Want men's opinion on women's modesty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Flower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous. We women can discuss this ad infinitum, but we need to hear from you. Are slacks an occassion for sin for you? Is there such a thing as modest pants? She also advocates for skirts simply because they are more feminine and better reflect the way God made us, namely women and not men. Please let us hear from you guys!
Click to expand...
Let’s face it, unless a good look’n chick wears a burka most guys are going to find something to lust about.
 
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous. We women can discuss this ad infinitum, but we need to hear from you. Are slacks an occassion for sin for you? Is there such a thing as modest pants? She also advocates for skirts simply because they are more feminine and better reflect the way God made us, namely women and not men. Please let us hear from you guys!
Click to expand...
Let’s face it, unless a good look’n chick wears a burqa most guys are going to find something to lust about.
 
I’ve waited a day to reply to this thread, because it’s really a tough one.

I am a very normal male, which means that I am very visual where female attractiveness is concerned. Am I responsible for learning to control my own thoughts? Yes. I believe that there are men of God who have trained themselves to such a level of self-control that they could walk through a room full of naked females and not even notice.

But how many of us Christian men are at that point? Not very many. I know I’m not, and any time I get to thinking that I’ve arrived, all I have to do is go walk through WalMart to find out that I haven’t.

So, does this mean that a Christian girl or woman has no responsibility for my thoughts when she presents herself to my eyes in a way that is certain to cause sexual arousal? Let’s see what Jesus says:
But whoever causes one of these little ones that’s me] who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him or her] if a millstone were hung around his or her] neck, and he or she] were thrown into the sea. Mark 9:42-43, NKJV
Click to expand...
Those are strong words. They imply that one must KNOW what is likely to offend (or tempt) another, and then avoid it. However, I firmly believe that part of what has been lost in female modesty is teaching young girls exactly what it is that attracts boys and men in the wrong way. (I could take it further and talk about female clothing, such as “muffin tops,” that looks absolutely ridiculous, but that’s not the purpose of this thread.)

Is there something specific in Sacred Scripture that addresses this question? Yes, there is:
…in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair this refers to intricate and costly hair styling that was in favor in that culture among women of “class”] or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 1 Tim 2:9-10, NKJV
Click to expand...
Modesty, propriety, and moderation. How do we achieve that, if not by a list of rules?

Any time I see a list of rules, I am reminded of a scene in Michener’s Hawaii where the first missionaries were translating the Bible into Hawaiian, and they ran into a quandary over the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” The problem, according to the native who was helping with the translation, was that there were 20-something (I’m guessing; I don’t remember the exact number) types of adultery in the Hawaiian culture.

If, on one hand, the translation said only “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” then a couple might think, “They don’t mean our kind,” and go ahead and do it anyway.

If, on the other hand, the translation listed all 20-something types, then a couple might say, “Hey, we’ve never heard of that one; let’s try it.”

The missionaries wound up translating the commandment as “Thou shalt not sleep mischeviously.”

Ladies, if you don’t want to arouse lust in the men who see you, then you “should not dress mischeviously.” What does that mean? Unfortunately, as has been seen above, it’s different with every man. There are some who wouldn’t blink an eye at total nudity, and there are others who would lust after a scarecrow in a burqa.

Let every man be responsible for his own lust. But at the same time, let those who are charged with forming the souls of young ladies teach them to take responsibility for their own modesty. Unfortunately, this must include a recognition that most of us men are visual animals.

DaveBj
 
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous. We women can discuss this ad infinitum, but we need to hear from you. Are slacks an occassion for sin for you? Is there such a thing as modest pants? She also advocates for skirts simply because they are more feminine and better reflect the way God made us, namely women and not men. Please let us hear from you guys!
Click to expand...
Not slacks but form fitting pants/jeans are definatelly distracting and I don’t notice this type of stuff as much as other guys I know anymore.

I think these are good suggestions and remind me of the old catholic school dresscodes.

On another note when I saw this post originally my first thought was “there are still modest women out there?”
 
Dave pretty much nailed it. IMO, no objective list is going to be of any help. And this one is downright absurd; the kind of exaggerrated piety that turns people OFF the gospel.

If a woman wants to dress modestly, she just needs to look in the mirror and ask herself what message her attire is sending about her. Avoid anything that says “Wouldn’t you like a piece of this?” and you are being plenty modest.
 
manualman said:
Dave pretty much nailed it. IMO, no objective list is going to be of any help. And this one is downright absurd; the kind of exaggerrated piety that turns people OFF the gospel.

