What is modesty anyway?

[Thirst4Him]

Once, I heard a woman give a speech on chastity while wearing jeans so tight that she must have jumped out of a six story building to slide into them:bounce::banghead:

I’m hysterical. The visual image is hilarious. Thanks for the great laugh. I’m with you.

 

[dulcissima]

I’m still trying to figure it out myself. I do think it is somewhat based on culture and I do agree with pumpkinbeast about having an internal alarm. I guess the thing is to maybe try and have your internal alarm set just ahead of the men around you, if that makes any sense. Hopefully then you can avoid those leers and comments (like “No, thank you” when you bend over.) There always is that balance to everything, and in this case it is finding that middle ground between not being frumpy and not drawing undue attention to yourself.

 

[chevalier]

The distinction has to made, however between tempting men and the man actually sinning. If he does sin, and was tempted because what a woman was wearing, that woman has a part in it, but if a man sins that sin is always his responsibility!

Yes, but if she dresses to tempt and the man doesn’t sin, she still does.

A man should be able to have a woman dance in front of him naked and not lust after her.

You mean no lust, but you don’t mean no sex drive? Not feeling any biological reaction could be unhealthy, but if the man kept himself off the thoughts of fornicating with her right there and now, then that would be not lusting.

Still, we should keep in mind that people are people and not God. We can’t really require too much of people and it doesn’t do them justice. We need to consider their limits.

If a woman dances nude in front of a man with the intent to entice the man to lust then she is sinning also but that doesn’t make the man less responsible for the sin of lust. They are both equally guilty.

Yes, but the sin is different from, let’s say, specifically looking for it and going to a go-go club. So the fact of being tempted does matter, but it doesn’t give him any allowance or entitlement. I don’t know how to word it in order totally to avoid ambiguity, but I would say the level of guilt is proportional to the level of “effort” one puts in sinning.

 

[catsrus]

To me, modesty means covering everything that no one should see but your husband, and if I have to even question it, it’s wrong to wear it.

 

[deb1]

To me, modesty means covering everything that no one should see but your husband, and if I have to even question it, it’s wrong to wear it.

But what parts of your body do you believe only your hubby should see? For some women it might be just the breast and bottom. For others it might be that and the tops of their thighs. For others it might be knees, elbows and hair.

You see how confusing this is?

By the way, how much of your internal alarm is developed by your upbringing? I am ashamed to admit this but I had a mother, who as a Grandma wore daisy dukes because she wanted to be sexy. When I was a teenager she praised overly sexual movie stars(sexy was important to her) WHen I got over 18 she encouraged me to dress sexual and called it cute.

This is why, for me, I have such a problem knowing what modesty exactly is.

 

[Pug]

I think someone above mentioned that modesty is far more than clothing. It is about the person. Maybe it is partly about respect. I also associate it with a kind of separateness. Perhaps that is because of my experiences as a child. The child starts to want to be separate, and the parent has to learn to accommodate to the changes in the child. Between myself and my parents, anyway, it turned into conflicts over me wanting to change in private. Parents are so hard to teach.

I’m sure it matters what you were raised to expect and think. Deb1, I was raised to dress in ways I personally detested. It wasn’t until I was older that I ever felt comfortable in my own skin. Maybe you need to dress overboard (extra covered) for awhile to find your balance. I don’t mean dress in brown burlap. Just in a way that is to one end of the spectrum. See how you feel inside. I have learned that I simply hate having my butt exposed. Period. I hate having a shirt tucked in trousers unless I have a blazer on. I figured that out by covering it and then realizing that I dreaded going back.

 

[chevalier]

I think someone above mentioned that modesty is far more than clothing. It is about the person. Maybe it is partly about respect. I also associate it with a kind of separateness. Perhaps that is because of my experiences as a child. The child starts to want to be separate, and the parent has to learn to accommodate to the changes in the child. Between myself and my parents, anyway, it turned into conflicts over me wanting to change in private. Parents are so hard to teach.

Separate is a good word, I think. These days, it’s not like we’re all brothers and sisters, it’s more like we’re all pals. And in fact we are not. The artificial egalitarianism makes it all-OK to wear in public what one would have worn only in private a little time ago. People just don’t get the concept of covering up and not discussing bodily functions, anymore. Decorum is gone in favour of universal palship.

