What clothing do you consider modest?

[KayMS]

Apathy, this is true enough. I would suspect it had a great deal to do with the lingerie sections, which were not on the cover of the catalogs. We would have to completely remove the underwear sections of all our stores if we were going to be that prudish; but a point could be made as we have worse than the Sears catalog today with Victoria Secrets catalogs shuffling through the mail. I had to put a book on the one I saw at my sister’s house! Perhaps we should take a hint from our Islamic sisters and only market lingerie on hangers or manequins.

 

[Apathy]

In all honesty Kay, I was being sarcastic.
Personally as an observer of the realm of culture, a girl could wear chains alone and I would accept that as who she wants to portray herself as and I would not be offended.

Sure, there are standards of decency that must be adhered to.
But in all honesty it is the person and not the clothes.

 

[Forest-Pine]

KayMS:

Apathy, this is true enough. I would suspect it had a great deal to do with the lingerie sections, which were not on the cover of the catalogs. We would have to completely remove the underwear sections of all our stores if we were going to be that prudish; but a point could be made as we have worse than the Sears catalog today with Victoria Secrets catalogs shuffling through the mail. I had to put a book on the one I saw at my sister’s house! Perhaps we should take a hint from our Islamic sisters and only market lingerie on hangers or manequins.

The Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue was so disgusting, having several sexual scenes with teenagers in various states of undress (to nudity), that it had to be pulled. Victoria’s Secret is nothing compared to what they are peddling to our teens.

 

[Apathy]

Forest-Pine:

The Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue was so disgusting, having several sexual scenes with teenagers in various states of undress (to nudity), that it had to be pulled. Victoria’s Secret is nothing compared to what they are peddling to our teens.

Mind you those models were also underage at the same time.
A life without restrictions and limitations is the manifestation of many.

I must out myself, I am not a Catholic, nor Protestant, nor anything in the sect of Christianity or any other major religion.

I live by ethics, self-evident truths and the sort.

I just view our society as a whole as church going people who after 12PM on Sunday return to their lives where they persist conducting themselves in contradiction to their fath.

I look at our culture, and how we can allow underage Ambercrombie models to dress down and be displayed all over our society and masses of people are blinded into submission of accepting it and I myself in turn decide why should I care?

 

[KayMS]

Just call me dense, Apathy!

As Mr. Laver stated, clothing is for the “Lust of the Eye and the Pride of Life.” The prior being the reason women clothe themselves (Seduction Principle) and the later the reason why men clothe themselves (Hierarchical Principle). Cultural norms of decency dictate just how far a culture will go with those principles.

 

[KayMS]

Apathy:

I just view our society as a whole as church going people who after 12PM on Sunday return to their lives where they persist conducting themselves in contradiction to their fath.

Not all people live that way, though there are plenty of religious hypocrits out there making those who do seem non-existent. Life is ever a struggle to submit to and obey Truth. And, yes, some of us DO include the supernatural Truths with the natural ones in our everyday lives.

 

[kage_ar]

beckyann2597:

My rule of thumb…
What would Grace Kelly wear?
What would Audrey Hepburn wear?
The classier the better. You can even wear form fitting clothes if properly tailored.

To add to this - you could also wear strapless gowns, low backed gowns, etc. in the proper time place (NOT to Mass). Both Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn wore some goregous eveningware… Gowns more fitting for proms than some of the doozies I’ve seen

 

[Apathy]

KayMS:

Not all people live that way, though there are plenty of religious hypocrits out there making those who do seem non-existent. Life is ever a struggle to submit to and obey Truth. And, yes, some of us DO include the supernatural Truths with the natural ones in our everyday lives.

I guess my logic falls within the bounds of; during the Progressive Era, there was a larger movement in womens clothing and as the Jazz Age came along most of the people were calling out people for being very unclassy wearing things that today we would deem the ubermensch of conservative attire… yet as time goes on it disolves it’s self and we have accepted that it is not nessesary that we wear a full piece with sleeves to the beach… but instead a two piece or what have you.

