Where does extreme clothing modesty come from?

[demolitionman65]

My wife and I were discussing this topic last night. Where does the movement for extreme clothing modesty (as in, wearing dresses only, covered from neck to ankles and wrists at all times) come from? Is this a Catholic innovation? If so, my wife and I are unclear on its Scriptural or doctrinal roots.

On the other hand, is this a Puritan innovation, and if so, is it not another manifestation of Manicheaist/Albigensian dualism, claiming that the body is essentially evil?

Finally, let’s say that this is based in dualism (and therefore flawed, as God does not make trash): How modest is too modest, then? How much of the body may be revealed before it also has gone too far.

 

[RonWI]

1 Tim 2:9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

1 Corinthians 11:5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Where does one draw the line between “extreme” and not extreme?

 

[space_ghost]

…lots blamed in on the…

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/images/k7738.gif

 

[demolitionman65]

Where does one draw the line between “extreme” and not extreme?

A very telling question. . .

 

[gracelife]

Doesn’t answer the initial question, but…I’d much rather see extreme modesty instead of the extremely immodest stuff girls are wearing.

 

[Zooey]

My own observation is that it seems to be coming from some of the ultra-fundamentalist churches. There is an increasing amount of people who are getting caught up in it. I was surprised when I found that it is going beyond those churches, & spreading into both the Catholic & various Protestant churches.

I think it may be at least partly a reaction to the super extreme lack of modesty that is part of the fashions right now…I have to say I find it troubling. It seems to be a very harsh & judgmental kind of thinking pattern. You know, like there is something wrong with other people’s spiritual lives because we are still wearing jeans. (Funny…I always thought my kinda baggy old jeans were the ultimate in modest clothing!!)

 

[deb1]

Zooey:

My own observation is that it seems to be coming from some of the ultra-fundamentalist churches. There is an increasing amount of people who are getting caught up in it. I was surprised when I found that it is going beyond those churches, & spreading into both the Catholic & various Protestant churches.

I think it may be at least partly a reaction to the super extreme lack of modesty that is part of the fashions right now…I have to say I find it troubling. It seems to be a very harsh & judgmental kind of thinking pattern. You know, like there is something wrong with other people’s spiritual lives because we are still wearing jeans. (Funny…I always thought my kinda baggy old jeans were the ultimate in modest clothing!!)

I wear longer dresses because I find them comfortable, but I certainly do not judge anyone for wearing jeans. It is a personal choice for me, not something that I would ever push on another person. I do think that some people are overly concerned with things like dress-but holier then thou attitudes are nothing new.
Just as it would be wrong to assume that a person in jeans is less spiritual then a woman in a long dress, it is wrong to assume that a woman in a long dress is judging the person in jeans or has a harsh, judgmental kind of thinking.

 

[contemplative]

Funny thing I was wondering the same question recently. Last week while I was in JFK airport I was observing people for about 3 hours. A group of about 6 women passed by me clothed plain colored printless ankle length long sleeve dresses. On the backs of their heads they wore small sheer black squares. I looked at my own wrinkly 3/4 length kakis, nylon windbreaker with built in deluxe snap pockets and sneakers (I had a headress of polarized sunglasses) and wondered about the difference between us.

I dress for comfort and always will. If suddenly I felt comfortable running bare through the streets I might if I could legally get away with it. I don’t think God ever intended for us to be ashamed of our bodies.

I don’t like vanity dressing. There can be a certain degree of sinful pride and vanity involved with those who want to dress ‘modestly’ in order to make a statement to the world. Even the so called modest must beware.

 

[slinky1882]

deb1:

I wear longer dresses because I find them comfortable, but I certainly do not judge anyone for wearing jeans. It is a personal choice for me, not something that I would ever push on another person. I do think that some people are overly concerned with things like dress-but holier then thou attitudes are nothing new.
Just as it would be wrong to assume that a person in jeans is less spiritual then a woman in a long dress, it is wrong to assume that a woman in a long dress is judging the person in jeans or has a harsh, judgmental kind of thinking.

Well said deb1, the sword cuts both ways. And to weigh human acts, there is the motive, situation and the act itself. We can often only see the latter of the act itself, and sometimes we can see most of the situation while it is harder to see the motive/intention. The burden does fall on those who dress to “impress” on both sides. The holier than thou or the I don’t care what you think of modesty (i.e. the thoroughfare of a lot of high school young women. Ironically, I believe that culturally it is easier for guys to dress modestly through pants and shorts. Just an observation). But say as jeans (wihout gaping holes so that you san see undergarments ) would be appropriate regular attire, in general, the regular jeans should not be worn to Mass (there are execptions). Thanks and God Bless.

 

[slinky1882]

contemplative:

Funny thing I was wondering the same question recently. Last week while I was in JFK airport I was observing people for about 3 hours. A group of about 6 women passed by me clothed plain colored printless ankle length long sleeve dresses. On the backs of their heads they wore small sheer black squares. I looked at my own wrinkly 3/4 length kakis, nylon windbreaker with built in deluxe snap pockets and sneakers (I had a headress of polarized sunglasses) and wondered about the difference between us.