 

[Jacafamala]

What is modesty? You’ll know you’ve hit the mark if your clothes inspire people want look at your face, in particular your eyes.
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[chevalier]

Err… immodest clothing on a lady (a certain degree of internal conflict occurs upon the choice of noun, but let there be benefit of doubt in the name of charity) does inspire me to look at her face.

 

[Jacafamala]

Err… immodest clothing on a lady (a certain degree of internal conflict occurs upon the choice of noun, but let there be benefit of doubt in the name of charity) does inspire me to look at her face.

Ahh, but you are not the typical man, no?
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[chevalier]

Ahh, but you are not the typical man, no?
Peace in Christ,
Ann

Yeah, I’m not. I just have other faults than that one, but I don’t like being assumed to like the skimpy stuff. Peace to you as well.

 

[Jacafamala]

Yeah, I’m not. I just have other faults than that one, but I don’t like being assumed to like the skimpy stuff. Peace to you as well.

For plenty of men, it’s a fault and the skimpy stuff doesn’t help them overcome their problems…A women looks better when she’s dressed modestly, imho.

The Blessed Mother told the Fatima children that there would be many fashions that would greatly offend God. So it’s not just about us and what we like to wear. I want to dress in a way that is pleasing to God.
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[Zooey]

There is definitely a cultural component involved…
I have a friend, an ESL [English as a Second Language] teacher. She told me, she was once giving English lessons to a small group of Saudi Arabian women in her home.
The doorbell rang, & when she answered it, it was a male neighbor…Every one of those ladies had left her veil in the front hall, & every one of those ladies did the same thing: Grabbed her long skirt & threw it up over her face, leaving legs & undies exposed.
She told me, she never before realized how ingrained ideas of modesty differ from one culture to the next.

 

[Pug]

universal palship.

We are expected to be willing to share quite a lot of information with others that in other cultures would not be so. A simple example, that may seem irrelevant, but sometimes I wonder if it isn’t, is the first name. Blockbuster went through a passing phase of addressing all of its customers by their first name at the checkout. It was disconcerting to hear your first name on the lips of someone who didn’t know you at all. I know, we are used to it in many contexts, but I wasn’t expecting it there.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

An idea occurred to me the other day: Because sex is no longer a very private thing, people will talk about it, make jokes about it, and generally disrespect it instead of treating it like the loving, life-giving act it really is, why should they treat their bodies, obviously designed with sex in mind, any differently? When sex looses its mystery, why keep an aura of mystery about your own body?

 

[CarrieH]

What is modesty? You’ll know you’ve hit the mark if your clothes inspire people want look at your face, in particular your eyes.

Bingo! For me, modesty is about making sure that my appearance, accessories, and behavior do not draw attention to themselves. It’s not just about making sure that my “four B’s” are covered, which they always are, but that I am not flaunting material things that I have which others don’t. My few pieces of fine jewelry are saved for special occasions, I don’t buy designer bags and shoes, and I drive a decent but understated car. Just because you’ve “got it” doesn’t mean you should flaunt it, contrary to the popular saying.

 

[chevalier]

For plenty of men, it’s a fault and the skimpy stuff doesn’t help them overcome their problems…A women looks better when she’s dressed modestly, imho.

That is something I agree with. In my own case, the biggest danger is not lusting (unlikely) but disdaining (“Roll eyes What is that woman wearing? Where is this world going. Oh dear. Moral decay and pestilence of unrestrained sexuality everywhere. Strumpets, strumpets everywhere!”). I find skimpy and/or overtly sexualised outfits silly, animalistic and low.

We are expected to be willing to share quite a lot of information with others that in other cultures would not be so. A simple example, that may seem irrelevant, but sometimes I wonder if it isn’t, is the first name. Blockbuster went through a passing phase of addressing all of its customers by their first name at the checkout. It was disconcerting to hear your first name on the lips of someone who didn’t know you at all. I know, we are used to it in many contexts, but I wasn’t expecting it there.

