Women should only wear skirts?

[juliamajor]

Now, now nobody has said anything near to that.

I think it’s true that there are some men out there, maybe even many men out there who are just trying to harass young girls. They get pleasure from that and no matter what you wear, they’ll try to embarrass and degrade you. They think it’s a “macho” thing to do.

But what about the good guys who really are trying to do their best and keep custody of their eyes? Do you think that woman have a responsibility before God to make life easier for them? Do you think it’s a sin to dress in a way that’s provocative because it could cause a man to stumble?

No one’s asking you to.

I’d guess that you’re very young because you don’t seem to realize yet this is how men are wired. They are very visual. It’d be like telling a woman to read a romance novel, but not to have a lustful thought.

Thanks -but I’m not very young-at all.I’m on the cusp of senior citizenry(yuk)
Again I’ve seen guys get away with all kinds of nonsense and then blame women for provoking them-please…
I know exactly how guys are wired and so do the guys themselves.If the have self knowledge they should know their weaknesses .If you have a weakness of alcohol you stay away from it…if you like to look- then pick up a book,a missal and a rosary to keep your mind occupied.
Always blaming somebody else for one’s own “stumblings” is a very nice way not to feel guilty or scrupulous.It is very much like saying"the devil made me do it" hence shirking your own responsiblity of sin.
Hey, I’m not talking of mini skirts and bikini’s here .I’m talking about clothes thatdon’t cover you up from neck to ankles.My dresses go just past my knee.I have lousy legs so if anybody stares at them then it’s THEIR own problem.I refuse to dress myself like some fundamentalist LDS…They dress all covered up but there is a lot of hanky panky and weirdness going on there.So did their modesty prevent sin? no.Because in the end your modesty has to be in your mind and heart-not just on the outside.

 

[juliamajor]

That’s right, Scotsmen are all going to burn in hell for wearing skirts and bushwomen who wear no tops are all evil sluts and bushmen with their little speedos are going to hell too.

 

[Glasgow_Papist]

I generally think women should keep to skirts. However, pants aren’t going to damn you to hell.

That’s right**, Scotsmen are all going to burn in hell for wearing skirts** and bushwomen who wear no tops are all evil sluts and bushmen with their little speedos are going to hell too.

You know, I am genuinely suprised at how many here seem to think that the Scots are running around in Glasgow or Edinburgh wearing clan tartans ! There are only certain times in a man’s life where he’ll wear a kilt. Generally it will be at weddings and for Catholics weddings and First Communion/Confirmation. Oh and sometimes at international football (soccer) games.

You gotta realize that a lot of these creeps wore three piece suit and worked on Wall street.Clothes do not “maketh the man”.

Nothing wrong with three-piece suits…

Regards,
Glasgow Papist.

 

[Jacafamala]

Thanks -but I’m not very young-at all.I’m on the cusp of senior citizenry(yuk)

May they be good years for you!

Again I’ve seen guys get away with all kinds of nonsense and then blame women for provoking them-please…

Again, what about the good guys that are doing their best. Do women have a responsibility to dress respectably for them? So they don’t fall into lust?

I know exactly how guys are wired and so do the guys themselves.If the have self knowledge they should know their weaknesses .If you have a weakness of alcohol you stay away from it…if you like to look- then pick up a book,a missal and a rosary to keep your mind occupied.

It’s kind of hard to stay away from immodesty these days; it’s everywhere.

Always blaming somebody else for one’s own “stumblings” is a very nice way not to feel guilty or scrupulous.It is very much like saying"the devil made me do it" hence shirking your own responsiblity of sin.

Are we our brother’s keeper?

Hey, I’m not talking of mini skirts and bikini’s here .I’m talking about clothes thatdon’t cover you up from neck to ankles.My dresses go just past my knee.I have lousy legs so if anybody stares at them then it’s THEIR own problem.I refuse to dress myself like some fundamentalist LDS…They dress all covered up but there is a lot of hanky panky and weirdness going on there.So did their modesty prevent sin? no.Because in the end your modesty has to be in your mind and heart-not just on the outside.

I’m not talking about extremes, either. Just respectable.

It’s become the norm for young girls to wear mini skirts or skin tight leggings as pants to high school in my area. High school, which is filled young boys with raging hormones, my son being one of them.

