S
severus68
Guest
The one on the post is a picture, obviously but you are right, the original is an icon.
Interesting controversy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Interesting controversy.
J
Joan1969
Guest
Hi Debra,
We seem to be talking past each other, because we are not agreeing on the basics. You are advocating the standard of what is considered “approvable” by the larger society. A woman wears a bikini on the beach, and since hardly anyone disapproves (especially not openly) that is the same as modesty in your view. The men are in command of themselves (as they have to be by force of law), so there is no problem. The “vast majority” of men do not consider a bikini or other swimwear to be sexual. Really? Why the Sports Illustrated calendar? Of course, the vast majority of men do consider bikinis to be very sexy, along with a well-known list of garments that can be quite alluring on a woman who is attractive.
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.
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.
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).
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.
“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
We seem to be talking past each other, because we are not agreeing on the basics. You are advocating the standard of what is considered “approvable” by the larger society. A woman wears a bikini on the beach, and since hardly anyone disapproves (especially not openly) that is the same as modesty in your view. The men are in command of themselves (as they have to be by force of law), so there is no problem. The “vast majority” of men do not consider a bikini or other swimwear to be sexual. Really? Why the Sports Illustrated calendar? Of course, the vast majority of men do consider bikinis to be very sexy, along with a well-known list of garments that can be quite alluring on a woman who is attractive.
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.
I think this would be your answer to the above paragraph, though you may disapprove of the open expressions of lust etc. I guess what I’m saying is that physical attraction is good when it is oriented towards marriage- either in marriage, or as a lead to it.Nothing wrong with thinking a member of the opposite sex is physically attractive. Nothing wrong with being sexy (your quote)
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.
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).
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.
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.Btw, what is pushing the envelope? Once again, there is no set line, meaning there is no envelope to be pushed. (your quote)
“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
D
Debora123
Guest
I can’t imagine the Virgin Mary in a bikini, just like I can’t imagine the Virgin Mary wearing jeans and a T shirt, or wearing sexy underwear. Doesn’t mean doing those things are wrong.To be a lady in the fashion of Our Lady… Should a good Catholic girl imitate Mary? Can you imagine Our Lady of the Beach in a bikini? What you are saying is that if Mary were living today in our modern society with its current modes of fashion, you would see nothing obscene in the idea of Our Lady wearing a bikini. Does this really connect with your sensibilities about what is obscene or not obscene? Let’s try the question another way. What if as a male I said that I would love to see Our Lady of the Beach in a hot new bikini? Is this not obscene? Yet, one has to ask what would be appropriate apparel for Our Lady of the Beach?
J
Joan1969
Guest
Hi Debra,To prove my point in my earlier post, here’s an example.
A man like Portrait will say that it is immodest for a women to wear pants. There are numerous other men on this forum who will say the same.
You want the opinion of the general male public? As I said before, the vast majority will tell you that there is nothing indecent about wearing shorts on a hot day or a bikini to the beach.
I think this is largely answered above, but I want to acknowledge that a small number of men, and women, may have standards or ideas that are not necessary to follow. Some may choose a way that is stricter than need be, and I think that can be very good if it is free of judgmentalism or arrogance. (I gave Portrait himself the example of a traditionally habited nun.) If they try to apply that to everyone, I disagree as I did with Portrait’s post.
The issue of pants on women is one of femininity, not modesty. Different issue. I wear pants myself more days than not. I really doubt that a significant number of men can honestly say they struggle with pants. If they do, they can work to overcome it since almost all men don’t find pants sexual per se.
Yet I do not think it is reasonable to try to argue that men do not find many modern womens’ outfits, including swimwear, to be sexual. The clothing is made to be precisely that. Most men will not use the word “indecent”, but many will take a second look and remember if the girl has a nice body that is flattered by her swimwear (or evening gown, etc).
