H
HOPEFUL_IN_UK
Guest
You are way too focused on a certain cosmetic beauty that is meaningless. A woman who is clean and neat and dressed modestly looks beautiful to God.
- Status
H
HOPEFUL_IN_UK
Guest
Those women don’t look modest to me.
Those dresses are too tight, too short, show too much skin, and are in bright, vulgar “Looky-me!!!” colors.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
I disagree. I guess beauty and modesty are both in the eye of the beholder. I don’t know what you mean by “asexual”. If you mean “not causing anyone to think about sex”, well, I see nothing wrong with that; isn’t it a big part of the point of modesty? If you mean “unisex”, not in a flowered skirt you’re not. Unisex clothes are things like denim jumpsuits and grey overalls and flannel shirts, to me.
I like the other outfits as summer clothes, if you want to be sassy and project a fun image or just feel sunny and cute, but they look high-maintenance, a little uncomfortable and not exactly modest to me. Of course, in the coming heat I will wear less, but sadly more often than not.
A full shape isn’t shapeless, it’s just a different shape. Around here, men and women wear actaully shapeless clothes at least as often as not: sweats and baggy faded jeans, clothes whose seams are giving out, and some tie them on with rope and twine. That is unflattering, and some do it on purpose, to avoid being treated as if sex or money were their value. They want to be judged for their actions. It’s up to hem. To me, the dignity of dressing modestly has nothing to do with self-hatred, but with declaring my boundaries upfront and refusing to scurry around begging for approval.
S
SeekerJen
Guest
Okay, those are adorable, and by all but the most conservative Westerners, perfectly modest and feminine. In fact, these are the kinds of dresses I would love to wear all summer. makes mental note to do some online window shopping
I’m 5 feet tall with a thin but curvy shape. Anything boxy hangs off of my chest and makes me look either pregnant or like a tank. No thank you. God gave me this figure, and while I’m not going to walk around with my cleavage bouncing around in the free air, my midriff bared, or my leg skin visible above the knee, neither am I going to wear the equivalent of a sack. While Our Lady is always portrayed in modest robes, in most depictions, she is wearing a sash that cinches her robe in at the waist. From that I conclude that it is not required of Catholics to believe that the female shape is dirty, sinful, or something to be completely hidden in sacks.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Maybe on you it doesn’t! In that case, go for it!
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
I can’t find the blog or forum but the point of it was that frumpy is a bad witness. I vote Nay.
Why jumpers? Why can’t a longer skirt and appropriate (to the occasion/activity) top do the trick?
Why jumpers? Why can’t a longer skirt and appropriate (to the occasion/activity) top do the trick?
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
Nay.
Not that I have a problem with practical/frumpy- there is a time and a place for that. Jumpers just ain’t my practical/frumpy style. (That would be my painted-the-classroom/fixed-the-car/fixed-my-bike-in-'em jeans with a roomy faded t-shirt on top. Yes, I wear pants. :bigyikes: )
I don’t really understand the point of having a two layers on top, unless it’s for warmth. (I’m not really sure more layers=more modest (thinking of “Madonna” wearing ahem pointy women’s underthings over her clothes…)) And the whole bodice sewn to the skirt thing makes it impossible to remove a layer if necessary.
Not that I have a problem with practical/frumpy- there is a time and a place for that. Jumpers just ain’t my practical/frumpy style. (That would be my painted-the-classroom/fixed-the-car/fixed-my-bike-in-'em jeans with a roomy faded t-shirt on top. Yes, I wear pants. :bigyikes: )
I don’t really understand the point of having a two layers on top, unless it’s for warmth. (I’m not really sure more layers=more modest (thinking of “Madonna” wearing ahem pointy women’s underthings over her clothes…)) And the whole bodice sewn to the skirt thing makes it impossible to remove a layer if necessary.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Me, too. I learned the Baltimore Catechism from farm wives who wore pants. Tell them that ladies don’t wear pants!
My dad brought me up old school, girls are girls and boys are boys. Not all pants are modest, mind you, but if Dad wouldn’t have told me to take it off and put something else on, I’m not changing.
C
Conservative
Guest
I’ve found in ordering jumpers that I don’t wear them - too big - too long - just plain not fitting properly.
You can dress modestly by purchasing long skirts - if they’re ankle length, they just require hemming to fit. When I find a style I like, I usually get several in different colors. I’ve learned that some of the catalogs carry choices of lengths - with a few in below-knee lengths.
Unless you can get your jumpers made to order - I say “Nay”.
You can dress modestly by purchasing long skirts - if they’re ankle length, they just require hemming to fit. When I find a style I like, I usually get several in different colors. I’ve learned that some of the catalogs carry choices of lengths - with a few in below-knee lengths.
Unless you can get your jumpers made to order - I say “Nay”.
T
tcraig
Guest
I agree with you that modesty does not automatically equal frumpy. Frumpy is typically defined as dowdy, unkempt or unfashionable. Dowdy is lacking stylishness or neatness. This doesn’t/shouldn’t apply to nuns, because they have a special vocation and their habits are beyond style; I’ve also never seen a nun who looked unkempt or sloppy. But I certainly see plenty of women at the local Wal-Mart who would earn the frumpy label, and there’s not a jumper in sight, LOL.
