Women's "Jumpers": Yea or Nay

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I still fail to understand why it’s a bad thing to want to look pretty!
This whole idea makes no sense at all. I know that my husband, my father, my father-in-law, etc… all love when their wives look pretty. In a nice dress, hair done, a little makeup. They swoon. How is that not important?
And it feels good to look pretty. I have pride in myself and I am not embarrassed to have people approach me or deal with people. I find that I get far better service and better attitudes when I take a little time on myself as opposed to the times when I just “threw something on”.
 
laudamus_te said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since you feel it’s appropriate to tell others how “wrong” they are in their personal views of modesty (very CONSERVATIVE views), I feel comfortable suggesting that you may have a mild case of OCD or neurosis where this issue is concerned. If you honestly believe a swimsuit (and you gave NO qualifiers here, just the general term) is immodest, or that someone dressed in a potato sack can still be provocative depending on how she “sways her hips”, then I think you have absorbed some extremist views of modesty, femininity and sexuality. What would you have women do at the beach or at the pool?
http://www.ahiida.com/img/products/large_thumbs/190-748-1199365503.jpg

Or is swimming immodest as well? Are we Catholic or Muslims here? Are we Catholic or Puritains?

Your desire to cover nearly every inch of your body in layers and layers of billowy fabrics might work if you’re Amish and not interacting with the world. But if I ever went to a job interview dressed in the “housecoat” pictured in my other post, I would give the impression of sloppiness, slovenliness, and low self-esteem. Obviously, I would not get the job.

For those who keep harping on how the Blessed Mother dressed, may I just point out that she was actually following the fashion customs of her day. And while nuns dressed in full habit may not be described as sloppy or frumpy, they ARE indeed attempting to convey the message of celibacy and a committment to a specific vocation. I don’t think a wife and mother should be donning a habit or a housecoat unless she too wishes to convey the message of sexual ambiguity. Boy, I’d sure like to hear from some honest husbands on this issue also!
 
laudamus_te said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is incorrect. Modesty is very much dependent on external factors such as time, place, and culture. St. Thomas Aquinas discusses this in the Summa. Modesty is different from most other virtues in that it is focused on other people’s perceptions, which are dependent on a number of factors. Modesty involves avoiding attire or actions that would be likely to draw inappropriate attention to ourselves, especially with regards to protecting purity. However, factors that draw such attention vary with time, place, and culture. As skatepixie noted, attire that would likely draw inappropriate attention in a bank would not have the same effect at a beach.

To draw a more striking example, consider the fact that complete exposure of your body while being examined by a doctor is not immodest because in that situation it is not likely to cause impure thoughts in others, and the doctor is expected to maintain a professional demeanor, both externally and internally. Thus, although nudity is involved, its effects on the observer are not the same as they would be in another context. Modesty is very much dependent on context.
 
blessedtoo said:
Boy, I’d sure like to hear from some honest husbands on this issue also!
Click to expand...
I had DH read this thread.
This is his reaction:
“Look at the FLDS. Look at what they are wearing. They look ridiculous. There is not point to swarthing yourself in yards of fabric. It’s unattractive and severs no purpose.
You are actually making a spectical of yourself.
And, tt violates the whole “humble” idea. You are calling attention to yourself because what you are wearing says “Look at me! I’m so humble!” and calling attention to your “humbleness” is pride, pure and simple”

When I told DH that I was going to start wearing skirts more, his first reaction was: “Please! No jumpers!”
Additionally, DH likes to show me off. He thinks I am gorgeous and tells people all the time. How would it be for me to show up and had not taken a few moments on myself? I’d make DH look rather silly, now wouldn’t I?
 
cam100 said:
Actually, this is incorrect. Modesty is very much dependent on external factors such as time, place, and culture. St. Thomas Aquinas discusses this in the Summa. Modesty is different from most other virtues in that it is focused on other people’s perceptions, which are dependent on a number of factors. Modesty involves avoiding attire or actions that would be likely to draw inappropriate attention to ourselves, especially with regards to protecting purity. However, factors that draw such attention vary with time, place, and culture. As skatepixie noted, attire that would likely draw inappropriate attention in a bank would not have the same effect at a beach.

To draw a more striking example, consider the fact that complete exposure of your body while being examined by a doctor is not immodest because in that situation it is not likely to cause impure thoughts in others, and the doctor is expected to maintain a professional demeanor, both externally and internally. Thus, although nudity is involved, its effects on the observer are not the same as they would be in another context. Modesty is very much dependent on context.
Click to expand...
👍 The Summa was what our Pastor used in his sermon about modesty!

I also agree with PatienceandLove’s DH. Someone who is deliberately covering herself so that she looks so vastly different from others in society is going to achieve the same result as someone who is dressing immodestly-she will be drawing attention to herself.

My practice is to blend in, and dress so that whatever I’m wearing will not draw attention to myself.
 
Fitswimmer said:
My practice is to blend in, and dress so that whatever I’m wearing will not draw attention to myself.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing some LDS “elder” young ladies at the grocery store yesterday. You know what they were wearing?
The lot of them wore mid-calf length skirts, ballet flats, nice plain t-shirts and cardigans. And they looked so lovely and feminine.
That is the type of look that I think is the most flattering for women who are seeking to be more feminine in their dressing, especially if they feel called to wear skirts/dresses.
 
