Women's "Jumpers": Yea or Nay

[TMGallyon85]

I agree alot with what Laudamus te has been saying. I am a young adult guy. I dont walk outside in muscle shirts. I am rather modest about my attire as a guy. even at the beach I sometimes wear a t-shirt with my bathing suit on. And sorry folks, but as a 22 year old, if some woman is wearing a tank top and hot pants, you better believe my eyes are going hone in on her. It as much of the womansjob to dress modest as it is for thr guy to keep his eyes to himself. And to the person saying the church hasnt issued directives on modest dress in over 50 years, then stick with the directives that are still “on the books” Just because a new directive isnt issued doesnt mean we can wing it.

 

[laudamus_te]

This dress
http://www.shabbyapple.com/images/PRODUCT/medium/68.jpg

is not immodest “ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH”. In fact, after being a Catholic for 50 years, I can confidently say that the Vatican has NEVER issued a dress code for women.

I never said anything about that dress being immodest “ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH.” If you would read my post more carefully, without preconceived, judgmental and false ideas about me, you would see that what I was referring to as being wrong, ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH, was the belief that a woman could wear a tank top and hotpants and not share in the sin of a man who looks lustfully at her. Which was my reason for posting the exerpt from the examination of conscience. Immodest dressing is a sin.

BTW: Style is not a sin.

No, but vanity is. As is rash judgment.

 

[laudamus_te]

And “unvanity” for lack of a better word can also be overdone. Obsession with other people’s percieved vanity can be overdone. Pride over the fact that you are not as vain or immodest as ___ can be overdone.

Please explain how “unvanity” can be overdone. And how about obsession with other people’s preference for frumpy jumpers? How about pride over the fact that you are more stylish than someone who prefers frumpy jumpers - or Amish clothes? How about instantly labeling as “puritan”, “muslim” or “neurotic” someone who prefers not to bare their lower arms and legs, or prefers not to wear clothing which is in any revealing? Could that be overdone? Even sinful?

Keep in mind that fashions change. What is considered unacceptable changes.

Because something is “acceptable” does not make it modest.

In the renaissance, women would never dare show an ankle, but showing your breasts almost to the nipples in a tight bodice that gives you major cleavege…sure! To us, this is strange…for them it was their standard of desency. We have to go by the standard for our cluture in our time.

So, what you are saying is that because our culture at this time seems to accept revealing clothing - clothing which leaves nothing to the imagination - as normal, that sets the standard for what is modest. Sorry, that’s just not true.

As for the person who suggested loose sleeves to keep the sun off…maybe some of us like feeling the sun on our skin and getting a tan! I can’t say I’ve ever heard a tan discribed as “unattractive” by a person living today. I suppose I should wear gloves to prevent all chance of my skin getting tan…not! Because its so ugly… Um, not in the century, dear!

That was me who suggested loose, light colored sleeves to keep the sun off. It wasn’t a condemnation of someone who likes to get tan, just a rebuttal of the idea that you have to wear practically nothing in the heat in order to be more comfortable. If you like to damage your skin and be a candidate for skin cancer, be my guest. And I think gloves are a good idea while outdoors. IMO, tans are ugly as well as dangerous.

 

[laudamus_te]

Not sure how what I said could be construed as ‘dressing immodestly is not sinful’. ““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.””

What you said was “It’s YOUR OWN responsibility, though, and no one else’s.” Which doesn’t quite square with this:

I’m merely saying that when you sin, you are the one who is most culpable for your sin. Everyone should be encouraged to dress modestly, but when I have lustful thoughts about someone, it’s my problem more than theirs.If they intended to provoke such a reaction, then they are in the doghouse too.

Also keep in mind that there are a lot of factors that go into dressing modestly. It can’t be defined by some simple rules or any formula. Factors include body type, the way one carries themself, even general attitude, etc etc etc.

You mean, like:
laudamus te:

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.

Gee, I wonder why you weren’t accused of showing signs of OCD or neurosis?

 

[laudamus_te]

I agree alot with what Laudamus te has been saying. I am a young adult guy. I dont walk outside in muscle shirts. I am rather modest about my attire as a guy. even at the beach I sometimes wear a t-shirt with my bathing suit on. And sorry folks, but as a 22 year old, if some woman is wearing a tank top and hot pants, you better believe my eyes are going hone in on her. It as much of the womansjob to dress modest as it is for thr guy to keep his eyes to himself. And to the person saying the church hasnt issued directives on modest dress in over 50 years, then stick with the directives that are still “on the books” Just because a new directive isnt issued doesnt mean we can wing it.

Thanks for the support, and coming from a male perspective it’s important.

 

[jdmayer]

What you said was “It’s YOUR OWN responsibility, though, and no one else’s.”

If you re-read my post, you will see that the what I am referring to there is the responsibility to control your own thoughts and emotions, even when faced with temptation. I wasn’t denying that the tempter is partially culpable, as I went on to say. Still, I think you are off when you say that both parties (the tempter and the person who sins, in this case ‘the luster’) are equally culpable. In fact, the culpability is for two different things: the tempter for the sin of leading another into temptation, and the sinner for his own sin.