If a woman wants to dress modestly, she just needs to look in the mirror and ask herself what message her attire is sending about her. Avoid anything that says “Wouldn’t you like a piece of this?” and you are being plenty modest.
Click to expand...
While your post made be chuckle because of the question it is blatantly wrong as is Dave’s post. Modesty is not a subjective phenomenon but is rather an objective reality slightly modified by cultural norms. If it was left up to personal judgment on all levels then nothing would ever be accomplished as with all relativistic viewpoints.
 
I know this is primarily for men to respond, but I thought I’d add a few quick thoughts as I just read Colleen’s book and have been pondering the guildelines.

Two things to note: her emphasis on “no pants” is because of a 1970s study that found when women wear pants men’s eyes are FIRST directed to her bottom in back and in front to her “most private and intimate area.” Yikes! These areas are certainly more outlined and emphasized in pants. She doesn’t talk about whether or not this direction of the eyes always leads to lustful thoughts, but it can’t help. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard about this “test” and I’ve also read that when confronted with women in dresses or skirts, the eyes are directed more naturally toward the face.

Second, her guidelines for dress are not simply hers, but those issued by the Vatican in the 1920s. Granted, some of you may find them out-of-date (at least partially), but I think most are worth preserving. Here’s the quote from her book (which I quoted on my blog):
I should mention first that Colleen cites the Vatican’s standards for modest dressing as issued by Pop Pius XI in 1928.

“[A] dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper.”
Click to expand...
zuzusperch.blogspot.com/2006/09/modesty-part-two-finished.html

I addressed my thoughts on these issues more fully here, including why I won’t wear skirts with slits:

zuzusperch.blogspot.com/2006/09/modesty.html

zuzusperch.blogspot.com/2006/09/modesty-part-two.html

zuzusperch.blogspot.com/2006/09/modesty-part-two-finished.html
 
Ana said:
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

It is refreshing to see a man owning up to HIS responsibility.

I think modesty “rules” are the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Modesty comes from within and will be reflected in how you dress.

If women concentrated on living their life the way God calls them to than the dress will fall into place. Rules do nothing but invite scrupulosity and pride. Because now that I look like someone from Little House on the Prairie, I can notice what all the other woman are wearing and mentally measure the length of others skirts.:rolleyes:

I think someone like that is putting just as much emphasis on what they wear as someone who follows the latest fashions to the tee. OBSESSED WITH CLOTHES.

I have chosen a simpler route. Because I feel called to a simple lifestyle. I really am not impressed on either end of the clothing spectrum. I wear jeans, and a tee with sneakers mostly. My favorite outfit is my old comfy jeans and my “Where the Wild Things Are…” t-shirt I got off the clearance rack at Walmart. My kiddies LOVE it. They think I’m pretty cool.That makes me happy.

Yes, I am attractive, yes I have a nice figure. I do not feel an abnormal need to hide it or emphasize it. I dress for what is appropriate to my state of life and occasion.

Oh yeah my hair? hee … hee … dreadlocks.😃

The chicks that walk around all blinged blinged with there boobies hanging out and their thong sticking out from their jeans, I feel really sorry for and I pray for them.😦 The ones that walk around with the shirts to the elbow and skirts to their ankles (no slits) in 100 degree weather make me laugh. I don’t pray for them, they are holy enough.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree with you man has responsibility.

We do know that men are visually stimulated. So if a woman wants to stimulate a man she knows exactly what to wear. The questions goes back to exactly what is she trying to advertise, knowing men are the consumers. And why would a happily married woman want to stimulate many other men.
 
Wow, accused of relativisim. That hasn’t happened to me much!

I suppose I wasn’t very clear. My point is that a specific list like the silly one proposed is not helpful. What IS universal is that lust (properly defined) is wrong and it is uncharitable to dress in a manner likely to incite lust.

In practical terms, the application of this principle is extremely dependent on culture and varies over time. In some cultures, breasts aren’t considered sexual at all! It is not sin at all for natives in such cultures to dress appropriately. My comment about assessing oneself and asking the message that the clothing sends DOES assume that the person in question has a properly formed conscience. I should have made that distinction, but assumed it would be the case for anybody who cares about the issue!
 