I went to (public) HS just before everything changed …radically. Back then, girls and women teachers still had to wear dresses or skirts. I had several “jumpers” that were really cute, really cool!! They always got alot of compliments on my HS size 6 figure. These were nothing like the “jumpers” of frumpy-modesty, yet they were not immodest. Two zipppered up the back with fitted princess line bodice and rounded nickline. One buttoned up the front from the waist and had a squared neckline. All were corduroy, knee-lenght. They would look stylish yet today…and modest!
Another look that can be attractive without being frumpy is a skirt and matching vest, which gives a fitted jumper look.
Women bending over in those big billowing jumper/dresses…is NOT a modest sight, nor is it pretty in an extremely WINDY conditions.
Sometimes, these large pieces of clothing on women and girls seem like a more feminized version of running around in sweat-pants and sweat-shirts. NON-ACOUNTABLE CLOTHING that we all ( men too, ) can grow too large in. I like what “patienceandlove” says in her comments.
Now, let’s all be MODEST, PRETTY, kind to one another and good Catholic ( where applicable ) Christian women and set good example!!!
Also, what does the prayer in Gaelic mean I see on one of the POSTS, often?------B 😉
 
Fitswimmer said:
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.
Click to expand...
This happened at my former traditional parish, also (completely different part of the country). We had a “Marylike Modesty” squad who decided that it was their job to dictate extreme standards of modesty and a “dresses only” approach to clothing for female parishioners. Someone brought this to the attention of our priest. He gave an announcement that if there was any concern about how people were dressing then they should bring the matter to him, but individuals telling others how to dress was not allowed. The dress code that was subsequently posted was essentially the same one that can be seen at the Vatican.

Unfortunately, I had a friend who was not so lucky. She was quite literally hounded out of her SSPX parish because she refused to wear only dresses. The women - and some men - were absolutely brutal. She complained of the matter to her priest, but he chose to do nothing, thus being complicit to such treatment.
 
Baltzer_Jacobo said:
I had several “jumpers” that were really cute, really cool!! They always got alot of compliments on my HS size 6 figure. These were nothing like the “jumpers” of frumpy-modesty, yet they were not immodest.
Click to expand...
I had two jumpers that I really liked. One was made with a nice herringbone tweed wool-blend, and the other was in sand-colored “ultrasuede.” Both were very similar to this one mccallpattern.com/item/M5464.htm only fitted a wee bit more loosely, and cut to below the knee. I wore them with a belt, just like in this picture. I had lots of compliments on both.

I, too, went to public school back in the day when dresses/skirts were mandatory. It didn’t even occur to us to wear slacks – that just wasn’t done. And if we had come to school in slacks, we would have been sent home to change.
 
tcraig said:
This happened at my former traditional parish, also (completely different part of the country). We had a “Marylike Modesty” squad who decided that it was their job to dictate extreme standards of modesty and a “dresses only” approach to clothing for female parishioners. Someone brought this to the attention of our priest. He gave an announcement that if there was any concern about how people were dressing then they should bring the matter to him, but individuals telling others how to dress was not allowed. The dress code that was subsequently posted was essentially the same one that can be seen at the Vatican.

Unfortunately, I had a friend who was not so lucky. She was quite literally hounded out of her SSPX parish because she refused to wear only dresses. The women - and some men - were absolutely brutal. She complained of the matter to her priest, but he chose to do nothing, thus being complicit to such treatment.
Click to expand...
Although this is certainly not an acceptable situation, the NO parishes that I attend (not by choice) have quite the opposite problem. In the warmer months, the women would be conspicuous if they didn’t wear short skirts/shorts and skimpy tops.

And BTW, many of the men also dress just as disgracefully. It’s not just a female thing (although the original Jumpers topic is).
 
blessedtoo said:
Modesty is not defined by the number of hideous layers of fabric that a woman drapes ill-fittingly upon her frame. American women are already the most poorly dressed in the world with the typical “uniform” of sweats, hoodies and sneakers. Let’s not ugly up the country even more with Jumpers.
Click to expand...
A big AMEN to this Seattle sister’s comments!!!
 
CarrieH said:
I had two jumpers that I really liked. One was made with a nice herringbone tweed wool-blend, and the other was in sand-colored “ultrasuede.” Both were very similar to this one mccallpattern.com/item/M5464.htm only fitted a wee bit more loosely, and cut to below the knee. I wore them with a belt, just like in this picture. I had lots of compliments on both.
Click to expand...
That’s a really cute pattern, and definitely not what I think of as a frumpy jumper.
 
On Blessed Too’s comment about bending over in a dress, I always thought girls were taught that it was polite to sort of squat down and not just bend over, especiall wearing a skirt.
 
I have a few jumpers and dh likes them. They are of a pretty material that drapes nicely. Otherwise, I am usually in a skirt and blouse and dh says I look elegant in them. After reading threads like these I ask him if I look frumpy, and he laughs and says “far from it.”

The purple flowered jumper pictured looks like a sofa cover from a deep discount department store.

I have a friend who dislikes all jumpers, but is okay with sundresses. The funny thing is that they are cut the same as my jumpers, just no blouse underneath!
 
I appreciate it when women dress modestly. Modesty doesn’t mean you have to dress like you just stepped off the Mayflower though.
 
oremus said:
The purple flowered jumper pictured looks like a sofa cover from a deep discount department store.
Click to expand...
I saw one even worse than that being worn by a middle-school teacher at Christmastime. It was a similar style but made up in a red and white gingham-check pattern as one might find on a tablecloth, and it had Christmas trees stamped on the white squares. :hypno: It was so hideous that I actually felt embarrassed for the woman wearing in, imagining what those middle-school girls must be saying about her behind her back (we all know how catty 13-year-old girls can be!). But I’ll give her credit for being clean, well-groomed, and modestly dressed…:o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top