Now I have to ask: where are the mothers of these girls, because none of my girls would get out the door in outfits like that. I’d tell them go back upstairs and change or you’ll be late. In fact, if I don’t like the clothes; if they’re immodest? I get rid of them. I’m tellin’ you. Do you know where their moms are?!?!?! They’re going around in mini skirts and skin tight pants just like their daughters! It’s true! I’m embarrassed for them, honestly.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think it’s also important to realize that just because the Church has not declared that something is required does not mean that we should NOT do it. Also, just because the Church has not said that something is definitively preferable does not mean that we should NOT do it. This is one of those issues.

The entire discussion about whether or not wearing a skirt/dress to mass or 100% of the time is required by the Church or preferred by the Church is silly, because we’ll just go around in circles and people will start to find reasons to get upset about the whole thing.

There are many things Christians (both Catholic and non-Catholic) do that are not written in stone as required or preferred in and of themselves for our salvation, aid in our spiritual development or the good of society. But that does not mean that we cannot come to a reasonable conclusion that for ourselves and/or for the majority of people, something is still desirable for those ends and for improving society. This is one of those issues.

Our faith is not legalistic on this or many other matters. But we can still discuss them as they are relevant to our personal faiths and the way we express our faith to other people. For me personally, this is a HUGE issue for women today. Our faith compels us to modesty in general and to project to the world the reality of the Godhead and especially marriage. Distinctly feminine vs. distinctly masculine clothing does that better than any other singular thing in our culture. Projection and appearance mean a lot. Appearance is not always truth, but that does not mean that we should fail to try and project truth to others. Our culture has so skewed what it means to be male or female that it needs those of us who do know to show it demonstrably, by both action and appearance. That is my informed personal opinion.

Some food for thought: If every single Christian women would began to wear tasteful dresses or skirts as often as she could, what would happen to our culture? If men began responding to that manner of dressing by being more respectful, what would happen to our culture? The impact of our personal dress may seem a little thing to us, but it could be huge. If we began to dress like our bodies should be deemed special, different… that we should be protected as specially-made female human beings, what would happen to our culture?

Just some things to think about.

I don’t think anyone has said we should not discuss modesty. However, if you have read right through, part way through the OP specifically said she had issues with scrupulosity, and asked specifically if a woman wearing pants was an objective sin according to the Church. Several posters rather implied to her it is, which is simply untrue.

 

[crenfro]

Modesty is in the eye of the beholder…You could sit all nice and proper and they’ll be a guy staring at your anatomy.Whose fault is that?

No, that’s relativism. Take a look in the Catholic catechism and see what it says about modesty.

If you’re modestly dressed and a guy is gawking, then it isn’t you who’s committing the sin of lust, unless you’re acting provocatively.

A lot of times I get irritated when the topic of modest dress comes up in these threads. Sometimes I feel like people are trying to dictate to me what I should wear and they do it in such a self-righteous way that I want to say 'I’m wearing a barrel with straps on it". It’s that self-righteous attitude that grates on me. In fact, I was once listening to some Christian radio show and got furious when I heard the female commentator - don’t know who she was - tell someone who couldn’t afford a dress that they should save up for one. And she spoke in such a derogatory way. Got me mad.

And sometimes the fact is, I want to wear what I want to wear and will rationalize with my best rationalizations until I’ve convinced myself that it’s okay to wear whatever it is.

However, after I began to understand that men are more visual than women, that their hormone - the old testosterone - levels, on average, are way higher and stronger than women’s, and that their reaction is more intense to visual stimuli, it became more of a charitable motivation for me to dress modestly. And that worked for me where some self-righteous directive didn’t. And what also worked for me was asking myself “am I showing charity to God and my neighbor through my appearance.”

Jesus said something about a man with lust in his heart has already sinned. I haven’t heard men blamed for lascivious behavior- only women. Did Jesus misspeak?Are all women a “snare” to men?

Yes indeed. I don’t appreciate it either when men are dressed provocatively. Had to learn to avoid those who did. Very difficult. Good point.

If Jesus had trust in women -why should anybody mistrust them out of all boundaries and not mistrust men’s attitudes?
I am not going to pour myself into hot restrictive clothes just so some guy will be prevented from ogling.Let him put blinders on if he has a hormone problem.!

Yes, why indeed.

Please don’t pour yourself into clothing. Then, whether they’re too warm or not, if they’re tight they’ll probably also be immodest.

Perhaps discussing this modesty - and skirt - issue with Jesus will help.

Thanks for your courage with your honest post. Many blessings.

 

[sarahraegraham]

I don’t think anyone has said we should not discuss modesty. However, if you have read right through, part way through the OP specifically said she had issues with scrupulosity, and asked specifically if a woman wearing pants was an objective sin according to the Church. Several posters rather implied to her it is, which is simply untrue.

