Women's Fashion

[catholicmamajoy]

I have to back up my friend here. Flawed logic. If the person dressed immodestly does not have bad character, why did they make the descision to dress immodesly, which is a decision that represents poor character??

Because many people have different definitions of modesty and to use the definition of modesty by some people here on CAF, one could say that someone as holy as St Gianna Molla was “immodest” because she wore tops and dresses that were above her elbow or ski pants and hiking shorts when her outdoor activities called for it. I most certainly do not feel that way whatsoever, but there are plenty of people out there (and quite a few vocal ones here on CAF) that think those items of clothing are immodest, and thus gets you another kind of “flawed logic”. Also, there is nothing inappropriate or unladylike** with a woman asking a gentleman to a social occasion. While you might not care for it, it doesn’t mean it’s unladylike. I know plenty of very ladylike young women who have asked a young man over for dinner with her family, or to be her escort to a family wedding.

 

[mitzicross]

You seem to flourish on stereotypes. I am way more visual than my husband and how he dresses affects me way more than how I dress affects him. The problems with stereotypes is that they do not pertain to everyone.

We can’t account for everyone, just the majority.

 

[mitzicross]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

You are mistaken, dear sister, for the outward appearance informs us a great deal as to the true interior state of a particular individual. A man semaphores to the world the quality of his character by his attire, his mode of speech, his manners and his general deportment. Thus a man or women who is clad in immodest vesture signals to others that they are devoid of any instinct for modesty and care very little about giving offence to others. Moreover, if the outward appearance was unimportant and “no indication of character” as you argue, then St. Paul was wrong to have instructed women to wear seemly apparel and not trespass the bounds of propriety.

If women once again behaved in a more ladylike manner and were less ostentatiously self-assertive, then our society would, I am quite certain, be a far better and happier place for all -“Women are the guardians of chastity for the world”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Amen, I agree. When I see a woman of any age walk into mass wearing a strapless top and low riding pants with more skin showing than not, I immediately question if this is someone who does not care how she affects others, or offends God. I don’t assume she is that way, because I know she could be a visitor, or someone who has been away from the church for a while, and doesn’t have appropriate clothing yet… But, when I see this same woman years later still dressed that way, I am sorry to say, I feel she is in it for the attention she gets from men.

What else is there to think. Is she dressing in a sexually stimulating manner for her children, or her mother, the priest, or God? Who else could it be for, herself? That is just silly.

We don’t live this life just for ourselves. We are here for the benefit of others and meeting their needs for God. Their spiritual well being is most important and I can be happily dressed in something that doesn’t offend them. Dressing in an offensive way to please only me is like driving 40 mph over the speed limit to please myself. People could die because of that kind of selfishness, and in the area of temptation to lust, people could die a far worse death…eternal.

Men know when a woman is dressed seductively, she is doing it to get his attention, he may try not to pay attention, but why should he have to do that, when she is the one causing the issue in the first place? In other words, I shouldn’t have to run off the road into a ditch to avoid the speeders.

 

[mitzicross]

How do you know that if a woman was dressed in such a manner, she is not doing reparation for years of dressing very immodestly and would like to do penance? How do you know she isn’t doing penance for the way young girls are dressing at the mall, to gain graces for them? Perhaps she’s been very prideful in her appearance over the years and felt the need to humble that pride within her to grow in grace. Applying the scalpel with precision to the part that needs prompt removal.

If I saw someone with a long dress and no cleavage showing, I would not want to judge her as to have sinned in some way, neither would I discourage someone from dressing in such a manner. I might even start a friendly conversation and say Hello if she was attending our Divine Liturgy.

That is exactly what I am talking about. I think God would bless us if we all made this sacrifice. And, it would be hard, apparently really hard for many women, but what is a sacrifice if it isn’t hard? God would bless us and the world, I think.

I thought about talking to a priest about all of this. We have two in our parish. The problem with going to a priest is it is sometimes tempting to go to the one who’s views are similar to mine so that I will be assured of getting the answer I am seeking. Fr. Henry would say what half of you are saying. out of an attempt at charity. Fr. White would say women would be better off wearing the clothes the Marylike people are promoting. I could just choose my answer. That is why I didn’t go that route to get the answers to my questions.