You mean, like:

Yup! I agree!

Gee, I wonder why you weren’t accused of showing signs of OCD or neurosis?

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that it had to do more with the difference in our attitudes than in the substance of our posts.

God bless!

 

[laudamus_te]

laudamus te:

I was just waiting for the burka picture. You people are so predictable. It’s amazing how quickly the accusations of “Puritan” and “Muslim” come out when someone starts defending modesty.

Yes, it is very appropriate to correct another Catholic who has a “personal opinion” which is wrong according to the Church. It is not true that a woman has no responsibility if a man sins by looking at her if she is immodestly dressed. The sin is shared. Look it up. A tank top and hot pants is most assuredly immodest. Am I the only one not offended by that, or concerned for that person’s misguided soul? Thank you for following my appropriate correction with wildly untrue characterizations of me, which I have bolded. How you come up with these judgments of my personality from my few posts is beyond me. You will notice that it is only the defenders of modern-day immodesty who have to come out with the personal insults.

First, it makes me sad that you two seem to have such a negative opinion of other women. I’ll grant that there are women who do all those things specifically to attract men’s attention-but to make a sweeping generalization that MOST women have that attitude strikes me as a bit extreme.

What did I say which was negative of another woman? Will you please provide a specific example? On the contrary, I was unjustly attacked by another. My post which you quoted was simply a reiteration of Catholic teaching: Immodest dressing is sinful. A previous poster stated that if she chose to wear a tank top and hot pants, and a man was tempted to sin in his heart by looking at her, that it was basically “his problem.” This is untrue, and I am simply trying to make that understood. How is that a “negative opinion?”

 

[laudamus_te]

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that it had to do more with the difference in our attitudes than in the substance of our posts.

I’m rather in the dark about that one. I don’t see what “attitude” could be read into my post. It wasn’t directed toward anyone specifically. If someone took it that way, perhaps it’s that person’s problem. Do I need to use more of these things?

 

[jdmayer]

I’m rather in the dark about that one. I don’t see what “attitude” could be read into my post. It wasn’t directed toward anyone specifically. If someone took it that way, perhaps it’s that person’s problem.

It’s easy to read ‘tone’ into posts on the internet. Rarely a good idea though… I think you and I are in agreement, for the most part. At least in principle, maybe not on how we would put those principles into act.

Yeah you could use more emoticons but I would shy away from the tongue-sticking-out one. It’s just RUDE. Some of my faves:
:extrahappy: :dancing: :clapping: :dts: :byzsoc: :nun2:

And of course the all-time, good ol’ days classic:

 

[skatepixie]

Please explain how “unvanity” can be overdone. And how about obsession with other people’s preference for frumpy jumpers? How about pride over the fact that you are more stylish than someone who prefers frumpy jumpers - or Amish clothes? How about instantly labeling as “puritan”, “muslim” or “neurotic” someone who prefers not to bare their lower arms and legs, or prefers not to wear clothing which is in any revealing? Could that be overdone? Even sinful?

Because it is possible for someone to be so obsessed with how wonderfuly modest and saintly they are so that it actually gets to the point where they feel pride in this. I didn’t call you muslim or neurotic…I said that you held puritanical beliefs about the human body, and I sill think that you do hold these.

Because something is “acceptable” does not make it modest.

Modesty is relative to the time and place…so if the clothing is acceptable and therefore not an occasion to scandal…well, I’m fine with it.

Now the girl I saw walking around campus this morning with five inches of the FRONT of her thong visable due to too big pants…not so much!

So, what you are saying is that because our culture at this time seems to accept revealing clothing - clothing which leaves nothing to the imagination - as normal, that sets the standard for what is modest. Sorry, that’s just not true.

Yes, and no. I do ask you not to condem those who make reasonable clothing choices, and if it is within the realm of what the average person would wear then it is fine for our time and place.

If I were magically transported into mideval (sp) europe, I would not reveal an ankle, because that to them was scandal. By the same token, if transported back, I would not wear some of the low cut dresses they wore to class, although at that time it was daywear.

Modesty is an issue of causing scandal to others…what causes scandal does depend on the culture and the time…

That was me who suggested loose, light colored sleeves to keep the sun off. It wasn’t a condemnation of someone who likes to get tan, just a rebuttal of the idea that you have to wear practically nothing in the heat in order to be more comfortable. If you like to damage your skin and be a candidate for skin cancer, be my guest. And I think gloves are a good idea while outdoors. IMO, tans are ugly as well as dangerous.

I guess God giving me olive skin was just so very awful and I’m just cursed now…So kind of you to call me ugly!

I happen to be one of those people who tan easily. God made me that way…yet you suggest I go to extreme measures to avoid this. Who’s encouranging vanity now?