Yes, I did see that, which is why I wanted to put it out there that it is not a sin, but there are many valid and persuasive reasons that we should not.

 

[Monica4316]

Okay I’m back

I still don’t quite know what to think of this. This ‘not knowing’ is actually really bothering me.

I know Our Lady of Fatima said that ther would be fashions that would offend God very much, but somehow I think she is referring all the immodest/revealing clothing people today wear. Especially because soon after this, she told Jacinta that many go to hell for ‘sins of the flesh’.

I also think it matters what the Church teaches. We’re bound to follow the dogmas and official teachings… but if it doesn’t mention something, I think then it’s up to our conscience/personal choice.

 

[Jacafamala]

Okay I’m back

I still don’t quite know what to think of this. This ‘not knowing’ is actually really bothering me.

I think it pleases God that I wear only skirts. So that’s what I do. If you think it pleases God to wear skirts only, and you feel Our Lord is asking this of you, then you should do so too. I personally don’t believe it’s a sin for a woman to wear pants. I think the wearing of skirts honors who God made us to be as women in a way that wearing pants can’t and doesn’t.

I know Our Lady of Fatima said that ther would be fashions that would offend God very much, but somehow I think she is referring all the immodest/revealing clothing people today wear. Especially because soon after this, she told Jacinta that many go to hell for ‘sins of the flesh’.

I think that in Jacinta’s time the standard for modesty was much higher. What would be considered immodest and revealing clothes back then wouldn’t be today. Still in all, as Catholics I think we need to keep the standards pretty high in this regard.

Jacinta on Modesty
"Some days, Jacinta while in the hospital, was very saddened by the worldliness of the visitors, the women dressed in fashionable clothes, often with low-cut dresses. “What is it all for?” she asked Mother Godinho (her guardian ). “If they only knew what eternity is.”

I also think it matters what the Church teaches. We’re bound to follow the dogmas and official teachings… but if it doesn’t mention something, I think then it’s up to our conscience/personal choice.

CCC:
2521. Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
2522. Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires ones choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is descreet. (italics CM)
2523. There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body… Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

 

[Monica4316]

I think it pleases God that I wear only skirts. So that’s what I do. If you think it pleases God to wear skirts only, and you feel Our Lord is asking this of you, then you should do so too. I personally don’t believe it’s a sin for a woman to wear pants. I think the wearing of skirts honors who God made us to be as women in a way that wearing pants can’t and doesn’t.

thanks for sharing your thoughts

I want to imitate the Blessed Mother…to me, this includes being modest. I still havent figured out if this means wearing pants or skirts. I agree that skirts is better… but there are times when you simply have to wear pants. For example, if you play sports.

I think that in Jacinta’s time the standard for modesty was much higher. What would be considered immodest and revealing clothes back then wouldn’t be today. Still in all, as Catholics I think we need to keep the standards pretty high in this regard.

Jacinta on Modesty
"Some days, Jacinta while in the hospital, was very saddened by the worldliness of the visitors, the women dressed in fashionable clothes, often with low-cut dresses. “What is it all for?” she asked Mother Godinho (her guardian ). “If they only knew what eternity is.”

CCC:
2521. Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
2522. Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires ones choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is descreet. (italics CM)
2523. There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body… Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

thanks…that’s a great way of putting it, imo.

I think it’s also important to remember that fashion does change over time. For example, in my art history class, I learned that in the 17th century, it was considered immodest to show your ankles. This was even scandalous. If a woman showed her ankles, she was looked at like a prostitute. There’s a painting from that time period of a woman on a swing, and her ankle is showing…that was a very ‘scandalous’ picture in that day.

Of course today, no one would care if you showed your ankles or not. It’s not considered immodest at all. And a man would not stare at a woman’s ankles - if he does, honestly something is wrong with him, lol.

So for us, it’s not immodest to wear skirts that go below the knee or ankle length. But in the 17th century, skirts had to be floor length. If someone today said - unless you wear floor length skirts, you’re sinning, - that’s legalistic…

 

[stinkcat_14]

thanks for sharing your thoughts

I want to imitate the Blessed Mother…to me, this includes being modest. I still havent figured out if this means wearing pants or skirts. I agree that skirts is better… but there are times when you simply have to wear pants. For example, if you play sports.

If women are to imitate to Blessed Mother by not wearing pants, then who are men to imitate by wearing pants? I don’t recall any pictures of Jesus wearing pants, or Saint Joseph for that matter.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Point taken, stinkcat. However, even in the time of Jesus, male and female clothing did differ in specific ways. The fabrics, color, folds, cut etc. were specific. Just as we can make a distinction between jeans cut ‘for a woman’ and ‘for a man’ because we have been ‘trained’ that way, so the people in Jesus’ time could distinguish between male and female clothing.

