Where does extreme clothing modesty come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter demolitionman65
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
demolitionman65:
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?
Click to expand...
Given that it is largely an American phenomena, I’m going with the Puritans on this one. Any of us who have traveled to Mexico or outside of North America can relate a LOT of stories about what can be seen on beaches around the world. Even Miami Beach is tame compared to Rio. In terms of being Godly, I have to hand it to the Puritans on this one though. As much as the excuse of appreciating God’s work can be made for showing off the body, as a red blooded American male with 20/17 vision, I can attest to its potential as an occasion of sin as well.
 
Okay, while leading people to sin by dressing provocatively is wrong, so is thinking that the body is evil. The body has been given by God. Originally, it didn’t need any covers and it only started needing them as a result of sin. Still, it’s not always been like nowadays. The evaluation of what kind of dress is proper and what is too revealing is much more societal than people would think. For example, there were coed baths in the middle ages, no swimsuits even in the 19th century while people didn’t necessarily split into two gender groups everywhere. It mostly depends on the reception, which doesn’t mean exhibitionism is good. The chief problem is that some stuff people wear is specifically designed to arouse.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
I’m with you. I looked for a modest skirt at Wal*Mart last year and didn’t find one. Thank God for the thrift store in town and a friend who gave me two longer-than-the-knee maternity skirts that she made! and I’m sick of V-necks and shirts that have words right across the chest and shirts that show the belly button.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
 
That was a fascinating article! It lays a lot of faulty notions to rest, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Only in so far as people are willing to pay attention to Rome and history!
 
40.png
CarolAnnSFO:
That was a fascinating article! It lays a lot of faulty notions to rest, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Only in so far as people are willing to look to history and listen to Rome without reading into the information more than it means. It seems the information was always there, it was just a matter of finding it. It does not help that up to now most of the Catholic modesty literature was written by SSPX types. Catholicism is not a ‘sect’ with a religious dress code.
 
40.png
chevalier:
Okay, while leading people to sin by dressing provocatively is wrong, so is thinking that the body is evil. The body has been given by God. Originally, it didn’t need any covers and it only started needing them as a result of sin. Still, it’s not always been like nowadays. The evaluation of what kind of dress is proper and what is too revealing is much more societal than people would think. For example, there were coed baths in the middle ages, no swimsuits even in the 19th century while people didn’t necessarily split into two gender groups everywhere. It mostly depends on the reception, which doesn’t mean exhibitionism is good. The chief problem is that some stuff people wear is specifically designed to arouse.
Click to expand...
The Adrian Dominicans taught us in 1942 that the requirement to dress modestly was a principle and that how one dresses modestly changes with the times. The secret to sucess was to be neither ahead of or behind the vast majority. I think, however, that dressing provocatively would always be wrong no matter where the crowd was. It would seem on the other hand that what is provocative changes over time. The flash of a female ankle was once considered quite provocative and maybe todays tightly fitting clothes that exhibit belly buttons are no longer provocative to the young men who are used to the display, however for us older men, without rushing hormones, it is often necessary to guard our eyes. I can’t see for the life of me how in todays world that loose fitting jeans would be considered immodest
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
The Adrian Dominicans taught us in 1942 that the requirement to dress modestly was a principle and that how one dresses modestly changes with the times.
Click to expand...
This is a key point. The Blessed Virgin Mary is our best role model for modesty, but does anyone really expect American women today to wear the sort of garments and head coverings Mary is usually depicted wearing, even to church, much less every day?

Even today’s extremely modest dressers don’t seem to have a problem with flashing a bit of ankle. 😉
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Take a look here: Cardinal Siri Replie(d) [link snipped] 1960 was not that long ago.
MJW
Click to expand...
Though the cardinal’s notice is a nicely written piece, he includes neither scriptural, historical, or psychological support for his statements. Without support his statement is merely a moral opinion, not a moral teaching. Also, the cardinal’s letter was resurrected not by the teaching offices in Italy to whom it was entrusted, but by Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX in the late 90’s.

As for the cardinal’s last point, if children can only identify their mother by a dress, then they have been indoctrinated by cultural norms, which change, not by natural law, which does not change. There are ways to identify male vs female that will never change, regardless of dress. Besides, the word feminine orginally meant in Latin “to suckle” or “offspring,” not to wear a dress. One can see how the very appropriate prior definitions are based in unchanging natural facts, while the later limited one is a product of cultural indoctrination subject to continual change.
 
I guess I am one of the extreme women (not ultra). I wear a scarf over my hair as I feel called to when praying ( we are to pray always). I wear skirts and dresses with high necks to MASS (unless I can’t change to work cloths which are loose fitting slacks and shirt). Mine is a personal decision between me and God.:love:

But, I can tell you that many of the reasons are in direct relationship to the disrespect IMHO shown in dress at MASS. Sometimes it is difficult to dress with respect for oneself. Yet, it should never be dificult to dress with respect for GOD.:banghead:

Kathleen Elsie Gibbs
Pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy daily
 
Although I cannot offer an opinion of where this started, I can tell you about my decision to dress modestly.

Much of my adult life I dressed in a way that got me the (wrong) attention of men. The more they would react with words or gestures that they found me attractive, the more I felt validated. The fact that I was leading others to sin because of my dress never entered my mind. It was all about ME!

