Thank you for speaking on behalf of Audrey Hepburn. Did you know her well?Yes, good taste…like Audrey Hepburn…I doubt she ever wore a shapeless jumper that looked like it was a remake of a couch.
Such a thing has never been, and never will be in good taste.
(Actually, I realize that she may have had to wear rhings that wern’t that great during the war, come to think of it…but she wouldn’t pick the shapeless jumper given a choice…)
I would LOVE the be skinny and fashion savvy. I am a size 18 pants and I wear a 20/22 shirt. I cannot, for all I want, carry off any of what I would like to. Lord knows I wish I was a size 6 and could carry off the looks I like (mostly the styles of the 50s), but since I am the size I am, most of my clothes fit loosely so my fat is jiggling around for everyone to see. Ewwwwwww…
I think this is a common misconception that people seem to have about modesty. Modesty does not equate to “couldn’t care less.” A woman can be very immodestly dressed and still look like she couldn’t care less. I see them every day. Shorts and tank tops, worn with running shoes and disheveled hair, looks very sloppy and extremely immodest. If I saw a woman wearing that “potato sack” jumper that was pictured earlier, with a nice white blouse or t-shirt underneath and neatly brushed hair, I would say that she cared a great deal more than the woman who looked like she just rolled out of bed or came from the gym.
So you are the size that you are…everyone is different, I certainly am not judging but rather admire those women who aren’t caught up in the eternal search to be rail thin.
That is not what I meant and I am sorry that it came out that way.
No, I do not know you in person, or know exactly how you dress, however, I do not feel I am juding rashly.
I did not say that you personally condemed anyone. You have not.
Apparently sarcasm isn’t your strong suit. Sorry.I didn’t call you ugly. I’ve never even seen you, so how could I do so? What I said was, “tans are ugly.” Surely you can tell the difference between a tan and a person. If I said “that’s an ugly jumper” would that also mean that I thought that the person wearing it was ugly?
Oh, and so kind of you to call me puritanical.
In your mother’s day, yes. Now, not so much. Would I wear the things people wore in the 60s-80s because they were fashionable “in my mother’s day”…no…I would not, because last I checked, I live in the year 2008.I don’t even know where to begin… so I’ll just let this rant go except to say that gloves while outside were very common in my mother’s day, not so long ago. How very puritanical of her - so extreme!
No, but I read her son’s tribute. I can’t see her not caring about her appearence just for the sake of not caring…that was my point.
No, I do not have a husband (and I am undecided if I will and am not dating on purpose at this point in time), and I am unable to have childern, but that doesn’t have much to do with this thread.
Dear laudie. I have a suggestion for you. My Grandmother was born in 1887, died in the 70s, bless her soul. She “hated” getting her skin dark. Unfortunately the sun didn’t seem to understand that, so if she went out in the sun without her arms being covered, her exposed skin immediately turned a beautiful shade of brown. When she got older she would take a lemon, slice it in half and rub her arms with it. Voila, no more brown arms. If you are ever, heaven forbid, without covering for your arms, I suggest you try that trick.
Maybe a lot of the disagreement here comes from age difference, geographical location, personality, etc. It’s too bad we don’t know what the garments that God made for Adam and Eve looked like.
If I had suggested wearing a long-sleeved sweater, or a long-sleeved flannel shirt, then yes, I would agree that would be excessive and austere. But, I suggested, by my own personal experience, that loose sleeves in a light-colored or white fabric actually help reflect the sun away from the body, and hence will keep you cooler.
I suppose I misunderstood you when you said:
I’d be happy to tell you my thoughts… wouldn’t it have been better to just ask me this sooner, rather than jumping to conclusions that I am a rigid, austere puritan? What I feel comfortable wearing are dresses and skirts, anywhere from ankle length to mid-calf. I do not feel comfortable in tops that are cut more than a couple of inches below the collarbone, or that expose my shoulders. I do not like to wear sleeves that are too much higher than my elbow, but I will wear them about halfway between elbow and shoulder sometimes. I do not feel comfortable wearing anything that clings to my body. Not only because I think it is immodest, but because I am middle-aged and I now have more “padding.” I prefer blouses to t-shirts for this reason. I most often wear dresses which I sew myself out of nice quality cotton or silk, and these have waist ties to adjust for fit. I also like tiered skirts with a matching blouse or a t-shirt and vest or fitted jacket. I do not own a pair of pants, I think they are unattractive on women and most are very ill-fitting.
I have never shied away from anything simply because it was unusual. And really, gloves are not THAT unusual, even today. They’re especially nice in the winter, and they make you feel so ladylike.
Thank you for the suggestion, elt, but I don’t tan. I’m very fair and burn easily, so that is one reason why I avoid overexposure to the sun. And really, my arms are not that pretty anymore, so I prefer to cover them.