Currently, we’ve had a few ‘decades’ to adjust to women in pants. (Heck, it took a few centuries to get used to men in pants if you look at fashion history). It could be an aberration; after all, there have been styles like hennins for example which were popular for a century or so and then disappeared. Or it may not. I am not going to go around and sneer at women in pants --OR sneer at women in skirts. . .but hey, I’m also not going to go around and be a slave to the fashion designers who ‘tell me’ what I ‘should’ wear to a far, far, FAR greater extent than the MAJORITY of posters on this board on either side.

 

[Jacafamala]

I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. In America it would indeed be immoral for a woman to run around topless, for Bushwomen in Africa it is not. Modest dress is largely a cultural issue. In America it is no longer scandalous or indecent or improper for a woman to wear pants and hasn’t been for quite some time. She shouldn’t wear MEN’S clothing. All pants are not MEN’S clothing, just like all skirts are not WOMEN’S clothing as evidenced by my example about the **Scotsman who wears a kilt to mass. However, if I, though of Scottish lineage, but of American culture, wear a kilt or any sort of skirt to mass or anywhere else it would not be appropriate in any way. **

You act as though some prohibition against women wearing pants is a universal and infallibly declared doctrine, which it is not. In some instances women should not wear pants. There are probably cultures around the world where it would indeed be deemed immodest and scandalous for a woman to wear pants even today, but not in America nor probably anywhere in the Western world.

That doesn’t mean that I believe women can wear any pants to mass they like even if they are WOMEN’S pants.

http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/02Torquay/Graphics/Photos/scottish-kilts.jpg
Somebody ought to teach these boys how to sit politely in a kilt.

Knees together, guys!!!

 

[Shin]

I was moved by all this to try typing up a short few notes on what a modest garment should consist of, and then I saved it and put it aside and thought a moment.

Especially after finding out what a variety of women think is modest.

It occurred to me, it is simply the case, since women do not have men’s eyes and do not at all normally understand how they see, that without the help of a modest man a woman often simply will not know what is a modest garment.

Modest men are rare. As too are men who are willing to admit what is tempting, and what is not.

Modesty has several different prime focuses – one is of course, to not be a near occasion of sin, another is to be in due mode, another is to not be extravagant, related to the second… and too truly to the first.

In the case of the first of course, many women do not care about being a near occasion of sin because they place all responsibility on the man, and speak out highly offended at any suggestion that their clothing choices be restricted, especially because of men.

These we can then, set aside, in considering modesty because they are not modest enough to admit their limitations, or care about others limitations.

In the case of the second, modern society has taught people that everyone on TV appears in any outfit they like, and so everyone may dress in any way, and that people who would say there are bad ways to dress, have problems. But in fact, the due mode of a person’s dress reflects that person’s state in life, it does not conflict with it, and the Lord desires us to dress suiting the state he has put us in, not outside of it.

In the third case, in this culture, few women wish to be seen as plain, or to wear plain outfits that do not call attention to themselves – neither the unmarried, who are looking for marriage, nor the married who desire to please their husbands.

Even with modesty ‘promoters’ some say, ‘modest does not mean plain!’ but, in fact, the truth is, modesty and plainness go together. To a great extent, plainness is the aim in opposition of extravagance. Plainess is not the equivalent of ugliness – it is simplicity. Even veils can be immodestly ornate, something which might surprise many searching for the ‘prettiest’ veil. It is not just the object, it is what it looks like. Like much of Christianity it is the opposite of what people first desire. And the opposite of the world’s message, in magazines, etc.

So modesty has three great enemies built in from the culture into the mind of the woman from the very start.

And what truly strikes me, the older I get, is how helpless women are in regards to understanding it on some levels because they don’t have men’s eyes, and so, except in extraordinary cases, they will not simply be able to understand what to wear for modesty’s sake without the help of men. And how of course, that is the last thing that would occur to most women in this culture to do, because of the built in prejudices and assumptions of taking this course, as well as finding a man to ask it of.

But I must say, at least in my part, if I ever give any advice, it is only out of the pure motive that I hope someone takes it for the sake of souls.

Of course a woman who has grasped the soul of modesty, can be guided by grace to have it without other help. Thank God for such rare occasions.

Thinking as I am of retiring from the world and also simply desirous of guarding my own eyes and not thinking about these matters or being to judge some outfit or another, this is not at all my preferred topic of discussion save that, like so many topics I sometimes post about, I see such a desperate need I feel I have to.