So far I am enjoying the diverse reactions. It gives me a much broader view of this issue and how it might be perceived by those in my world. I see that some would be positively affected, while still others could be offended by my changing things. This is much bigger than I expected. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I appreciate it so much. Peace to you.

 

[Catholic90]

While it is not wrong for a woman to ask a man out on a date, it is unladylike is is not ideal. Im 16 and i can figure that out.

Sorry, buddy, but a woman asking a man out on a date is in no way “unladylike”.

Women are not some helpless creatures waiting to be rescued by the male. If they are interested, there is nothing wrong with them pursuing.
I am 47, and I can figure that out.

*Oh, wait, I forgot…you are 16…you have entered the age where you know all of life’s answers! * Give it a few years…most teenagers grow out of it.

 

[severus68]

I have to back up my friend here. Flawed logic. If the person dressed immodestly does not have bad character, why did they make the descision to dress immodesly, which is a decision that represents poor character??

Firstly, you are making the assumption of immodesty based on your rules about modest dress. Secondly, even if someone is a bit tasteless when it comes to dress, I would not presume that he/she is a bad person.

Modesty is a lot more than dress.

 

[severus68]

Again I feel the need to defend my friend. While it is not wrong for a woman to ask a man out on a date, it is unladylike is is not ideal. Im 16 and i can figure that out. Go on chastity.com (in the dateing section) for more explanation on christian gender roles.

However, your insult towards “outdated” cultural norms is erroneous. You mean cultural norms that have an unbroken link to Jewish-Christian/Western high culture? Norms that were created under the influence of a society much more influenced by Christanity than today? Its not defaulting to “outdated” cultural norms, its falling back on gender roles rooted in classic Catholic/Christian thinking, and the Church certainly supports that.

Not to mention that because the Church “falls silent” on an issue (which it rarely does, more offten than not, its people not wanting to find out real Church teaching), that dosent give the go-ahead to instantly take the most liberal possition possible. Root your thinking in Catholic tradition as well, because the chatechism isnt the be-all and end-all of Church teaching, its also explaned in the writings of the Saints, popes, and church fathers.

You are 16?? You have a lot more to live and learn.

What do you mean about lady like please? You appear to subscribe to the Madonna versus whore fallacious thinking. Its fine for a woman to ask a man out.

Christianity is about Christ. Christians folllow the teachings of Christ. Christ changed everything. He said that the greatest commandment is love. Catholics are not fundamentalist Muslims or ultra orthodox Jews.

The Cathechism sets out Church doctrine.

If you want to live in this way, that is your choice (although you are not an adult but I assume your parents are happy with your wway of thinking) but please do not say it is what the Church teaches. It does not.

 

[severus68]

Sorry, buddy, but a woman asking a man out on a date is in no way “unladylike”.

Women are not some helpless creatures waiting to be rescued by the male. If they are interested, there is nothing wrong with them pursuing.
I am 47, and I can figure that out.

*Oh, wait, I forgot…you are 16…you have entered the age where you know all of life’s answers! * Give it a few years…most teenagers grow out of it.

 

[Catholic90]

If the person dressed immodestly does not have bad character, why did they make the descision to dress immodesly, which is a decision that represents poor character??

Incorrect.

I have to back up Severus here.

I will use a friend of mine as an example.

She has really poor taste in clothes. She cannot look at an article of clothing and “see” how it makes her look. Now, if I go shopping with her and help her pick out clothes, she likes what I point out and can see it WHEN I POINT IT OUT. However, she cannot do this by herself, for whatever reason. When she dresses in some of her outfits, she might be perceived as immodest. This says absolutely nothing about her character. She is the kindest, most generous person I know. She will bend over backwards to help anyone who needs it, and she is the one who is always trying to make others feel good. Her character is superb. She just has poor taste in clothing.

So your logic is incorrect.