The outfit you describe may be modest, and it may be clean and tidy. But I would hardly describe the typical jumper that I see all the time in homeschooling circles and that is so prevalent among “modest dressers” as stylish or fashionable. It’s … frumpy.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I like the “potato sack” better than those dresses - and the fabric is pretty. Those dresses are not at all modest, IMO, and certainly not by traditional Catholic standards. They show too much leg and arm, and are too form-fitting to be called modest - especially the last one.
When a lady needs to seek out modest clothes that make a fashion statement, like those dresses above, she’s missing the point. Modesty is not just about dressing unprovocatively, but it is also about shunning fashion trends and styles because this is just attachment to material things. I am bothered about why so many women feel the need to look “fashionable.” There is no need to look hideous, but clean and neat is all that is necessary.
S
skatepixie
Guest
I’ve never heard of form fitting being a modesty issue (unless it causes cleavege, but thats also a low cut issue)…ever. Nor woud I consider a dress with cap sleeves as showing too much arm.
I am not a mormon…I am not expected to wear things that are cut poorly (and with my body shape, anything that isnt fitted through the waist looks really bad). I also refuse to wear any prints that belong on someone’s grandmother’s sofa or curtains.
As far as modesty, where people draw the line is an individual thing. It depends on individual values, the situation, etc. I know some ppl who will not wear anything shorter than ankle length, others (like myself) who will wear something a few inches above the knee, and everywhere in between. All of the above feel that they dress modestly.
However, I think some people who believe in extreme modesty and the total absence of anything fashionable have some puritanical (sp) beliefs about the body. No, all matter is not evil. It is not wrong to look “pretty” nor is it nessicarily a temptation. Now, I’m not saying that it is okay to dress in skanky clothes, etc, but I also don’t think that walking down the street in a pretty, well fitting, knee length dress is such an awful cause to temptation.
I am not a mormon…I am not expected to wear things that are cut poorly (and with my body shape, anything that isnt fitted through the waist looks really bad). I also refuse to wear any prints that belong on someone’s grandmother’s sofa or curtains.
As far as modesty, where people draw the line is an individual thing. It depends on individual values, the situation, etc. I know some ppl who will not wear anything shorter than ankle length, others (like myself) who will wear something a few inches above the knee, and everywhere in between. All of the above feel that they dress modestly.
However, I think some people who believe in extreme modesty and the total absence of anything fashionable have some puritanical (sp) beliefs about the body. No, all matter is not evil. It is not wrong to look “pretty” nor is it nessicarily a temptation. Now, I’m not saying that it is okay to dress in skanky clothes, etc, but I also don’t think that walking down the street in a pretty, well fitting, knee length dress is such an awful cause to temptation.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
Are you sure about that?
It’s really a matter of training the eye and mind. I would feel very uncomfortable wearing most of the clothes I used to wear only 2 or 3 years ago. It has been a gradual weaning away from sleeveless/short sleeves, v-necks, short skirts and pants. There is nothing puritanical about my beliefs. I simply have come to abhor “fashion” because of what it represents. I have more important things to think about. And I’m not talking “right” or “wrong” to want to look pretty. I’m talking about losing the attachment to fashion, and being honest about what motivates me to want to “look pretty.”
S
strngrnrth
Guest
That’s odd. It must be regional. I remember in CA women and men alike didn’t wear much, even when it was windy and chilly. I have grown to notice when I am stared at and I know I’m being stared at when I show knees in a dress or a majority of the calf in shorts. I have no clue why there’s a difference between a dress and shorts in the length that attracts attention, and I’m thinking I may not want to know, but there apparently is one, so I try to work around it.
Cap sleeves to me seem like a cute way of covering the shoulder, but I feel uncomfortable if I show underarm or collarbone as well. It just seems like alot of exposure. When it’s over 90 fahrenheit I modify that but I hate the way it feels to have to coose between heatstroke and feeling unclad outdoors.
In my experience form-fitting is one of the main modesty issues, even in swimwear. That’s why some suits have ruffles and shirring, to reduce cling and make some space. I’ve been looking ofr one that won’t be hot. In the meantime I’ve put together a makeshift swimming outfit from a shirt, nylon shorts and a relatively dignified swimsuit.
I’m not that puritanical, and I don’t think matter is evil. I just had some really good matter for a snack and I thank God for it. But my boundaries are serious, and that is a big source of human dignity. It’s a privacy and ownership issue, largely. My parts are not a public exhibit, and I feel good that way.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Pardon me; in my last post I got the dress lengths and shorts lengths backwards.
S
skatepixie
Guest
I am absolutely sure about that. I hate being asked that, by the way. If I wasn’t sure, would I say it?
I think there is a point to which it is the woman’s job to make sure that she is not a tempation, and a point past which it becomes the guy’s problem. In today’s society, if a man cannot handle seeing a woman’s collarbone (I mean, seriously, with that yr left with a high t-shirt or turtleneck), or part of her leg, well he isn’t going to be able to go anywhere.