God Bless,
Joan
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear severus68,I am since I am more than 6 years old and am sane - the last time I looked. Would I wear a bikini may not be the most apt question, lol. You are making the presumption that a bikini is obscene. There are women and men who are really obscene in their thoughts, words and deeds while covered up. Asking what would I wear today if I was Mary is really silly. If she was living today she would not be the mother of God. Never mind - if Mary was living today and wore a bikini, why not? I would however, suggest to her that she not wear one in Saudi Arabia for instance, for obvious reasons.
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
It is incontrovertible that the bikini is a seductive style of garment because it exposes to the gaze of others an inordinate and unseemly amount of flesh, thus arousing man’s base passions which, given the presence of evil desire, results in the objectification of women. Whilst men do have a responsibility for the custody of their eyes (Job. 31: 1), women equally have a duty to ensure that they are considerate as regards their apparel, so as not to be the occasion of temptation. The onus cannot be all one-sided.
Moreover, to wear a bikini, even in the setting of a beach environment, is tantamount to wearing one’s under garments in public. That our godless culture now sees nothing amiss with this is a lame excuse for any Catholic to fall back on. This may be perfectly acceptable to our worldly pagan neighbours, who are devoid of any moral sense and who indiscriminately wear whatever is *a la mode *, but it will hardly do for the faithful to adopt shameless attire like so many sheep. After all, we are supposed to be pursuing holiness and striving to be virtuous, notwithstanding the amoral culture of which we have the misfortune to be a part of.
With regard to our choice of clothing, we, men and women, must do our utmost to ensure that we take care not to make purity difficult for ourselves, or for others, by our unseemly mode of dress. Moreover, and such comments are very unwelcome nowadays, we must exercise a prudent but, nonetheless, firm and courageous resistence to immodest styles of attire, irrespective of how fashionable or widespread they may be. If they present a source of temptation to others, as the bikinin and mini-skirt undoubtedly do, then they should be given a very wide berth by those who profess the Catholic religion.
In 1954, even before the moral revolution of the Sixties was unleashed upon us, Pope Pius XII, directed the bishops of the world “to take action against the most serious plague of immodest fashions”. He further implored, “promote with all your power, everything which has to do with the protection of modesty” and “leave no stone unturned which can remedy the situation”. What would the good Pope say of today’s voluptuous clothing styles, especially the mini-skirt and bikini? These tarty garments are wholly unacceptable because they are unseemly and incite impurity in a most blatant manner. Without controversy, they are certainly the source of innumerable mortal sins and should therefore be eshewed by all pious Cathoic women.
Incidently, it is not a matter of indifference as to how much leg a women chooses to reveal, since in the Book of Isaiah God refers to a woman’s bare legs as “nakedness” and “shame” (Is. 47: 2-3). In II Samuel 11: 2-5, you have the tragic story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba. When David saw Bathsheba bathing, he succumbed to his base passions and proceeded to have illicit carnal relations with her. This clearly demonstrates just how powerful a woman’s body can be to a man, especially given the reality of concupiscence. Therefore, a woman has a bounden duty and a charitable obligation not to reveal an inordinate and unseemly amount herself, so as not to sexually arouse a man, lest they should both fall into mortal sin.
Your comment about Our Lady wearing an useemly garment, were she alive to day, is, quite frankly, disgraceful and downright irreverent. Even whilst I was an Anglican, a very liberal and open-minded communion indeed, I never once heard men talk disrespectfully about the Blessed Virgin and so it makes me shudder to hear a Catholic, of all people, talk so flippantly about what Our Lady might wear. It is utterly outrageous to even dare suggest that Mary Immaculate would don such undignified attire, given that she is the perfect model of modesty and virtue. How could our Blessed Mother, Virgin Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, our ideal of purity and modesty, worthy of emulation, ever be clad in such sexually provocative garb? Please, dear friend, ponder prayerfully what you have said.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
D
Debora123
Guest
You’d be surprised. I’ve actually come across threads here where some people actually do say that pants are immodest because it shows a woman’s shape. Ridiculous, I know.The issue of pants on women is one of femininity, not modesty. Different issue. I wear pants myself more days than not. I really doubt that a significant number of men can honestly say they struggle with pants. If they do, they can work to overcome it since almost all men don’t find pants sexual per se.