My brothers told me that if women could read minds, we’d all wear burqas. I have had more than one guy tell me that a typical man, sitting by himself on a desert island with no women there at all would not go a day without “thinking things.” Actually, the more typical estimate for a man under 25 was closer to 15 minutes. OK, less, but I find this hard to fathom. Still, the men in my life have convinced me that there is a concrete limit to how much womens’ dress is going to keep a typical guy from “thinking things.” If nothing else, the fact that those already-married FLDS guys were marrying 15 year olds should prove definitively that a woman’s dress is not going to cure impure thoughts, nor impure actions.When a man sees a woman in a bikini on a beach–whether she is by herself or surrounded by other beachgoers–he starts thinking things.
Trust me on this one.
)Yeah, Aren’t the golden years wonderful for the body? I feel the same way. I usually go to Omar the Tent Maker for my wardrobe.
Whaaaaat?? EasterJoy, I thought my wardrobe was fairly well rounded, as am I.My brothers told me that if women could read minds, we’d all wear burqas. I have had more than one guy tell me that a typical man, sitting by himself on a desert island with no women there at all would not go a day without “thinking things.” Actually, the more typical estimate for a man under 25 was closer to 15 minutes. OK, less, but I find this hard to fathom. Still, the men in my life have convinced me that there is a concrete limit to how much womens’ dress is going to keep a typical guy from “thinking things.” If nothing else, the fact that those already-married FLDS guys were marrying 15 year olds should prove definitively that a woman’s dress is not going to cure impure thoughts, nor impure actions.
So, while walking around in a burqa, a threatening look, and a cast iron skillet emblazoned with “DON’T EVEN THINK IT, BUSTER” in large white letters could possibly lead to substantially fewer guys having impure thoughts about me and possibly many more serious thoughts about how very near their own afterlife and final judgement might be, I wouldn’t recommend it as a standard for Catholic women. There are some lengths to which one might go in the name of purity which are excessive.
(If any disagree with that, I will go on record as saying that you scare me.
Peace.Know what’s scary, I know guys that would be turned on by that look. But they are the type that get excited when a woman is incredibly mean to them (yeah, I know- twisted).So, while walking around in a burqa, a threatening look, and a cast iron skillet emblazoned with “DON’T EVEN THINK IT, BUSTER” in large white letters could possibly lead to substantially fewer guys having impure thoughts about me and possibly many more serious thoughts about how very near their own afterlife and final judgement might be, I wouldn’t recommend it as a standard for Catholic women. There are some lengths to which one might go in the name of purity which are excessive.
(If any disagree with that, I will go on record as saying that you scare me.
Uh-Oh My American Friends, I think there has been a break down in communications between you and I(Australian). A “jumper” here is a top that is knitted with wool and worn in winter. They can look as sexy or as frumpy as the design or fit of the jumper. What is “jumper” over your way. I think this is another situation like the fanny pack/ bum bag scenario that I have ran into before. A 'you say to-ma-to and we say toh-mah-to" type of thing. Any help in translation would be appreciated. Is it kind of a moo moo type dress?
Here in the United States of America, a "Jumper" is a sleeveless type of dress with a usually rounded neckline that we wear a shirt or blouse ( my Irish Grandma called a "waiste" ) under. They can be fitted and princess-line cut, or large and full like a Mau-Mau or Moo-Moo or whatever the spelling is for those big, loose Hawaiian dresses. It is the big loose ones that have raised the ire of some of our friends here.
There are some links on some of the replys on these pages to click on to take a look at the various ones, some big and some fitted. It is sad that we, as American women...don't dress better than we do. I do believe that it is getting better, though. We used to dress very nice as a people...before the "War-Protest Era" of the 60's and 70's. Things have never been the same since.
People who attend the Latin Tridentine Masses of 1962 Missal, tend to have some ladies in these Churches who seem to some others to go overboard on the modesty issue and wear these large shapeless dresses in the idea of modesty. Some think that these dresses are ugly and an over-compensation to the modesty issue.
I hope that that answered your question clearly.
"til later!---B :oI’m a stubborn cuss, I know. I should just bow out of this thread but I can’t let this go.
What are these “traditional Catholic standards” you keep referring to? And how is YOUR statement not judgemental? If I consider these dresses modest (and MOST women would), then according to you, I am in opposition to these alleged “standards” and flagrantly immodest? Really, how am I mis-reading you?
Is this part of those “Catholic standards”? Can you provide some documentation that proves the Church has stated that women must shun fashion trends in order to be modest?
This is your personal opinion and preference. You don’t wish to show your arms because you feel it’s immodest. I believe that is clearly a puritanical concept. What could possibly be immodest about a t-shirt or a cap sleeved blouse? Exposing the arm is a temptation? Please…
My friend, YOU have a very narrow view of modesty. Once again, without any qualifiers, you claim all swimsuits are immodest. There are many, many styles of swimsuits available today that would be considered quite modest by most women’s standards, including very faithful Catholic women. Your idea of modesty is the anomaly here.