 

[severus68]

Amen, I agree. When I see a woman of any age walk into mass wearing a strapless top and low riding pants with more skin showing than not, I immediately question if this is someone who does not care how she affects others, or offends God. I don’t assume she is that way, because I know she could be a visitor, or someone who has been away from the church for a while, and doesn’t have appropriate clothing yet… But, when I see this same woman years later still dressed that way, I am sorry to say, I feel she is in it for the attention she gets from men.

What else is there to think. Is she dressing in a sexually stimulating manner for her children, or her mother, the priest, or God? Who else could it be for, herself? That is just silly.

We don’t live this life just for ourselves. We are here for the benefit of others and meeting their needs for God. Their spiritual well being is most important and I can be happily dressed in something that doesn’t offend them. Dressing in an offensive way to please only me is like driving 40 mph over the speed limit to please myself. People could die because of that kind of selfishness, and in the area of temptation to lust, people could die a far worse death…eternal.

Men know when a woman is dressed seductively, she is doing it to get his attention, he may try not to pay attention, but why should he have to do that, when she is the one causing the issue in the first place? In other words, I shouldn’t have to run off the road into a ditch to avoid the speeders.

You appear to be paying a lot of attention to how people dress in church rather than to mass.

It is silly to think that all women dress for men. I do not think most women are so preoccupied with men, pleasing men, getting a man that everything they do is geared towards men. I would think most women have a life.

 

[JoArtist]

Again a large group of men blaming women entirely for their sin of lust. Although a part of this problem is caused by women’s dress, it is a issue in their hearts. It is such a cop out to say it is all women’s fault I struggle with this sin. Also they push things that have nothing to do with actual Church teaching.

 

[Portrait]

I do think you are mistaken. I am not advocating a man or a woman dance naked out in the streets of Plymouth or Bristol for instance, that would a question of sanity perhaps. S You St Paul,but his reference on the hair etc was with reference to a particular situation. He also sent a slave back to his masterso should we keep slaves? Your idea of modesty is not in line with what many Christians/Catholics think. For the most part, dress is superficial. A person dresses for a job interview, for instance, to fit standards set by human beings, subjective standards. A person dressing in a suit for work is not necessarily good at his work, hardworking and honest.

Women like men, are given brains and abilities by God. The fact is that in the past, women were required to stay in the background, be subserviant, say little, in most socities… That it was done in the past does not make it right. Women like men, have a right to assert themselves and have a say. Each person has to be the guardian of his/her own chastit.y

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post.

Human dignity will always require human decency, whatever the period of history. The teaching concerning modest attire has perpetual validity because it is timeless and thus not culturally bound. The particular issue of Onesimus, the Christian slave, reflects the then prevailing economic background of the Roman Empire. Slavery was, you must remember, a long-established institution and was accepted by all as a normal feature of the social structure of those times. Having said that, when St. Paul implores Philemon to receive Onesimus as a “beloved brother” (Phil. 16) he has surely set the slave in a position where the legal title of slave ceases to be of primary importance. Thus whilst St. Paul did not attack the essential element of slavery as such, what he said did revolutionize the perceptions of Christians upon the topic. However, all this is far removed from the isssue of men and women being clad in immodest attire that transgresses the the boundaries of decency. As long as men are conceived in sin and must struggle with concupiscence, the topic of modest apparel will always be relevant and will not change through the vicissitudes of time.

You are quite correct is stating that my postion on modest attire is out of sync with the views held by many modern day Catholics, but that is only because many modern day Catholics have assimilated hook, line and sinker the morally degenerate standards of the world and then use these debased standards as a benchmark to determine what is acceptable and modest. To reinforce their postion they selectively make their appeal to the Catechism and choose to disregard the whole sweep of Catholic traditon as being ‘outmoded’ and irrelevant. However, even the current Catechism debunks their fallacious argumentation, when the context which regulates the meaning of the passages appertaining to modesty is not conveniently ignored.