You’re right, many might take a second look and/or remember if the girl has a nice body regardless of what she’s wearing. What is wrong with that? I’ve stated on here before that there is a huge difference between sexual/physical attraction and lust. As someone who grew up at the beach, I can tell you right now that it is not a place of lusty men.Yet I do not think it is reasonable to try to argue that men do not find many modern womens’ outfits, including swimwear, to be sexual. ** The clothing is made to be precisely that. Most men will not use the word “indecent”, but many will take a second look and remember if the girl has a nice body that is flattered by her swimwear (or evening gown, etc).**
Swimwear is not sexual, and no one thinks of swimwear as being sexual. Swimwear is what people wear to go swimming.
S
severus68
Guest
Perhaps if you read what I responded to and my whole post, you would know I was not trying to disrespect Our Lady. The whole thing of asking what Mary would wear today is rather silly as I said. Since you find most clothes of today immodest and you are more concerned with outward appearance I suppose you would only be happy if I said she would wear today what she wore more than 2,000 years ago.Dear severus68,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
It is incontrovertible that the bikini is a seductive style of garment because it exposes to the gaze of others an inordinate and unseemly amount of flesh, thus arousing man’s base passions which, given the presence of evil desire, results in the objectification of women. Whilst men do have a responsibility for the custody of their eyes (Job. 31: 1), women equally have a duty to ensure that they are considerate as regards their apparel, so as not to be the occasion of temptation. The onus cannot be all one-sided.
Moreover, to wear a bikini, even in the setting of a beach environment, is tantamount to wearing one’s under garments in public. That our godless culture now sees nothing amiss with this is a lame excuse for any Catholic to fall back on. This may be perfectly acceptable to our worldly pagan neighbours, who are devoid of any moral sense and who indiscriminately wear whatever is *a la mode *, but it will hardly do for the faithful to adopt shameless attire like so many sheep. After all, we are supposed to be pursuing holiness and striving to be virtuous, notwithstanding the amoral culture of which we have the misfortune to be a part of.
With regard to our choice of clothing, we, men and women, must do our utmost to ensure that we take care not to make purity difficult for ourselves, or for others, by our unseemly mode of dress. Moreover, and such comments are very unwelcome nowadays, we must exercise a prudent but, nonetheless, firm and courageous resistence to immodest styles of attire, irrespective of how fashionable or widespread they may be. If they present a source of temptation to others, as the bikinin and mini-skirt undoubtedly do, then they should be given a very wide berth by those who profess the Catholic religion.
In 1954, even before the moral revolution of the Sixties was unleashed upon us, Pope Pius XII, directed the bishops of the world “to take action against the most serious plague of immodest fashions”. He further implored, “promote with all your power, everything which has to do with the protection of modesty” and “leave no stone unturned which can remedy the situation”. What would the good Pope say of today’s voluptuous clothing styles, especially the mini-skirt and bikini? These tarty garments are wholly unacceptable because they are unseemly and incite impurity in a most blatant manner. Without controversy, they are certainly the source of innumerable mortal sins and should therefore be eshewed by all pious Cathoic women.
Incidently, it is not a matter of indifference as to how much leg a women chooses to reveal, since in the Book of Isaiah God refers to a woman’s bare legs as “nakedness” and “shame” (Is. 47: 2-3). In II Samuel 11: 2-5, you have the tragic story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba. When David saw Bathsheba bathing, he succumbed to his base passions and proceeded to have illicit carnal relations with her. This clearly demonstrates just how powerful a woman’s body can be to a man, especially given the reality of concupiscence. Therefore, a woman has a bounden duty and a charitable obligation not to reveal an inordinate and unseemly amount herself, so as not to sexually arouse a man, lest they should both fall into mortal sin.