As for fitted clothes, I can’t even sleep in anything loose…drives me up the wall. Loose sleeves and tops especially…shudders
As for regional, I really can’t comment as I’ve never been anywhere else in the US besides CA. (Ok, the New York airport, but still). I do remember my cousin from Ohio being a little shocked, though.
Normal clothes for me is usually a tank top with a hoodie or denim (sp) jacket…and a knee length or slightly shorter skirt. I never wear shorts (never have, I don’t know why, I just don’t like them) and rarely wear pants (just breeches for riding). I’ve never really found pants flattering on me or comfortable. I don’t consider any of that unreasonable.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
I don’t feel responsible for men’s lust even if I’m in a halter top and hot pants, because they have necks and eyelids with which to shield or redirect their eyes. Now, it would also depend on where I was. If I were in a wedding, that would be unfair, to expect them not to stare at such a shocking sight, but in the heat of summer, well, we all have to survive.
But when immediate heatstroke isn’t a strong threat I like to cover whatever gets stared at because the staring bothers me. It’s not a guilt thing. It’s a self-respect thing.
But when immediate heatstroke isn’t a strong threat I like to cover whatever gets stared at because the staring bothers me. It’s not a guilt thing. It’s a self-respect thing.
S
skatepixie
Guest
Thank you!
When I was in High School (before I reinjured my back) I was a competitve figure skater. Sometimes people would be like oh no, what if men come to competitions just to see the girls in their dresses (they’re short, but a leotard bottom covers everything) and I always felt like that was their problem. Gymnasts wear leotards in training and competition, and dancers wear leotards for class and whatever fits the role for their performences.
Modesty has a lot to do with where you are. What gets you stared at has a lot to do with where you are as well. I don’t give a gymnast in a leotard a second glance, nor do I feel shocked to see someone by the side of a pool in a swimsuit…however those would look bizarre at the local bank.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
You are wrong to not feel responsible for men’s lust. It is as much our responsibility (and our sin) as theirs. I suggest you think very carefully about that. If a woman dresses modestly and a man still has impure thoughts about her, then it is his problem certainly. But we must do our part to begin with, and a halter top and hot pants is not doing your part.
The comments I have seen suggesting that less clothing is necessary in hot weather is also bogus. It would be ridiculous, obviously, to wear turtlenecks in the summer heat, but long, loose sleeves in a light-colored, woven fabric are actually better in the heat than no sleeves. This helps reflect the heat from your body and it also protects your skin from sun exposure and unattractive tanning.
Modesty has nothing to do with where you are. Immodest is immodest, plain and simple. You’re really not grasping the real concept of modesty. A person in a swimsuit (particularly what passes as such in today’s world), whether it be in a bank or by the side of a pool, is immodest.
I would like to add that modesty is as much a frame of mind and a way of acting as it is how we dress. If a woman dresses modestly but still sashays and swings her hips, or acts and talks immodestly, it defeats the purpose.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
Everytime this issue comes up I wonder why Catholic men aren’t subject to the same level of judgement as women are about their clothing.
I was victimized, and I will use the term victimized, by a small group of women at our traditional chapel a few years ago becuase I do not wear dresses-personal choice-my body was just not made for them. My clothing is clean, neat and I am ALWAYS modest. I wasn’t told that I would be going directly to Hell, but I was given every manner of lecture next to that. Finally, after several weeks of this treatment, I started to become convinced that they were right. I spent nearly a year trying to conform to their vision of what I should be wearing and have never been so miserable in my life. I went to my pastor, nearly in tears from the pressure of trying to “obey” and he was HORRIFIED. He started asking around and discovered that these 6 women were after others in the chapel as well-all women-and had actually driven people away. He ended up giving a sermon on the issue, and said that all issues of inappropriate dress were to go through him. He then went on to discuss modesty, pride and judging others.
Bottom line-if you feel God is calling you to dress a certain way-good for you. If you feel the need to lecture another about their choices, perhaps you should speak with your Pastor FIRST.
I was victimized, and I will use the term victimized, by a small group of women at our traditional chapel a few years ago becuase I do not wear dresses-personal choice-my body was just not made for them. My clothing is clean, neat and I am ALWAYS modest. I wasn’t told that I would be going directly to Hell, but I was given every manner of lecture next to that. Finally, after several weeks of this treatment, I started to become convinced that they were right. I spent nearly a year trying to conform to their vision of what I should be wearing and have never been so miserable in my life. I went to my pastor, nearly in tears from the pressure of trying to “obey” and he was HORRIFIED. He started asking around and discovered that these 6 women were after others in the chapel as well-all women-and had actually driven people away. He ended up giving a sermon on the issue, and said that all issues of inappropriate dress were to go through him. He then went on to discuss modesty, pride and judging others.
Bottom line-if you feel God is calling you to dress a certain way-good for you. If you feel the need to lecture another about their choices, perhaps you should speak with your Pastor FIRST.
- Status