Society permits what is worn today and I think that there will be an adaptation and it will become normative, sure some of the fads and styles will die but some will stay.

It seems each decade we are pushing the bounds of the last and in each case something progressed and many refuted it… however it did progress.

That is not to say it makes it justified; however it tells me to not care about it, apathy if you will…

 

[vluvski]

kage_ar:

To add to this - you could also wear strapless gowns, low backed gowns, etc. in the proper time place (NOT to Mass). Both Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn wore some goregous eveningware… Gowns more fitting for proms than some of the doozies I’ve seen

On that note, would love thoughts on wedding gowns.

I looked and looked, and every gown with sleeves just looked ridiculous on me. For the most part, the strapless gowns are much more modest (with respect to cleavage).

So I ended up buying a strapless gown. I LOVE the hem, but I’m not so attached to it that I couldn’t be persuaded to wear another if I could sell the one I have and buy another for cheap.

I was trying to find a bolero jacket for Mass, but Mom thought it would look dumb. The search wasn’t going very far anyway. She thought it wouldn’t match, would take away from the look of the dress (I do look good in it!), said it would be Ok since my shoulders would be covered by my (her) veil anyway…

What do y’all think?

Anyone out there who could whip me up a set of inch-and-a-half or so straps for not terribly much?

 

[kage_ar]

vluvski:

On that note, would love thoughts on wedding gowns.

I looked and looked, and every gown with sleeves just looked ridiculous on me. For the most part, the strapless gowns are much more modest (with respect to cleavage).

So I ended up buying a strapless gown.

My dear friend had a lovely little jacket over her strapless gown - wore it during Mass then removed for the reception. Out of respect, the shoulders should be covered during Mass - and I’d think something more than just the veil - a jacket or pretty wrap held by a goregous brooch? Find a good seamstress in town, they will whip you up something splendid for Mass.

 

[KayMS]

Apathy, that is the way of fashion. It will *always *adapt and change. We are a little naive if we think our time was the only time ever faced with immodesty. Man has always been battling with what was considered immodest dress (people have been prone to sin since the beginning) and has frequently thought their time to be THE worst, as far a decadence in dress is concerned.

This is a Mormon site but they have fashionable (though some look rather medieval) wedding dresses beautifullymodest.com/cgi-bin/catalogDisplay.cgi?c=3
I have to admit that the Mormons are much better organized at providing moral resources. It is sad to say, but Catholics are far too diverse in their thinking to ever accomplish such a task!

At one time in the past, the Church prohibitted strapless wedding dresses because the simple fact is that at a wedding Mass you are standing before God’s religious, who have taken vows of celibacy. We must respect their state in life!!! Charity is the greatest of all the commandments. Do for others before yourself.

If you love the dress that much, take it to a tailor and add to the dress.

 

[beckyann2597]

This is probably unethical…but for my wedding dress, I took my seamstress shopping with me in the HUGE wedding mall trying on dresses. We discussed what I liked and disliked and then she went and made a custom gown to my specs. Invest in some magazines, and find a jacket, bolero, wrap that you like and have a seamstress make it.

 

[vluvski]

kage_ar:

Find a good seamstress in town, they will whip you up something splendid for Mass.

For almost as much as the dress cost me! The cheapest was/is going to charge 80 just for a simple bustle! I’m so glad not to need alterations. It probably wouldn’t hurt, but it just isn’t worth it for a dress I’ll only wear once.

All those SAHMs looking for extra income, take up sewing!!!

I wish I would have waited to get it, but… My best bet is probably watching ebay for a classy white satin bolero jacket, or making straps or even the jacket myself (ha!). The wrap wouldn’t look right, and it wouldn’t be ‘me’ either.

 

[beckyann2597]

You should start a new thread about your wedding dress so we can all toss around ideas.

 

[Eileen_T]

I always tell my girls ( and their friends)…“If it’s not for sale, don’t advertise!”