Your comment about Our Lady wearing an useemly garment, were she alive to day, is, quite frankly, disgraceful and downright irreverent. Even whilst I was an Anglican, a very liberal and open-minded communion indeed, I never once heard men talk disrespectfully about the Blessed Virgin and so it makes me shudder to hear a Catholic, of all people, talk so flippantly about what Our Lady might wear. It is utterly outrageous to even dare suggest that Mary Immaculate would don such undignified attire, given that she is the perfect model of modesty and virtue. How could our Blessed Mother, Virgin Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, our ideal of purity and modesty, worthy of emulation, ever be clad in such sexually provocative garb? Please, dear friend, ponder prayerfully what you have said.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
I have more respect for men and women than you appear to have. Men should be able to look at women with respect without seeing them as objects of lust and vice versa. Saying men need help to control their passions is used as an excuse by some men. David wanted Bathsheba and he did everything to get her. Lets not put the blame on another woman again here please.
Its near impossible to have a discussion with you. You have decided you do not like what happened at Vatican II and after, that women’s fashion after 1959 has been immodest and tarty, that JPII gave in to modern culture and was wrong and that women must be submissive and meek. You quote the same things in support. Surely you must understand that many, including good Catholics disagree with you in all honesty.
S
severus68
Guest
Perhaps if you read what I responded to and my whole post, you would know I was not trying to disrespect Our Lady. The whole thing of asking what Mary would wear today is rather silly as I said. Since you find most clothes of today immodest and you are more concerned with outward appearance I suppose you would only be happy if I said she would wear today what she wore more than 2,000 years ago.Dear severus68,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
It is incontrovertible that the bikini is a seductive style of garment because it exposes to the gaze of others an inordinate and unseemly amount of flesh, thus arousing man’s base passions which, given the presence of evil desire, results in the objectification of women. Whilst men do have a responsibility for the custody of their eyes (Job. 31: 1), women equally have a duty to ensure that they are considerate as regards their apparel, so as not to be the occasion of temptation. The onus cannot be all one-sided.
Moreover, to wear a bikini, even in the setting of a beach environment, is tantamount to wearing one’s under garments in public. That our godless culture now sees nothing amiss with this is a lame excuse for any Catholic to fall back on. This may be perfectly acceptable to our worldly pagan neighbours, who are devoid of any moral sense and who indiscriminately wear whatever is *a la mode *, but it will hardly do for the faithful to adopt shameless attire like so many sheep. After all, we are supposed to be pursuing holiness and striving to be virtuous, notwithstanding the amoral culture of which we have the misfortune to be a part of.
With regard to our choice of clothing, we, men and women, must do our utmost to ensure that we take care not to make purity difficult for ourselves, or for others, by our unseemly mode of dress. Moreover, and such comments are very unwelcome nowadays, we must exercise a prudent but, nonetheless, firm and courageous resistence to immodest styles of attire, irrespective of how fashionable or widespread they may be. If they present a source of temptation to others, as the bikinin and mini-skirt undoubtedly do, then they should be given a very wide berth by those who profess the Catholic religion.
In 1954, even before the moral revolution of the Sixties was unleashed upon us, Pope Pius XII, directed the bishops of the world “to take action against the most serious plague of immodest fashions”. He further implored, “promote with all your power, everything which has to do with the protection of modesty” and “leave no stone unturned which can remedy the situation”. What would the good Pope say of today’s voluptuous clothing styles, especially the mini-skirt and bikini? These tarty garments are wholly unacceptable because they are unseemly and incite impurity in a most blatant manner. Without controversy, they are certainly the source of innumerable mortal sins and should therefore be eshewed by all pious Cathoic women.
Incidently, it is not a matter of indifference as to how much leg a women chooses to reveal, since in the Book of Isaiah God refers to a woman’s bare legs as “nakedness” and “shame” (Is. 47: 2-3). In II Samuel 11: 2-5, you have the tragic story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba. When David saw Bathsheba bathing, he succumbed to his base passions and proceeded to have illicit carnal relations with her. This clearly demonstrates just how powerful a woman’s body can be to a man, especially given the reality of concupiscence. Therefore, a woman has a bounden duty and a charitable obligation not to reveal an inordinate and unseemly amount herself, so as not to sexually arouse a man, lest they should both fall into mortal sin.