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous.
Click to expand...
To run down your list:
  1. Pants are not a problem
  2. Covering the shoulders is sufficient
  3. Form hugging clothes are wrong
  4. Short skirts above the knees definitely make you more visible
  5. No problems with slits in the skirt
  6. Sheerness is not modest at all
  7. Low necklines are very distracting
  8. Writing on clothing is not a problem
  9. Swimsuits in public are not modest
 
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous. We women can discuss this ad infinitum, but we need to hear from you. Are slacks an occassion for sin for you? Is there such a thing as modest pants? She also advocates for skirts simply because they are more feminine and better reflect the way God made us, namely women and not men. Please let us hear from you guys!
Click to expand...
  1. Tight fitting jeans that hug the butt can get my eyes attention (this is almost always the style for women)
  2. Not a big deal at all, I don’t lust after arms
  3. I don’t know, they shouldn’t be tight but no reason to walk around in turnip sacks either.
  4. I think knee or 2 inches above the knee for a skirt is fine.
  5. I guess there’s no good reason for a slit except to make men lust right?
  6. I don’t know about nothing, stockings are sheer right?
  7. agreed
  8. agreed
  9. Beach or pool is when you just can’t help but lust and stare, I mean the men are basically in underpants, and the women are in a bra and panties.
My wife dresses “sexy” not to be confused with slutty, she’s not very religious I don’t own her, but I find her more attractive when she’s wearing loose jeans and a nice t-shirt or sweater. Womens fashion today is way overboard, even at work the way women dress makes me sin daily.

But in the end men are visual creature, they’ll find anything to lust after. In the 1800’s when women were buttoned up to the ears an ankle or nicely shaped foot would cause a man to lust.
 
Well gentlemen and the occassional lady that responded, thank you all for your thoughts. I guess we can conclude from this that modesty rules are not quite one size fits all, that what is an occassion of sin for one man may not be for another.

Regarding women who follow “the code” being sactimonious: it is a temptation to judge those less modestly dressed, but we should not fail to dress modestly so as not to seem judgemental. Let’s face it, a good number of young ladies could use a little guilt for the way they dress. Satan will always try to make us proud the second we grow in any virtue. It’s always a struggle.

Colleen gives many good reasons for her recommendation, one is church documents. The other is the test of history. Until the mid 20th century women around the world (excepting tropical climates perhaps; look at ancient Rome, Greece, etc) have worn long flowing dresses for many milennia. Perhaps female attire remained the same for so many years for a reason.

I think I need to reread the book! It’s a lot to digest.
 
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous. We women can discuss this ad infinitum, but we need to hear from you. Are slacks an occassion for sin for you? Is there such a thing as modest pants? She also advocates for skirts simply because they are more feminine and better reflect the way God made us, namely women and not men. Please let us hear from you guys!
Click to expand...
Who is Colleen Hammond and did she write this before or after women got the right to vote, own land, have a bank account? Was this written before or after Washington crossed the Delaware?

If you all tell me her approx. weight and height, I am sure I can ask Omar the tent maker to whip up a burka for her. Just need to know if she has a preference of color.

Geez louise…get a grip.

Men are going to look if you are in a burlap sack. I’m a jeans and t-shirt kind of gal. I also like to wear sundresses.

Swimming together…not likely going to happen for me.

Haven’t been to the beach in 20 yrs in a bathing suit. I’m always afraid, I’ll end up hanging upside down from a winch with a old salty fisherman next to me, as they take pictures for the cover of Fishermans Weekly, with the caption reading…
“Largest whale catch on east coast”, see page 11
 
Julianna said:
Who is Colleen Hammond and did she write this before or after women got the right to vote, own land, have a bank account? Was this written before or after Washington crossed the Delaware?

If you all tell me her approx. weight and height, I am sure I can ask Omar the tent maker to whip up a burka for her. Just need to know if she has a preference of color.

Geez louise…get a grip.

Men are going to look if you are in a burlap sack. I’m a jeans and t-shirt kind of gal. I also like to wear sundresses.

Swimming together…not likely going to happen for me.