 

[longshanks1011]

Apathy:

I believe a chastity belt, and a iron suit that covers your whole body except for your eyes to be the way of the lord.

Skin should be hidden and not shown, for it enduces lust in even the most devout of humanity.

I believe the Comstock Laws should be re-instated.

wait, are “chastity belt” and “iron suit” just expressions ? or are they really clothes? what are they?

 

[Apathy]

longshanks1011:

wait, are “chastity belt” and “iron suit” just expressions ? or are they really clothes? what are they?

Chastity belts are from days gone by…
Iron Suit, well… I somewhat meant Lead Suit… You know, that suit people wear in areas of intense radiation to take measurements.

 

[Litodogfrend]

Didi:

Not only wear clothes that would not offend Our Blessed Mother; wear clothes that will not offend Our Lord and Savior.

Especially for girls, please keep your tummies, your tooshies and your cleavages covered.

What many girls don’t realize is that males are very visual people, that’s how God made them. You actually cause your brothers in Christ to sin when you wear clothes that make them think impure thoughts.

Don’t you want to attract a guy who likes you because of your personality, finds you interesting and wants to get to know you better? That’s not what they’re thinking when all they see is skin.

very well said!!!:clapping:

 

[Elphaba]

volzcpa:

I am unfamiliar with the which perspectives of the Society of Saint Pius X are included in this [Dressing with Dignity] book. Could you please provide some specific examples?

I am revisiting this topic though it has had no activity in a long while only because I noted I missed the above question (btw, I am KayMS)

All of the comments on p. 136. They are the translator notes of Bp. Richard Williamson of the SSPX. Here are more of the bishop’s insights on women and dress: sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

Robert T. Hart Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow the Fashions published by Pray the Rosary. Pray the Rosary is a strong supporter of CMRI (a sedevacantist group). Mrs Hammond just attended their Fatima Conference in the Pacific Northwest (though she only generally mentions this detail in her blog colleenhammond.blogspot.com/2005/10/book-tour-update.html ) cmri.org/fatimaconference.html

The position that women cannot wear pants, is that of the SSPX and other radical traditional groups - not the church. Read this article: seekwisdom.org/articles/deut22_5.htm

Ann Cillis (another source used in Dressing with Dignity) is an SSPX adherent. In the book, Arrivederci, Padre Pio from which Mrs. Hammond quotes, Mrs. Cillis included the full text of one of the excommuncated Archbishop Lebfebvre’s speeches given in Canada (reprinted here: sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_April/Holy_Sacrifice_Mass.htm). As to the quote Mrs. Hammond took from Mrs. Cillis, the alleged verbal interview is unlike the actual letters on record from Saint Pio’s spiritual daughters. Cillis’ interview is with a person who has absolutely no hesitation in revealing the exact details of a very private matter - confession. The spiritual daughters of Saint Pio were not prone to be so descript! There is no way to corroborate the information as stated by Mrs. Cillis in her book since a priest would be strictly prohibited by the seal of confession from corroborating or denying the information; that is, if the good Saint were still alive. Credibility seems of less value than the attempt to find anything that will support the no-pants perspective of the Society.

Someone mentioned that throught the survey Mrs. Hammond cites, we are shown that “men’s reactions to women in pants, point to pants being includable in the immodest dress category.” NO, Mrs. Hammond does not give any details of this survey. We are not told if the women were wearing immodest pants or modest pants. We are not told what their other clothing happens to be (modest or immodest) or what poses the models were in (normal or suggestive). Her conclusions are a gross generalization and not balanced by the results of similiar studies of men’s reactions to women in dresses.

 

[BlindSheep]

“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 materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
I agree with the above. As far as swimsuits go, I wear one like this:
aka.landsend.com/is/image/LandsEnd/87102_AE04_M1_BLA001512_M.jpg
Which is, of course, much too revealing, but it is certainly more modest than a bikini!
I would prefer to swim in a women-only environment.