Your comment about Our Lady wearing an useemly garment, were she alive to day, is, quite frankly, disgraceful and downright irreverent. Even whilst I was an Anglican, a very liberal and open-minded communion indeed, I never once heard men talk disrespectfully about the Blessed Virgin and so it makes me shudder to hear a Catholic, of all people, talk so flippantly about what Our Lady might wear. It is utterly outrageous to even dare suggest that Mary Immaculate would don such undignified attire, given that she is the perfect model of modesty and virtue. How could our Blessed Mother, Virgin Most Pure and Mother Most Chaste, our ideal of purity and modesty, worthy of emulation, ever be clad in such sexually provocative garb? Please, dear friend, ponder prayerfully what you have said.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
I have more respect for men and women than you appear to have. Men should be able to look at women with respect without seeing them as objects of lust and vice versa. Saying men need help to control their passions is used as an excuse by some men. David wanted Bathsheba and he did everything to get her. Lets not put the blame on another woman again here please.
Its near impossible to have a discussion with you. You have decided you do not like what happened at Vatican II and after, that women’s fashion after 1959 has been immodest and tarty, that JPII gave in to modern culture and was wrong and that women must be submissive and meek. You quote the same things in support. Surely you must understand that many, including good Catholics disagree with you in all honesty.
J
Joan1969
Guest
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.
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.
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).
God Bless,
Joan
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.
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.
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.As someone who grew up at the beach, I can tell you right now that it is not a place of lusty men.
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).
God Bless,
Joan
S
severus68
Guest
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.
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.
Actually Joan, it was not I who brought that up.As someone who grew up at the beach, I can tell you right now that it is not a place of lusty men.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Joan,Hi Debra,
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.
“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
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post, dear sister.
Unfortunately, many neo-Catholic orthodox types recalcitrantly refuse to even acknowledge that their semi-nude attire is the source of numerous and serious temptations to the male sex. Some arrogantly disclaim any responsibility for leading others into sin thereby, whilst others again attempt to conceal their own guilt by nasty and uncharitable insinuations such as, “any man who has problems with scantily dressed women must be a pervert”. Thus those Catholics who are seeking to uphold standards of decency and a proper reserve in attire, face an uphill task in terms of getting such persons to revise their warped thinking. Perhaps, this should come as no big surprise, given that many today have assimilated, hook, line and sinker, the morally degenerate standards of the world and then use these as their benchmark as to what is, or is not, acceptable. This would be laughable if it were not so sad. True, there is an appeal to the Catechism to support their flawed position and invalid argumentation, but they deliberately choose to disregard the entire context which regulates the meaning of the passages they so glibly cite. For example:
“Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness” (para. 2521).
“Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity”. (para. 2522).
“Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies”. (para. 2523).
It is only after this contextual foundation has been laid that we get the oft quoted favourite of our antagonists:
“The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another” (para. 2524).
Therefore we cannot interpret para. 2524 so as to make it conflict with what has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, for that is to wrest a text from its context and turn it into a pretext for polemical purposes, which is precisely what the opponents of modest and seemly apparel do. In any case their favourite text does not even support their position, for it is merely saying that the “forms” or types of attire differ, depending on the culture. For example, an Indian woman’s modest clothing will obviously not be the same as a Western woman’s, but it will still be modest and seemly and not “unveil what should remain hidden”. However, that is not the same thing as sanctioning semi-nudity, for we have already been told that “Modesty is decency” and “inspires one’s choice of clothing” and that “modesty refuses to unveil that which should remain hidden”. Thus if we choose to ignore this context just so we can uphold our pet theories about what we think is acceptable or modest clothing, then our interpretation of para 2524 is likely to be completely off beam and awry.
It is the height of folly to take as our yardstick what the surrounding godless culture deems acceptable as regards modest attire, especially if a lowered public opinion respecting standards of morality prevails, as it most decidedly does in the West. How on earth can this possibly be a reliable guide for the godly who are striving to be pure and holy amidst a crooked and perverse generation, among who they ought to shine as lights.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
A
Art321
Guest
Sorry for responding so late to your post. Yes, Jason Evert does talk about the bikini, and since so many are talking about right now, I guess I post the video.Dear Art,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good post, dear friend.
