 16:7. I’m sorry, but you’re argument on that piece of scripture was refuted by Portrait. In addition, Catholic theological thought rests upon two equal foundations: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As Catholic 41506 pointed out, Sacred Tradition is decidedly against your point of view on this. To return to Portrait’s argument, Sacred Tradition interprets numerous scripture passages as condemning immodesty in dress.

Actually that is only due with respect to the formality of the context and there are even companies that aren’t so strict anymore. Also, you wouldn’t go in a suit just to apply for a janitor’s job would you?

Okay, maybe I should have been more specific. Let’s assume the two women are applying for a job at a prestigious law firm.

Again, the greater charity would be to tell people to stop being such perverts.

Charity would tell people to stop being perverts. Charity also tells people to stop dressing in a manner which according to Sacred Scripture and the consistent tradition of the Church is (and I know it’s a politically incorrect term in the modern world) sinful. Even if men would not be provoked by what I’ve seen some people wear, it would still be sinful. We are all made in the image of God and, after baptism, are temples of the Holy Ghost and thus, must act internally and externally in a manner befitting of such an honor.

To give in to the weaknesses of shallow people is not charity. It’s sparing the rod and spoiling the child.

Nobody is giving in to weakness. I wholeheartedly agree that men should not blame women for their failings in sins of lust. But, everybody needs to dress modestly not only because it helps everybody else avoid bad thoughts, but because it is a sin not to do so.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, it isn’t. I’m sure it is a motivation for some people.

No I’m not. You keep bringing up I Samuel 16:7. I’m sorry, but you’re argument on that piece of scripture was refuted by Portrait. In addition, Catholic theological thought rests upon two equal foundations: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As Catholic 41506 pointed out, Sacred Tradition is decidedly against your point of view on this. To return to Portrait’s argument, Sacred Tradition interprets numerous scripture passages as condemning immodesty in dress.

Okay, maybe I should have been more specific. Let’s assume the two women are applying for a job at a prestigious law firm.

Charity would tell people to stop being perverts. Charity also tells people to stop dressing in a manner which according to Sacred Scripture and the consistent tradition of the Church is (and I know it’s a politically incorrect term in the modern world) sinful. Even if men would not be provoked by what I’ve seen some people wear, it would still be sinful. We are all made in the image of God and, after baptism, are temples of the Holy Ghost and thus, must act internally and externally in a manner befitting of such an honor.

Nobody is giving in to weakness. I wholeheartedly agree that men should not blame women for their failings in sins of lust. But, everybody needs to dress modestly not only because it helps everybody else avoid bad thoughts, but because it is a sin not to do so.

---

Bull —this is like those extremist who brainwash women to believe it is a mortal sin to wear pants.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No, it isn’t. I’m sure it is a motivation for some people.

No, it’s sound reason for not trusting appearances. If you can never tell what a person is at first glance, then there is no point in looking.

No I’m not. You keep bringing up I Samuel 16:7. I’m sorry, but you’re argument on that piece of scripture was refuted by Portrait. In addition, Catholic theological thought rests upon two equal foundations: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As Catholic 41506 pointed out, Sacred Tradition is decidedly against your point of view on this. To return to Portrait’s argument, Sacred Tradition interprets numerous scripture passages as condemning immodesty in dress.

Portrait is only known on debates for his excessive eloquence in place of substance. You’ll find that I had a response to it. To say that physical features are different from clothing is laughable. They are both still part of a person’s overall appearance.

As for Sacred Tradition, you will find that me and Walking Home have already provided two Popes who have backed up our position. The CCC also dictates the modesty comes in different forms.

Okay, maybe I should have been more specific. Let’s assume the two women are applying for a job at a prestigious law firm.

Again, it is still a matter of context. That context can change. Proven fact.

Charity would tell people to stop being perverts. Charity also tells people to stop dressing in a manner which according to Sacred Scripture and the consistent tradition of the Church is (and I know it’s a politically incorrect term in the modern world) sinful.

Uh, no. You will find that the Church as whole never specifies a dress code. Writings that you think do are obviously to be read in a certain context. Am I to remind you that our previous Pope visited many places, with many people dressed in ways you would deem “immodest”.

Even if men would not be provoked by what I’ve seen some people wear, it would still be sinful. We are all made in the image of God and, after baptism, are temples of the Holy Ghost and thus, must act internally and externally in a manner befitting of such an honor.

If people started breaking their banks to buy high-end security just because they know a kleptomaniac is in town, it’s a sign that freedom no longer exists in society.

You forget that we are given the wonderful gift of freedom but with that freedom comes responsibility. It is not however the responsibility of others if an individual cannot control himself/herself. Self-control is within the realm of the I, not the Other. The problem lies within them, not outside. I point to you my post awhile back about Prohibition and alcoholism. You do not cure alcoholism by banning alcohol. You send alcoholics to rehab.

For another example, you don’t send individuals infected with a dangerous disease out to society and then just tell everyone to go around in hazmat suits. You quarantine those individuals.

A third (and repeated) example. You don’t solve crime by telling people to pay more for security. You solve crime by going after the bad guys.

Nobody is giving in to weakness. I wholeheartedly agree that men should not blame women for their failings in sins of lust. But, everybody needs to dress modestly not only because it helps everybody else avoid bad thoughts, but because it is a sin not to do so.

I repeat, you will find that the CCC does not prescribe dress, just a general Catholic understanding of modesty. Just because it says it inspires one’s choice of clothing does not mean that the form of said inspiration is not up for grabs.

In fact, I find more modesty related to a person’s character than their clothes. You know in the course of discussions like this, I’ve come to realize that there are two types of immodest people.

1. Attention seeking socialites.
2. Condescending preachers on soap boxes.

Guess what? Their clothes have nothing to do with it.