And yes, I do get some sun in the summer. Are you going to harp on anyone who does anything at all less than safe? Smoking, eating anything but nasty tasting food from the health store, going swiming (since more people die swimming than being struck by lightening), driving a car, going outside without a helmet (after all, you never know when a tree might fall on your head!)…

Honestly, I wasn’t going to support the theory that you have OCD until I read this reply…gloves while outside…that’s a bit extreme, no?

Personally, I accept the fact that death is a part of life. I do what I reasonably can to be reasonably safe (yes, I wear a seatbelt, yes, I wear a helmet when I ride)…but I don’t let it take over my life because for all I know, I could die tomorrow. I’m not going to waste my life worrying about how long I’m going to life. After all, it isn’t the amount of years in your life, it’s the amount of life in your years.

 

[piouswoman]

If you want to wear a potato sack, be my guest. But refrain from making others feel that they are sinners when they wear perfectly acceptable and modest clothing, even when it’s fashionable. BTW: Style is not a sin.

If you are feeling like a sinner because of what you are wearing, you may want to ask yourself why…maybe its because deep down in your mind you really do know it IS unacceptable and lacking in modesty.

 

[piouswoman]

Keep in mind that fashions change. What is considered unacceptable changes.

And you can keep in mind that good taste never goes out of style.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

And you can keep in mind that good taste never goes out of style.

And any clothes that make a woman look like she could care less are always out of style.

 

[laudamus_te]

If you want to wear a potato sack, be my guest. But refrain from making others feel that they are sinners when they wear perfectly acceptable and modest clothing, even when it’s fashionable. BTW: Style is not a sin.

When did I do that, please? My only comment was towards the poster who stated that if she wore a tank top and hotpants, and a man was tempted to sin, it was his problem. A tank top and hotpants is not perfectly acceptable and modest clothing (nor is it fashionable, but that’s besides the point). I’m sorry if my opinions about modesty may make another person feel that she is a sinner, but that is not my intent.

 

[skatepixie]

And you can keep in mind that good taste never goes out of style.

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…)

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Just wanted to post that if you google women’s jumper modesty, this thread is the 3rd site that comes up. Nice.

 

[piouswoman]

SELL THEIR BODIES??? Actually I do have soemthing to add. The other day I was in a restaurant and a not so little young girl was sitting with her back to me. Her jeans had slipped below the “modest” point and I really had to restrain myself to keep from walking over and snapping that little y thing they call panties these days. I think she would have been a bit surprised. What say you? Would you have bailed me out after I was charged with assault and battery?? Peace.

No, I wouldn’t of. By the way, this little story you present is **proof **of what dressing immodestly is. It is nothing more than a blatant desire for attention and trouble that women use for all of the wrong reasons, and it does nothing more than get the attention of men such as yourself. I am really surprised that you would mention this incident…a real mistake there, elt.

 

[laudamus_te]

Because it is possible for someone to be so obsessed with how wonderfuly modest and saintly they are so that it actually gets to the point where they feel pride in this. I didn’t call you muslim or neurotic…I said that you held puritanical beliefs about the human body, and I sill think that you do hold these.

Have you ever met me in person? Do you know how I dress? What is so terribly puritanical about anything I have posted? Please, give me some examples. Remember, rash judgment is not a good thing.

I do ask you not to condem those who make reasonable clothing choices, and if it is within the realm of what the average person would wear then it is fine for our time and place.

Again, please provide a quote from me where I condemned anyone.

I guess God giving me olive skin was just so very awful and I’m just cursed now…So kind of you to call me ugly!

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.

I happen to be one of those people who tan easily. God made me that way…yet you suggest I go to extreme measures to avoid this. Who’s encouranging vanity now?

And yes, I do get some sun in the summer. Are you going to harp on anyone who does anything at all less than safe? Smoking, eating anything but nasty tasting food from the health store, going swiming (since more people die swimming than being struck by lightening), driving a car, going outside without a helmet (after all, you never know when a tree might fall on your head!)…

Honestly, I wasn’t going to support the theory that you have OCD until I read this reply…gloves while outside…that’s a bit extreme, no?

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!

 

[piouswoman]

Personally, I accept the fact that death is a part of life. I do what I reasonably can to be reasonably safe (yes, I wear a seatbelt, yes, I wear a helmet when I ride)…but I don’t let it take over my life because for all I know, I could die tomorrow. I’m not going to waste my life worrying about how long I’m going to life. After all, it isn’t the amount of years in your life, it’s the amount of life in your years.

Shocking words. Much of what you have written here doesn’t square with Catholicism. I take it you haven’t a husband or children.

 

[piouswoman]

And any clothes that make a woman look like she could care less are always out of style.

Are you condemning those women who haven’t the savvy to dress to your standards? Not all women have that knack to coordinate and put together a “look”. Does that mean they aren’t good people? Because they haven’t the eye for color or style, are they to be scoffed at and ridiculed? Because they don’t have the perfect figure to carry off what you consider fashionable, must you berate them? Sorry, but your uncharitable and intolerant post is quite sad…funny how those who pretend to be so tolerant and politically correct can be so intolerant of those who love truth, tradition, piety and modesty.