Women and Dress

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ransri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn’t say that people didn’t talk about it in centuries past; you missed my point.
 
People talked about it in the 1930s and 1940s.
Yes women should be modest. What that looks like is different everywhere. Indian women in saris are modest and yet they show some of their midriff. In their culture that is fine.
Men should be modest. If they are more easily aroused by a scantily clad person than someone else that is part of the cross they have to bear
 
Well, one reason is that men have a bigger problem with lust than women do. I realize that in these times, women are lobbied to be just as if not more so, [fill in the blank here] , than men are (fill in the blank with any characteristic typical of men at all, including “lustful”). Following the culture, women are flaunting lustfulness openly and being proud of it - but I assert it is NOT in their souls to be so. It is in their souls to be the woman God created them to be - NOT an “anything a man can do I can do better”, “liberated” woman of this dark world. Women are made to be nurturers - “mothers” - in families and in humanity/society generally, not objects of lust, not themselves reduced to lustfulness and debased as if it were a badge of victory.

John Paul II saw into this mystery beautifully in the “Theology of the Body” - woman and man differ in their bodies, and in specific ways, for (divinely designed) reasons. And souls and bodies are intimately connected and interrelated - so “do the math” as they say. There is a “feminine soul” so to speak, that differs from a “masculine soul,” in characteristic ways, which the modern darkened world has become blind to and unwilling to look for or look at. And one horrible result is the plague of dysfunctional “families” that populate the country and the culture.

You might be interested in pursuing the subject, by reading JPII’s work in this area, in his Theology of the Body.
 
fide said:
Following the culture, women are flaunting lustfulness openly and being proud of it - but I assert it is NOT in their souls to be so. It is in their souls to be the woman God created them to be - NOT an “anything a man can do I can do better”, “liberated” woman of this dark world.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It’s not a competition. It’s just a fact that women struggle with sins of lust just as men do. These lust issues are not the result of the sexual revolution they are the cause of it.
 
Is this the fashion that Musculus preached against? It doesn’t seem exactly immodest.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
You seem to have a romantic nineteenth century view of women as the “angels of the home”, pure and Madonna like who do not struggle with the sin of Lust.

Women are human and are just as susceptible to the deadly sins, which include Lust. This has always been the case, believe it or not, and is not a recent phenomenon due to feminism. It’s part of being a fallen human.

There may be one woman who is close to what you describe. She is Mary.
 
Last edited:
Oh, let all women join a convent and all men join a monastery. They can then wear what they want because they will not create lust in the opposite sex. They would be sure to go to daily Mass and confession – no more major sins.
 
BartholomewB said:
Is this the fashion that Musculus preached against? It doesn’t seem exactly immodest.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
But those calves!!!

Remember King Henry VIII died for the sake of having the best calves in the court. 😍
 
Henry VIII also liked to show off his codpíece!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Catholics do not follow sola skirtura doctrine like some Protestants do. Men who wear kilts like in Scotland are still men. Personally, I find men in kilts to be quite attractive. But that’s just me.

If you look at the guideline for clothing acceptable in the Vatican for women there is no prohibition on slacks for women. They ask for the legs above the knees to be covered, shoulders and upper arms covered. No prohibition on slacks.

Your sister has condemned something which the Magisterium has not. She is not the Magisterium and does not have the authority to declare something as sin.
 
Last edited:
Well, she got those beliefs from traditional Catholic circles so she’s not the only one who holds such beliefs. I was just curious as to how they rationalize through it.
 
As another poster said they don’t rationalize it.

It’s a reaction against the excesses of today thinking the past was ideal.
 
Do some reading on 16th and 17th century dress.

It was completely about modesty. This issue is as old as humanity itself.
 
somecanadian said:
I was so insulted (being told I don’t even know that I’m a woman simply because I wear pants) that we’ve never again been able to open that particular discussion.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t find that insulting in the least. All she did was quite literally display her own ignorance, and I’m afraid she would’ve ended up feeling insulted before the conversation was over - sister or not. What a ridiculous thing to say - especially to one’s own sibling.

“You might say I don’t know my own gender, but clearly you don’t know your own place.”

She got off easy in my book. You’re clearly a bigger person than I am.
somecanadian said:
(although dresses and skirts certainly DO NOT disguise a woman’s curves).
Click to expand...
Exactly. In the US, a skirt completely sets a woman apart as, well, a woman - no matter how long or how modest.
somecanadian said:
I just have SO MANY questions.
Click to expand...
Me too! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top