If my memory serves me well, does not Catholic Answers have a sort a ‘Purity Club’ link for youth and does not Mr.Evert write articles for that? Seem to remember that they address questions regarding modest attire and whether or not a mini-skirt and bikini is acceptable, and I am almost next to certain that, by implication, they answer those questions in the negative. If that is the case, then it at least shows that it is not a few oddballs that maintain that these seductive style garments are unseemly and inappropriate for yoing women professing godliness.
Perhaps you can enlighten us, Art. Thankyou
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
youtube.com/watch?v=WtzIcz7MOkc&feature=related
Check it out.
A
Art321
Guest
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.Actually, to prove my point, I’ve seen people who would call those immodest. On the other hand, I’ve seen how guys can easily view such clothing in a perverse way (no x-ray glasses required).
I’m not sure how simply stating a fact is considered ‘an attack’.
Also if you want to see that as fact, fine. Whatever makes you happy.
A
Art321
Guest
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.
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.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Severus68,Perhaps if you read what I responded to and my whole post, you would know I was not trying to disrespect Our Lady. The whole thing of asking what Mary would wear today is rather silly as I said. Since you find most clothes of today immodest and you are more concerned with outward appearance I suppose you would only be happy if I said she would wear today what she wore more than 2,000 years ago.
I have more respect for men and women than you appear to have. Men should be able to look at women with respect without seeing them as objects of lust and vice versa. Saying men need help to control their passions is used as an excuse by some men. David wanted Bathsheba and he did everything to get her. Lets not put the blame on another woman again here please.
Its near impossible to have a discussion with you. You have decided you do not like what happened at Vatican II and after, that women’s fashion after 1959 has been immodest and tarty, that JPII gave in to modern culture and was wrong and that women must be submissive and meek. You quote the same things in support. Surely you must understand that many, including good Catholics disagree with you in all honesty.
Hello again and thankyou for your response above.
By way of reply, let me say that is it anything but “silly” asking what Our Lady would wear today if she were living among us, for that may aid us in thinking more seriously about our choice of apparel and its effects upon others. What is for certain is that our “Mother Most Chaste” would not be clad in any unseemly or tarty garments, unbefitting of her modesty and purity.
Your remark was, “Never mind - if Mary was living today and wore a bikini, why not?”. Sorry severus, but this is a most flippant and irreverent comment, irrrespective of your entire post. Refering to a bikini in the very same sentence as Our Lady is itself enough to make one wince and I am quite certain that I am not alone in feeling such uneasiness.
The reason why men and women find it difficult to look at each other without having impure thoughts is because of the presence of concupiscence, which has brought disorder into the world and effects men and women and their relationships with one another, some more than others, it is quite true. Men are particularly vulnerable in this respect because they are very visual creatures and must therefore be very vigilant as to the custody of their eyes. However, women also have a responsibilty to dress in such a manner that is not sexually provocative and calculated to stimulate man’s carnal passions, even Popes and pre-Vatican II manual’s of instruction have said as much. Were they all misguided and simply excusing men who could not keep their base desires in check? Such a suggestion is surely absurd.
If women took care to dress in more decent and modest attire, then prehaps men would “be able to look at women with respect without seeing them as objects of lust”. Women also have a responsibility to refrain from wearing seductive style clothing, which is likely to stimulate impure thoughts as long as evil desire exists in the world.
My purpose in citing David’s fall into adultery was not to exonerate his sin in any way, but simply to demonstrate the powerful allure of a woman’s body to a man. Actually, the case of David illustrates the sheer strength of concupiscence and why it is so vitally important for a woman to be clad in modest attire, so as to help counteract the effects of evil desire.