It is the height of folly to take as our yardstick our own notions of what constitutes modesty, especially if those notions are influenced by the surrounding godless culture and what it thinks is acceptable. How can this possibly be a guide for those who profess religion and who claim to be living by more nobler standards of decency? Moreover, it is sad that men take refuge behind ‘prudential judgement’ arguments to excuse all manner of unseemly clothing and seductive style garments. As I have frequently remarked on these boards, whilst the Church does leave certain matters to one’s prudential judgement or, if you please, sanctified common sense, this assumes that a man has a well-formed conscience imbued with the entire tradition (inc. Sacred Scripture) of Holy Mother Church and not merely the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Unless this is the case, one’s prudential judgement will necessarily be unsound and off beam. What is invariably happening today is that men are coming to the Catechism (which actually supports tradtional norms of modesty, when correctly interpreted) and imposing upon it their own preconceived notions of what modesty entails.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Firstly, you are making the assumption of immodesty based on your rules about modest dress. Secondly, even if someone is a bit tasteless when it comes to dress, I would not presume that he/she is a bad person.

Modesty is a lot more than dress.

Dear severus68,

Hello again, dear sister.

Whilst modesty does involve more than attire, one’s apparel is an essential element for “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522). That is surely quite plain and unambiguous.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Sorry, buddy, but a woman asking a man out on a date is in no way “unladylike”.

Women are not some helpless creatures waiting to be rescued by the male. If they are interested, there is nothing wrong with them pursuing.
I am 47, and I can figure that out.

*Oh, wait, I forgot…you are 16…you have entered the age where you know all of life’s answers! * Give it a few years…most teenagers grow out of it.

Dear Catholic90,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

On the contrary, DAAVEED1590 evinces a maturity of thought well ahead of his age and it is a refreshing change to meet a young man of his calibre on these boards - my faith in Catholic youth has been restored!

The whole idea of women pursuing men and taking the initiative emanates from warped secular eglatarian culture, which finds its expression in so called noisy ‘ladettes’’. It is afronted by the traditional Catholic view of a women taking a passive and submissive role and so has a tendency to be excessively and unpleasantly self-assertive. Respectable Catholic gentlemen give such pushy women a very wide berth indeed.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Catholic90]

Women do not have to be PASSIVE. Your idea of submitting to the husband in marriage is apparently warped.

Submitting does not equal SUBMISSIVE.

A PASSIVE and SUBMISSIVE woman can be much like a doormat.

I guess if that is the type you like, though, who am I to say.

However, for those of us with spines, there is nothing wrong with stating what and who we like! (or what we don’t like!).

 

[Portrait]

Again a large group of men blaming women entirely for their sin of lust. Although a part of this problem is caused by women’s dress, it is a issue in their hearts. It is such a cop out to say it is all women’s fault I struggle with this sin. Also they push things that have nothing to do with actual Church teaching.

Dear JoArtist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

To a greater or lesser degree *all *men have to contend with and keep in check impure thoughts, especially in their youthful years. As I have said previously, men and women have a joint responsibility as regards the subjugation of the baser passions, so as not to be taken captive by evil desire. They are cooperators together in minimising the strength of concupiscence and counteracting its unhappy effects.

However, whilst I freely acknowledge that men are responsible for the custody of their eyes (Job 31: 1), women are likewise responsible for being clad in seemly apparel that does not draw attention to their body parts, a responsibility which they are flagrantly disregarding in contemporary society. Alas, even Catholic women are now choosing to ignore this duty and are being downright inconsiderate in their dress and behaviour, thus being the occasion of temptation in the opposite sex. Now it is surely right that they are politely challenged about this and receive some fraternal correction from their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Catholic90]

…women are likewise responsible for being clad in seemly apparel that does not draw attention to their body parts, a responsibility which they are flagrantly disregarding in contemporary society. Alas, even Catholic women are now choosing to ignore this duty and are being downright inconsiderate in their dress and behaviour, thus being the occasion of temptation in the opposite sex. Now it is surely right that they are politely challenged about this and receive some fraternal correction from their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ah, but the age old argument…WHO gets to decide what is appropriate dress?

Is showing a shoulder too much?
Is showing a forearm too much?
Is showing a knee too much?
Is showing an ankle too much?