My first name is Mister, although I care naught for titles. Sometimes I will give first name only but surname is no one’s business. In languages which use plurals or third person addresses (Polish, French, Italian), I don’t like the forced use of 2nd person singular. I always prefer a respectful 2 sg. over a trashy tone with sirs or misters, so it’s mostly about the tone of address, but I certainly have a problem with the decline of decorum. Familiarities should come between people who already share some respect, rather than detract from the respect shown. Note that I’m not a formalist and I find it ridiculous for a person to state how he wants to be addressed or hoard titles in signatures and I roll my eyes when I see people use Mr/Mrs with their own name (my gaze will poke the ceiling if I get anything from a Mr John Smith unless it’s somehow culturally sanctioned in his part of the world).

Back to palship per se, though, part of the problem I have with revealing outfits is not so much what they show but that they show it to the general public without discrimination. This is also why I so dislike young people, especially girls, flirting with those they would never marry. Seriously, would that upper-middle-class high-GPA party girl marry the bouncer who’s carding her or the salesman she’s obtaining an unofficial discount from?

I pray for a girl who doesn’t flirt with strangers, keeps her clothes decent and doesn’t engage in any trashy patterns. Even if some guys might actually pray for the opposite.

 

[Joan19]

1Sisters in grade school had simple rules…skirts must touch the floor when kneeling
necklines no more than two fingers below the nape of the neck
no sheer material…no undergarments revealed underneath
slacks must not hug the derriere nor must any inappropriate parts of the anatomy be revealed
no sleeveless anything
shorts had to be no less than a hand width above the knee…
Am I the only antique out here?

They let you wear slacks???

I think things became more casual/ relaxed/ informal following Vat.2; before then we wore dresses or skirts (of a suitable length), and hats, scarves or mantillas for mass, often with gloves winter and summer. No visible underwear - that continued into the 70s. I don’t recall any embargo on sheer material. subject to the other “commandments” about dress!

Fwiw, our congregation at the Latin Mass still dress that way, although there is a “time-warp” feel to it!

 

[CB_Catholic]

They let you wear slacks???

I think things became more casual/ relaxed/ informal following Vat.2; before then we wore dresses or skirts (of a suitable length), and hats, scarves or mantillas for mass, often with gloves winter and summer. No visible underwear - that continued into the 70s. I don’t recall any embargo on sheer material. subject to the other “commandments” about dress!

Fwiw, our congregation at the Latin Mass still dress that way, although there is a “time-warp” feel to it!

I am not so sure Vatican II had much to do with it. I went to public schools in the 60’s and the dress code was the same as at my previous Catholic school. When I was a sophomore I got stopped by a teacher in the hall, and she made me kneel on a chair to check the length of my skirt. Girls were not allowed to wear slacks. You would be sent home to change if your clothes were too tight, too revealing, too short, etc.

As for hats, veils, gloves–yes we wore them, but most of the Protestant ladies dressed up in a hat and gloves and their Sunday best for church also, even though they did not have to cover their heads. It was just considered proper dress. My small city was not highly Catholic, and the thing that distinguished the Catholics was not eating meat on Fridays, not head coverings.

I think that that particular time in history was a general time of social and sexual revolution in society brought about by many factors, and the Protestant churches suffered as well as the Catholic Church in the area of faith and morals and declining church attendance.

 

[surfinpure]

I usually catch a ton of heat for this idea, even on CAF, but this is what I have come to believe through research, prayer, spiritual direction, and discussion:

Modesty is not merely determined by societal norms. It is not “relative” any more than the other virtues are. Standards of modesty can be clearly seen if one follows the line of God’s people back through the last two millenia and into Biblical times. By my own deduction, mankind began seriously to infringe upon modesty in the early 20th century, when fashion became such a booming industry. Mid-century we saw an outright cultural rebellion against modesty, not coincidentally alongside a sexual “revolution.” At this point, 60 years later, most members of our society have no idea what modesty is (evidenced clearly by the clothes chosen for worship services and business). We simply act as though modesty is some sliding scale, and as long as our “modest” clothes show less skin (nevermind how clingy, transparent, or flamboyant) than the average apparel, we feel are being modest. In truth, this only makes us relatively modest, which is not at all the same thing.

I suppose I ought not subscribe to this thread, because morning sickness has hit full force and I’m just not up to a fight today. So please forgive my brief entrance and exit.

Peace of Christ to all,

mary