Haven’t been to the beach in 20 yrs in a bathing suit. I’m always afraid, I’ll end up hanging upside down from a winch with a old salty fisherman next to me, as they take pictures for the cover of Fishermans Weekly, with the caption reading…
“Largest whale catch on east coast”, see page 11
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
Little_Flower said:
In “Dressing With Dignity”, author Colleen Hammond outlines the following suggestions for modest attire that will help men see women without lusting after them. In genreal cloths should veil the woman’s form and not draw attention to it.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
  6. Nothing sheer.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous. We women can discuss this ad infinitum, but we need to hear from you. Are slacks an occassion for sin for you? Is there such a thing as modest pants? She also advocates for skirts simply because they are more feminine and better reflect the way God made us, namely women and not men. Please let us hear from you guys!
Click to expand...
Flower,
I’d have to say that Ms. Hammond’s opinion would certainly “help men see women without lusting after them” in my opinion. However, at what cost? I think that modest dress is important but it needs to be balanced with allowing a woman (or man) the ability to self-express. Women don’t have to go around looking as though they belong to a commune or as though they just walked off the set of a film depicting 16 century puritans. Common sense is the best guide, in this area. Having said that, I’ll comment on the points which Ms. Hammond addresses.
  1. Wear no pants, as it almost always causes men to lust.
    I hope that she means to put something on in place of the pants… (sorry, feeble attempt at humor). Pants never had any effect on me one way or the other. Actually, I am probably more attracted to women who wear dresses and skirts. It’s more feminine and I appreciate a woman who recognizes and feels comfortable within her gender.
  2. Keep arms covered to the elbows.
    Again, this area of a woman’s body doesn’t tempt me nor lead me down the path to sin. Sorry, I have no idea why she might think that men lust after a woman’s upper arm.
  3. Clothes should be loose enough that no lines from
    undergarments are visible.
    I can agree with this. Not because undergarment lines are themselves a distraction but if the clothing is so tight that I can see these small lines and bumps, I can may also see every other bump, indent, etc. which aren’t caused by under clothing.
  4. Skirts should be at least 2 inches below the knee, preferably 8
    inches below the knee.
    Again, I speak for myself here, but I would be far more attracted to this than I am to a pair of jeans or slacks.
  5. No slits in skirts ever.
    Slits in skirts can cause “lust” especially if they proceed high up the skirt. I’d have to agree with Ms. Hammond on this one.
  6. Nothing sheer.
    That’s silly. Of course, I am not all into fashion and maybe I do not understand the term “sheer,” however, outer clothing that highlights shouldn’t be included. Aren’t some scarves “sheer?” Aren’t panty hose “sheer?” etc.
  7. No bare backs, and no necklines more than two fingers widths
    below the pit of the throat.
    Again, silliness. I’m trying to picture a dress that meets this back and neckline requirement and all I seem to be able to imagine is a burlap bag with holes cut into it for the head and arms. Except even then the arms would be exposed above the elbows.
  8. No writing on chest of back of pants.
    Okay, here’s a no-brainer. Men aren’t reading shirts or backs of pants when women are wearing clothing with writing on it. With or without writing, men are going to notice these areas.
  9. While she does not state this in her book, she does imply that
    women and men should never swim together, and that until the last few hundred years, it was never done except among the promiscuous.
    I think that this is where men need to be held accountable. If a man knows that he is tempted by observing women wearing bathing suits than perhaps he should be the one to abstain from swimming there.
 
I didn’t read all the posts. Maybe this has been alluded to already.

I’m not sure what “occasion to sin” means. On that note I’m also not sure where the line between admiration and sin resides.

If I look at and admire a women wearing a short skirt (for example) and notice she has shapely legs, have I sinned? If not then I don’t see anything with short skirts.

Are admiration and appreciation equal to lust? I’d need to know this in order to answer the OP’s original question.

If a woman has dressed obviously in a manner to attempt to sexually excite I make attempt to look away (usually this is not a quickly as what may be appropriate but the effort is there). If I find my mind going further I make a diligent attempt to stop.

I suspect this issue has about as many opinions as there are men.

If a man knows a particular woman is drawn to intelligent men, is he obligated to act stupid in her presence? :confused:
 
manualman said:
Wow, accused of relativisim. That hasn’t happened to me much!

I suppose I wasn’t very clear. My point is that a specific list like the silly one proposed is not helpful. What IS universal is that lust (properly defined) is wrong and it is uncharitable to dress in a manner likely to incite lust.