What if I am in my own home, on my own deck? Can I wear a spaghetti top with shorts while I read a book in the sun on my deck? What if my neighbor cuts down his tree branches - do I then have to wear a turtle neck and long pants on the deck?

What can I wear while I work in my yard? Is the same short/tank top OK with you? Or do I have to cover head to toe?

 

[Portrait]

Women do not have to be PASSIVE. Your idea of submitting to the husband in marriage is apparently warped.

Submitting does not equal SUBMISSIVE.

A PASSIVE and SUBMISSIVE woman can be much like a doormat.

I guess if that is the type you like, though, who am I to say.

However, for those of us with spines, there is nothing wrong with stating what and who we like! (or what we don’t like!).

Dear Catholic90,

Hello again, dear friend.

According to St. Paul submitting necessarily implies being submissive: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands” (Eph. 5: 22-24). Clearly, a Christian wife can hardly be subject to her husband in everything unless she is first of a submissive disposition.

Of course, when St. Paul speaks of women being subject to their husbands in everything he means everything pertaining to the husbands legitimate authority and everything not contrary to the true Catholic faith. Any equality within the sphere of grace and redemption (Gal. 3: 28; I Pet. 3: 7) does not discount the God-given order for marriage. This Divine order is gravely disturbed when wives either seek to rule their husbands or refuse loving self-subjection, as is increasingly becoming the case today, even in conservative Catholic marriages.

A pious Catholic women is never ostentatiously self-assertive or forward in her manner, but is rather submissive and adorned “with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (I Pet. 3: 4). A “gentle and quiet spirit” decidedly does not sit comfortably with pushy self-assertion or secular femenist ideology about equality of the sexes and the right of a women to self-determination. From the standpoint of our holy religion, the submission and submissiveness of wives is non-negotiable. Marital Obedience and recognition of her husband’s authority and leadership comes with the territory of being a Catholic wife (I Cor. 11: 1-3; Eph. 5: 22-24). Needless to say, this Divine pattern does not fit the mode of our egalitarian culture and the godless ideology of militant femenism, but should that be a cause of concern to Catholic who do not conform to this world and who does not set his watch by the town clock?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Dear Catholic90,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

On the contrary, DAAVEED1590 evinces a maturity of thought well ahead of his age and it is a refreshing change to meet a young man of his calibre on these boards - my faith in Catholic youth has been restored!

The whole idea of women pursuing men and taking the initiative emanates from warped secular eglatarian culture, which finds its expression in so called noisy ‘ladettes’’. It is afronted by the traditional Catholic view of a women taking a passive and submissive role and so has a tendency to be excessively and unpleasantly self-assertive. Respectable Catholic gentlemen give such pushy women a very wide berth indeed.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

It is not a Church doctrine that women must be passive and submissive. Insecure men avoid strong women with a sense of self. Secure men are happy to have women with thoughts of their own who use their brains and abilities, as their wives, in a marriage of equality, with give and take and mutual respect.

 

[severus68]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post.

Human dignity will always require human decency, whatever the period of history. The teaching concerning modest attire has perpetual validity because it is timeless and thus not culturally bound. The particular issue of Onesimus, the Christian slave, reflects the then prevailing economic background of the Roman Empire. Slavery was, you must remember, a long-established institution and was accepted by all as a normal feature of the social structure of those times. Having said that, when St. Paul implores Philemon to receive Onesimus as a “beloved brother” (Phil. 16) he has surely set the slave in a position where the legal title of slave ceases to be of primary importance. Thus whilst St. Paul did not attack the essential element of slavery as such, what he said did revolutionize the perceptions of Christians upon the topic. However, all this is far removed from the isssue of men and women being clad in immodest attire that transgresses the the boundaries of decency. As long as men are conceived in sin and must struggle with concupiscence, the topic of modest apparel will always be relevant and will not change through the vicissitudes of time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

So who decides what of Paul said and did was about the culture etc of the times and others as relating to all times? He also said in Christianity, it is different, all are equal.

Human decency is about ethics, charity, compassion etc. You only speak of mode of dress based on your subjective standards.