I dress for comfort and always will. If suddenly I felt comfortable running bare through the streets I might if I could legally get away with it. I don’t think God ever intended for us to be ashamed of our bodies.

I don’t like vanity dressing. There can be a certain degree of sinful pride and vanity involved with those who want to dress ‘modestly’ in order to make a statement to the world. Even the so called modest must beware.

True that God never meant for us to be ashmed of our bodies, but since the fall, neither are we to publicallly flaunt them. Even if it was legal (for example some foreign resorts are considered nudist colonies), given the nature of fallen men and women, it would be morally wrong to run around bare in public.Yes, even the modest must be aware, but so must the immodest. Both must be watched are violations of Charity, one through vanity and the other against chastity and self-respect.

 

[deb1]

contemplative:

Funny thing I was wondering the same question recently. Last week while I was in JFK airport I was observing people for about 3 hours. A group of about 6 women passed by me clothed plain colored printless ankle length long sleeve dresses. On the backs of their heads they wore small sheer black squares. I looked at my own wrinkly 3/4 length kakis, nylon windbreaker with built in deluxe snap pockets and sneakers (I had a headress of polarized sunglasses) and wondered about the difference between us.

I dress for comfort and always will. If suddenly I felt comfortable running bare through the streets I might if I could legally get away with it. I don’t think God ever intended for us to be ashamed of our bodies.

I don’t like vanity dressing. There can be a certain degree of sinful pride and vanity involved with those who want to dress ‘modestly’ in order to make a statement to the world. Even the so called modest must beware.

We have to be really careful that we don’t make snap judgements about people. No one has any idea what those women in the air port were thinking or their motives. Were they dressing to show off their modesty for the world or were they trying simply to follow their consciouses in the best ways that they could? At the same time, I would find it very offensive if someone tried to make the claim that a woman in a pair of jeans or khakis was not a Christian based solely on her dress. I think that this is one area where we can all give each other a little leeway. By the way, I am sure that you looked very nice in your khakis and windbreaker.

 

[BlestOne]

My rule of thumb:
If my dress (or that of my children) could reasonably cause another person to sin…it is immodest.
If I am uncomfortable because I have to keep checking to see if my slip is showing …it is immodest.
If others are distracted by my mode of dress …it is immodest.(or inappropriate)

As one of the other posters mentioned, I see some other faiths mandating that their female members wear ankle length skirts and the little doily things in their hair. I have no problem with how they are dressed, what I do have a problem with is that the more these things are dictated the more their congregants seem to rebel in some not so nice ways. For instance, a local church in my town requires women to dress as such, and in addition they have many rules, for example, they are not allowed to watch movies. On any given day, you can see more than one of these members in the video store pretending not to recognize each other. I think this is promoting deceit among their people. I pray that we would “cloak ourselves in our godly deeds” rather than in material adornments.

 

[Zooey]

deb1:

I wear longer dresses because I find them comfortable, but I certainly do not judge anyone for wearing jeans. It is a personal choice for me, not something that I would ever push on another person. I do think that some people are overly concerned with things like dress-but holier then thou attitudes are nothing new.
Just as it would be wrong to assume that a person in jeans is less spiritual then a woman in a long dress, it is wrong to assume that a woman in a long dress is judging the person in jeans or has a harsh, judgmental kind of thinking.

Deb, I believe you! I reread my post, it may have been a little less than clear. If everyone I know who wears only dresses were as reasonable as you, I would not have a problem. But I have encountered people that have told me that my jeans were “inappropriate for a Christian lady” to be wearing…Some of them were quite judgmental. This is the attitude I was addressing, not that of ladies who wear longer dresses as a personal choice.
I should add that I grew up in a church where my Mom was greatly criticized for letting me wear jeans to play in. (One family would not let me visit unless I wore a dress!)So I speak from the negative experiences that *I *have had in my life. I have personally encountered this same attitude as an adult. I do not assume that everyone who is a “dresses-only” has this attitude. I am just saying that it does exist…
God bless.

 

[puzzleannie]

1 Tim 2:9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Where does one draw the line between “extreme” and not extreme?

it was true in Timothy’s day and it is true today - dressing like a tramp or a prostitute or a slut, that is in a manner that advertises and makes available ones sexuality for all beholders is immodest and over the line.

 

[deb1]

Zooey:

Deb, I believe you! I reread my post, it may have been a little less than clear. If everyone I know who wears only dresses were as reasonable as you, I would not have a problem. But I have encountered people that have told me that my jeans were “inappropriate for a Christian lady” to be wearing…Some of them were quite judgmental. This is the attitude I was addressing, not that of ladies who wear longer dresses as a personal choice.
I should add that I grew up in a church where my Mom was greatly criticized for letting me wear jeans to play in. (One family would not let me visit unless I wore a dress!)So I speak from the negative experiences that *I *have had in my life. I have personally encountered this same attitude as an adult. I do not assume that everyone who is a “dresses-only” has this attitude. I am just saying that it does exist…
God bless.