Many good and even, otherwise orthodox Catholics, do disagree with me and others over this issue, but that is only because they have assimilated the godless standards of the prevailing culture and prefer to use those as a benchmark, rather than the now unpopular consistent tradition of the Church throughout the ages and Sacred Scripture, correctly interpreted.
Modesty in dress is extremely unpopular among neo-Catholics today and the general tendency, if this thread is anything to go by, is to use all manner of sophisms to evade its practice. We ought to hang our heads in shame and repent in sack cloth and ashes.
Dearly beloved friends, this is my final post this side of the weekend and it just remains for me to wish you all a very enjoyable and restful weekend, whatever you plan to do.
God bless you and thankyou to those who have taken time to respond to my posts.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Art321,Sorry for responding so late to your post. Yes, Jason Evert does talk about the bikini, and since so many are talking about right now, I guess I post the video.
youtube.com/watch?v=WtzIcz7MOkc&feature=related
Check it out.
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Thankyou for that, dear friend. I shall watch the video over the weekend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
wynnejj
Guest
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?
We’ve explored the idea of modesty of dress, so let’s now turn our gaze to modesty of speech. Suppose I accept the premise that women should not be required to temper their dress habits in the context of moral acceptability, only if man does not have to temper their free speech habits in response to said women. So our western culture accepts and protects by law the free and open expression of obscene fashion and speech. Obscenity, as it were, are in the eye and ear of the beholder.
Nowhere can a woman hide from the voices of men protected by law and protected from reprisals by anyone for their intemperate, indecent, immodest speech. Women need to “woman up” with their anger management problems with regards to constant assaults to their sensibilities commenting about their weight, prospects in bed, etc. Here we have a situation where man cannot hide from the visual assaults of woman’s immodest free fashions, and woman can’t hide from the audio assault of man’s response in terms of immodest speech.
What say you? Silly? Yeah, why not?
We’ve explored the idea of modesty of dress, so let’s now turn our gaze to modesty of speech. Suppose I accept the premise that women should not be required to temper their dress habits in the context of moral acceptability, only if man does not have to temper their free speech habits in response to said women. So our western culture accepts and protects by law the free and open expression of obscene fashion and speech. Obscenity, as it were, are in the eye and ear of the beholder.
Nowhere can a woman hide from the voices of men protected by law and protected from reprisals by anyone for their intemperate, indecent, immodest speech. Women need to “woman up” with their anger management problems with regards to constant assaults to their sensibilities commenting about their weight, prospects in bed, etc. Here we have a situation where man cannot hide from the visual assaults of woman’s immodest free fashions, and woman can’t hide from the audio assault of man’s response in terms of immodest speech.
What say you? Silly? Yeah, why not?
E
Edward_H
Guest
Modesty is a by product of a pure intention to please only God. Choices and decisions flow from that intentional act of love.
D
Debora123
Guest
As there is nothing sinful about wearing a bikini to the beach, then YES, of course I could.Are you qualified to dress yourself? My question was simple. If you were role-playing yourself as Mary raised in contemporary society, not 2000 years ago, could you see yourself as Mary wearing a bikini in concert with your understanding of Mary’s character?
D
Debora123
Guest
Hardly anyone disapproves or finds it immodest/arousing, yes.Hi Debra,
We seem to be talking past each other, because we are not agreeing on the basics. You are advocating the standard of what is considered “approvable” by the larger society. A woman wears a bikini on the beach, and since hardly anyone disapproves (especially not openly) that is the same as modesty in your view.
This is exactly why I’ve been stressing CONTEXT here.The men are in command of themselves (as they have to be by force of law), so there is no problem. The “vast majority” of men do not consider a bikini or other swimwear to be sexual. Really? Why the Sports Illustrated calendar? Of course, the vast majority of men do consider bikinis to be very sexy, along with a well-known list of garments that can be quite alluring on a woman who is attractive.
Wearing a bikini to the beach, is completely different from posing in pornographic pictures that are meant to arouse.
Context, context, context. I’ve been stressing this way too much. It’s all about time and place.
Let’s look once more at Blessed JPII’s views on swimwear:
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. "
- Status
- Not open for further replies.