Since coming back to the church a year ago I have felt a strong calling to dress modestly. I wear long skirts with modest tops in very basic colors. (I do wear jeans when it’s more appropriate for what I’m doing…lawn work, riding a bike, etc.). This is a very personal decision for me for what I feel God is asking of me. I offer up my modesty in reparation for the way I offended God in the past and for those who offend Him now because of their lack of modesty. It’s my way, also, of distancing myself from the material world and the false god of fashion.

I do not feel that a woman who wears pants, whether it be jeans or sweats, is less “holy”. It’s really none of my business why they’re wearing what they’re wearing and they’re probably a lot “holier” than I am anyway!
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
I can’t see for the life of me how in todays world that loose fitting jeans would be considered immodest
Click to expand...
Actually, in some segments of today’s society, the style of jeans, the brand and the “loose-ness” of the fit tell of person’s standing with a gang and if the person has been to prison and if the person is dealing drugs.

The same with the “mantilla” that is so lauded by some as the perfect headcovering for “any” Catholic woman. The mantilla was wore exclusively by the female nobility of the Iberian penisula. The color, style and manner in which it was worn denoted the wearer’s position in society.

This was all lost when it was adopted and adapted by the people of North America in the 1960’s…
 
Clothing as status markers.😦
Well lets see some ways it can be done. If you believe what I am writing now then what do we do?

Logo names= how much you spent
Color= gang, club, or national pride
Toooo Short= look at me/sex image “in your face”
Toooo Long= look at me and how good I am “in your face”
Modest length= look at me I am a better then you are
Mantila= I’m rich
Loose jeans= drugs, prision, ethnic group

We can go on and on about this. The main things here is how we dress at MASS and if it is respectful to the Lord. Or can it cause someone to not pay attention to the MASS and the reason they are in church. Any type of clothing can be turned into what it is not.

But, every type of clothing in a church is not RESPECTING GOD.:banghead:

It saddens me that people don’t understand that. I beleive people should ask themselves honestly in the God Given year of 2005:

What would Jesus Wear?
What would Mary Wear?

I believe they wore the “best” they had while worshiping and casual while working and relaxing.

Kathleen Elsie Gibbs
Pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy daily
 
I think that it’s an immodest attitude that leads to the clothing problems. A woman, or a man, who displays herself with a wish to seduce or allure the other sex (or same sex!) is immodest. A woman or man who is innately modest, who does not wish for the attentions of others, will dress accordingly.

And then there are the teenagers who “go with the flow.” In my opinion, the only thing that goes with the flow is a dead fish. But the pack mentality is prevalent in these groups. The idea is that among a group of skintight spandex, no one person will be singled out for prurient attentions. Unless, of course, the person so singled is being actively provocative to draw attention to him/herself. Here, again, it is the behavior and not the clothing which draws attention to the person.

It’s all about the attitude.
 
To me, it somehow feels that people who dress the same but one out of provocative vanity and the other for the sake of comfort or for the reason of the climate radiate different vibes. It’s a bit like with renaissance to classicist art (Nudity in the Vatican! Horror! :rolleyes: ) compared to porn. Both is nude but the difference is huge, even if the women in art tend to be more attractive than porn models.

I suppose if we got rid of porn, prostitution and the whole sex industry, we wouldn’t actually need any special clothes for modesty.

Personally, I’m opposed to nudity in public even in religious movies. I believe the fact the movie is religious doesn’t make it any better for actors to undress or do anything they shouldn’t be doing in their own lives. Topless or clothing optional? If you’re with friends and all can handle it… I don’t care so much, although I wouldn’t bet my money on the prudence of it. But public? No.

In public, trying to delight is okay, if it isn’t overdone. But to be attractive means to attract and just how many people do we really need to be attractive to? I can think of one: spouse. 😉 Trying to arouse is a big problem even more.
 
What exactly is immodest and revealing about a women in jeans and a loose t-shirt? And if women should only wear long flowing dresses then that means a HUGE number of physical activities become impossible for women (or maybe this is the intention - to turn women into idle wall flowers) This is extreme, to not be able to ride a bike, go tramping, play any sport or work in a job that requires suitable work clothes. Just for the fact that a pair of pants or even gasp shorts exposes the line of the leg that might cause a man to lust. It also assumes that men will find an exposed ankle or rist, or neck, or arm, something to lust over. This is a pretty ugly assumption to make since these are not really sexual parts of the body.
 
40.png
cynic:
What exactly is immodest and revealing about a women in jeans and a loose t-shirt? And if women should only wear long flowing dresses then that means a HUGE number of physical activities become impossible for women (or maybe this is the intention - to turn women into idle wall flowers) This is extreme, to not be able to ride a bike, go tramping, play any sport or work in a job that requires suitable work clothes. Just for the fact that a pair of pants or even gasp shorts exposes the line of the leg that might cause a man to lust. It also assumes that men will find an exposed ankle or rist, or neck, or arm, something to lust over. This is a pretty ugly assumption to make since these are not really sexual parts of the body.
Click to expand...
I was at a Catholic chastity talk a few weeks ago and the speaker suggested that merely covering the body is not the only point of modesty. That proper dress should also not blur the differences between men and women. When appropriate, women should look feminine and men should look masculine. This speaker suggested that too much covering (like a hajib? burka?) was immodest. I’m not sure that I agree that that is properly what it is called, but I do agree with the speaker that too much covering is as philosophically flawed as too little covering. If clothing were only about covering up our sexual parts all women could just wear generously cut bikini swimsuits and call themselves modest, but obviously that isn’t so. Belly shirts aren’t modest, even if the rest of the torso, arms and legs are covered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top