I understand and I am sorry that I misunderstood you. My daughters wear pants and shorts because I actually find such attire more modest in very active little girls. I have come across a few sites also that advised women not to do any activity that they couldn’t wear a dress in. That angered me, because if my daughters want to jump on the neighbors trampoline they should be able to. I also don’t wear just dresses-just mainly. I’m ridding myself of an extreme fundamentalist thinking, so I’m not certain if I will continue wearing mainly dresses or if I will start wearing slacks more.

 

[DavidB]

Since Jesus taught us that lusting in our hearts is sin just as adultery, then isn’t it also serious sin to tempt someone into lust?

Today’s fashions literally flaunt skin and shapes in an obvious “notice me” way that’s impossible not to notice. It takes deliberate effort for men, in particular, to turn away our eyes to avoid sinning in our thoughts. In terms of protecting my own thoughts and maintaining holiness, I avoid certain movies, TV channels, looking at magazine covers/ads, etc. in the same way I avoid flirtatious talk with anyone other than my wife. Temptations are hard enough to deal with without having to deal with images that literally surround you every day because our culture’s fashions and marketplace are driven by sex appeal.

If there’s a move to extreme modesty, I say “hurray”, finally some people who understand the importance of holiness and are willing to run counter to the culture to live holy. The Amish and Mennonites have been practicing this for years. The entire culture in the day of Jesus practiced this. But modesty doesn’t have to be defined by wearing a dress versus well-fitted (i.e., loosely fit) pants (today’s jeans are so skin-tight, they are indeed immodest).

But to hear people who call themselves Christian actually criticize modesty shows how far from Jesus’ standards we’ve fallen. I would rather be accused of having a holier-than-thou attitude than be full of sin and not even aware of it, which is the state of our culture today. And much of the Church has gone along with it, to our shame.

David

 

[idyll]

the thing that i really can’t stand about the whole immodesty trend of today is:
that in order for me to find an outfit that fits me comfortly and does not reveal too much of myself, i have to get it in several sizes bigger then what i wear, or find men’s clothing that i can get away with wearing. it’s almost impossible for a young women to find clothing that isn’t revealing.
needless to say, i would welcome a much more modest movement.

 

[demolitionman65]

The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is because our former spiritual advisor (and to prod a sore spot, she has defected to SSPX, hence the title “former”) is now accusing my wife of being immodest because she wears pants on occasion. To my mind, this is excessive, but it did lead to the question of “how much is too much?”

Perhaps there is no answer. Maybe it’s similar to the question, “What makes a good teacher?” “I dunno. I just know it when I see it.”

Maybe modest/immodest dress is the same way.

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

demolitionman65:

…is now accusing my wife of being immodest because she wears pants on occasion. To my mind, this is excessive, but it did lead to the question of “how much is too much?”

I think it is more important to look feminine and modest rather than condemning pants outright. Fit and cut (not too tight, too revealing) are much more important, in my opinion, than the fact that they are “pants.” Someone pointed out on another thread about modesty once that St. Gianna wore pants, so if it was a complete bar to holiness I think the Vatican would have noted that. That being said, dresses/skirts for women are more appropriate and especially so for certain situations, like Mass.

A woman should ask herself: Do I not wear a dress because I don’t want to look feminine? If a woman is rejecting traditional feminine appearance on philosophical grounds, that would be a cause for worry.

Likewise, someone who can’t be bothered (male or female) to regularly take some care in how they appear in public would be a cause of concern. Like the fellow who always appears in sweatpants at Mass, despite the fact that he wears business suits to work all week, because he just feels “more at home” that way (or some other excuse). Obviously that’s very different than the person who wears sweatpants because that’s all they have in their closet, or all that fits!

Some Catholics do try to define very rigidly what is acceptable clothing for women. Dresses only, knee-length or longer, sleeves at least 3/4 length, and so on. I have seen a website that says that we shouldn’t wear anything the Virgin Mary wouldn’t wear and that we can see what she’d wear by how she appears in traditional art and approved apparitions. There is a certain appeal to this argument and I think you have to decide for yourself whether you agree with it.

I have tried the dresses & skirts-only thing before and found it very difficult to maintain. I had few clothing options from my local stores that were practical for every day life. I do wear skirts only to Mass about 99% of the time (the 1% being when I forget to do laundry in time) because I feel it is more appropriate and sets a good example for my daughters and other children.

I think you can be a good Catholic and disagree on this issue of whether women should wear pants or not. Femininity and modesty are the more important virtues to cultivate.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

The Hidden Life:

I think you can be a good Catholic and disagree on this issue of whether women should wear pants or not. Femininity and modesty are the more important virtues to cultivate.

I agree. A pants outfit can be both modest and feminine; it’s all in the details.

But somehow, I don’t worry much about looking feminine when I have to muck around in the yard, or crack-seal the driveway, or repoint the chimney (and I can’t imagine doing those things in dresses, either ).