In practical terms, the application of this principle is extremely dependent on culture and varies over time. In some cultures, breasts aren’t considered sexual at all! It is not sin at all for natives in such cultures to dress appropriately. My comment about assessing oneself and asking the message that the clothing sends DOES assume that the person in question has a properly formed conscience. I should have made that distinction, but assumed it would be the case for anybody who cares about the issue!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
Some women use every occasion to show as much skin as possible, wherever it is, and that’s a pretty good starting place to cover up.

Similarly, it seems to be a custom to wear showy clothes, to get attention, and that problem doesn’t seem to have been covered in the rules. Men, in contrast, wear some variation of a suit, shirt, and tie. Some can be showy, but suits run together after a while.
Women’s clothing has much more variability in form, and a woman knows what to wear to get attention. So, the rule would be to wear something less likely to draw attention.

The rules don’t seem to address clothing that is worn tightly, to show every curve of the female anatomy. This rule is obviously played to the hilt on TV, where every effort is made to conform women’s clothing to the variation of individual’s anatomy. This is like being naked with clothes on. This is to be avoided.

I think earings are similarly a device to draw attention to minor parts of the anatomy. It used to be simple, that someone with earrings was a woman, but that line is blurred a lot today.

Some hairstyles are provocative, especially when the hair is constantly falling on the face, and a woman is constantly stroking herself to align the mischevious hair.

Like earrings, high heel shoes are meant to draw attention in a number of ways, and should be avoided. I can’t imagine that such painful devices are so popular.
 
My wife and I both feel that modesty is very important. One of the first books we read together during our courtship was, “A Return to Modesty” by Wendy Shalit.

Before meeting my wife, I dated a young lady who was quite nice and attractive, but she dressed very cheap and immodestly. It took me a little while to articulate why this bothered me, but in the end, we parted ways over this issue.

My wife dresses modestly and I can honestly say that I prefer it. We attend an indult Latin Mass Parish were all the women and young girls dress modestly, and all the men wear suits.

These women wear the most beatiful dresses. They dress very classy and feminine. Many of the women design and sew thier own clothes, because the fashion industry gives them so few options. If you are picturing a scene out of Little House on the Prarrie, you got the wrong idea. These women are able to incorporate classically modest principles into modern materials and designs.

It is hard to find anything like this at the mall. All they seem to have is cheap or trashy or masculine power suits.

I am so blessed to have found something better.

Just my opinion.
 
Little_Flower said:
Colleen gives many good reasons for her recommendation, one is church documents. The other is the test of history. Until the mid 20th century women around the world (excepting tropical climates perhaps; look at ancient Rome, Greece, etc) have worn long flowing dresses for many milennia. Perhaps female attire remained the same for so many years for a reason.
Click to expand...
(I am a woman, btw.)

I just have to say, this particular argument doesn’t hold up. If her idea were true, one would expect it to follow that in cultures in which women typically wear long dresses, men would have fewer issues with lust. Unfortunately for Ms. Hammond it simply isn’t so. Historically speaking, it is quite clear that ancient Rome wasn’t exactly a bastion of purity. And that’s only one example.

This has been an interesting thread, however. As Little Flower mentioned, each man has his own take on what modest dress consists of. It seems like this is the general conclusion each time this issue is raised on CAF.

And, as usual, it appears some people have mistaken beauty or attractiveness for immodesty. There is nothing especially sexual about a couple extra inches of rubber on the sole of a shoe, or an uncooperative lock of hair. Just because a certain style (or action or adornment) is attractive to a certain man and may give him difficulty in maintaining pure thoughts does not mean that that particular style is inherently evil. If we were to ask the opposite sex to shield us from every possible sexual temptation, no one (man nor woman) would be able to move a muscle again, because there’s hardly a gesture or piece of clothing in all the world that doesn’t attract anyone. (For my personal protection, no man would ever be allowed to trim hedges again. :rolleyes: ) In trying to dress modestly, I really think we women need to rely more on avoiding styles that are nearly universally provocative within the limits of the culture in which we live.

Do most men at least agree that a woman can dress attractively/beautifully in public without being immodest?

My opinion is that an attractive but modest item of clothing is one that was designed to appeal to a particular culture’s sense of (chaste) beauty, but which does not have any features intended to incite any degree of sexual arousal. A v-shaped neckline that does not expose any cleavage was clearly designed to be beautiful and interesting, not provocative. Whereas the miniskirt was designed to make others wonder whether the wearer’s privates are going to stay private.

And as other have noted, modesty seems to depend heavily on the demeanor and comportment of the individual wearer as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top