And that… is all I truly wishes to say here. If someone actually wants to talk to me about this, directly, private messages are there for that and I’ll discuss modesty there or help anyone to think further about what underlies it. I do like to be of help to the extent I can without endangering my own poor self.

 

[edwest2]

Hello Shin,

It’s not as complicated as all that. I was there when the mini-skirt was properly called a scandal. Women wear pants that do not suit their figures, being too tight to even comfortably walk in. Women don’t need men to tell them anything. One would hope they had a good mother and father. But, even if not, young men are unchanged. They will leer at excessive amounts of exposed skin. Just go to a mall and watch what they’re doing.

The worst aberration is the so-called swimsuit, consisting of a few inches of cloth. As a man, beaches are now off limits. I don’t want to see any women in their underwear.

So, no, skirts are not mandatory but they should be modest.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jacafamala]

In the third case, in this culture, few women wish to be seen as plain, or to wear plain outfits that do not call attention to themselves – neither the unmarried, who are looking for marriage, nor the married who desire to please their husbands.

Even with modesty ‘promoters’ some say, ‘modest does not mean plain!’ but, in fact, the truth is, modesty and plainness go together. To a great extent, plainness is the aim in opposition of extravagance. Plainess is not the equivalent of ugliness – it is simplicity. Even veils can be immodestly ornate, something which might surprise many searching for the ‘prettiest’ veil. It is not just the object, it is what it looks like. Like much of Christianity it is the opposite of what people first desire. And the opposite of the world’s message, in magazines, etc.

I’m not sure this is an authentically Catholic view, it sounds somewhat Protestant to me. Although certainly some Catholic women, (nuns come to mind) are called to a greater level of austerity in such matters. Great art, great Cathedrals, a great meal, a beautiful dress, but all to the honor and glory of God. Humility is always truthful. And the truth is that God made women beautiful so it’s right that she dresses accordingly.

In addition, it’s charity to make our world more appealing for others.

 

[adstrinity]

I’m not reading the replies, but, skirts are not the norm for women everywhere. Women of some regions in the past NEVER wore skirts or dresses. Padre Pio is a saint, but, he was not perfect. It is not the practice of the Church that women should ONLY wear skirts. It was NEVER the holding of the Catholic Church that it was wrong for women to wear pants. In the Vatican, there are signs for proper attire. Women can wear long skirts or long pants, at least as long as capri’s though longer.

Let me repeat that:

Women can wear pants, and must wear a certain length of pants in the Vatican.

There are signs in the Vatican saying women can wear pants. In the Vatican. If it’s okay in the Vatican, it’s okay elsewhere.

I hate that so many people are so vain they care about what other people are wearing. Seriously, the people who are all for dresses only are EXACTLY like those arrogant fashionista heiresses who are so shallow, they think clothes make the person.

 

[Jacafamala]

Really, aren’t there enough hungry to feed and homeless with no where to go that we have to waste web ink on whether God gives a hoot if you come worship Him in pants or a skirt?

Feeding the poor and sheltering them are two corporal works of mercy, and as such they’re very important. But whatever we do, we do for Our Lord because the will of God involves even the smallest seemingly insignificant details of our lives.

Mark 14:6 But Jesus said: Let her alone, why do you molest her? She hath wrought a good work upon me. 7 For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always. 8 She hath done what she could: she is come beforehand to anoint my body for burial. 9 Amen, I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memorial of her. 10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them.

 

[sarahraegraham]

I’m not reading the replies, but, skirts are not the norm for women everywhere. Women of some regions in the past NEVER wore skirts or dresses. Padre Pio is a saint, but, he was not perfect. It is not the practice of the Church that women should ONLY wear skirts. It was NEVER the holding of the Catholic Church that it was wrong for women to wear pants. In the Vatican, there are signs for proper attire. Women can wear long skirts or long pants, at least as long as capri’s though longer.

Let me repeat that:

Women can wear pants, and must wear a certain length of pants in the Vatican.

There are signs in the Vatican saying women can wear pants. In the Vatican. If it’s okay in the Vatican, it’s okay elsewhere.

I hate that so many people are so vain they care about what other people are wearing. Seriously, the people who are all for dresses only are EXACTLY like those arrogant fashionista heiresses who are so shallow, they think clothes make the person.

:tsktsk: You should have taken the time to read the entire thread. Your tone was not necessary.

 

[Monica4316]

I decided, I’m going to try and imitate the Blessed Mother as best I can, and I hope she would guide me and help me understand what that means

thank you for all your posts.

God bless