Women's "Jumpers": Yea or Nay

[HashemEchad]

Yes, I have a problem with your sig line, and the words before it: “Why Jews don’t accept Jesus”. I am offended just as you would be if I posted this link on a Jewish website:
geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html

And in my opinion, you are trolling.

If you only knew how much and how often I have defended your religion (esp. the traditional form of it) to those who would wrongly defame it, you’d regret calling me a troll. You would not believe (or maybe you would) how many non-Catholics I have encountered, both on and offline, who had the most bizarre misconceptions about Catholicism. Having studied Catholicism in depth (as well as other religions; I have a degree in comparative religion), I am well able to correct misconceptions others have about mostly all religions, including your own.

I added those links to my sig line to avoid having to reply and risk derailing numerous threads because people were trying to convert me and kept asking me questions about what Jews believe.

By including those links, I resolved the problem for the most part.

 

[deb1]

I won’t put words into laudamus te’s mouth but when she says these dresses are immodest, she is most likely thinking that they are immodest for Holy Mass. I would say myself that they are fairly modest dresses but a light shawl or sweater over them for Holy Mass would be necessary and appropriate as the sleeve lengths are short, particularly for older women. The hem lengths are right on the bubble also, as it is proper that the skirt cover the knees while standing AND sitting.

Wouldn’t the fact that the middle, red dress is paired with boots solve the problem of showing to much leg at Holy Mass?

Sadly, the red dress is out of my price range right now.:crying:

 

[HashemEchad]

I agree. Actually most of my favorite people are of the heavier persuasion. They are some of the most sweet, giving friends I have and they are the best cooks. (I am thin (just genetics) and they are always trying to fatten me up.) Many wear jumpers because of fit and comfort for their body type. Personally, I think Florida Evans on the 70’s TV show “Good Times” had the perfect figure of any woman I’ve ever seen.

FTR, I am a heavy woman myself! I am concerned that people felt maybe I was dissing heavier women. I wasn’t, just pointing out that for many of us larger women, its not always as easy to look non-frumpy, because of the way modest clothing tends to hang on us.

People tend to associate frumpy with older, heavier women, and this is a problem sometimes.

 

[deb1]

If you only knew how much and how often I have defended your religion (esp. the traditional form of it) to those who would wrongly defame it, you’d regret calling me a troll. You would not believe (or maybe you would) how many non-Catholics I have encountered, both on and offline, who had the most bizarre misconceptions about Catholicism. Having studied Catholicism in depth (as well as other religions; I have a degree in comparative religion), I am well able to correct misconceptions others have about mostly all religions, including your own.

I added those links to my sig line to avoid having to reply and risk derailing numerous threads because people were trying to convert me and kept asking me questions about what Jews believe.

By including those links, I resolved the problem for the most part.

Just curious, there is a lot of contention among Catholic women as to what is modest and immodest. How do Orthodox Jewish women decide? Do they have set guidelines?

Sometimes I really wish that the New Testament said, hey women, wear your collars this high and your skirts this low.

 

[HashemEchad]

Just curious, there is a lot of contention among Catholic women as to what is modest and immodest. How do Orthodox Jewish women decide? Do they have set guidelines?

Sometimes I really wish that the New Testament said, hey women, wear your collars this high and your skirts this low.

There is a long tradition in Orthodox Judaism as to what denotes modest dress. The rules were set a couple of thousand years ago by the rabbis.

They’re basically the same as for Traditional (pre-Vatican II) Roman Catholicism, with one exception: married women in Orthodox Judaism must keep their hair covered at all time, because a woman’s hair is considered erotic and can tempt men outside her marriage bond.

But other than that, the basic rules are: no sheer fabrics; no short sleeves; no short dresses (skirts must be at or preferably below the knee); no pants at all, ever; stockings must cover the legs, no bare legs; no low cut tops/no cleavage can show.

There is a funny story I remember reading, about an argument between two rabbis in the Middle Ages (I think it was from the Talmud.)

Anyway, apparently there were some Jewish women in medieval times who rebelled against the strictures regarding modest dress. One rabbi felt the rules should not be as strict. But the other, pointing to the example of the Catholic nuns of the time (with full wimple and habit), said that THAT was how Jewish women should dress and carry themselves, that the Catholics were doing what Jewish women should be doing, and he praised the nuns for dressing as they did! (sadly, most no longer wear full habits today.)

Also, a woman cannot be in the same room as a man she is not married or related to, without the door being left ajar; Jewish teens do not date; they consult a matchmaker who works with them and their parents to find suitable possible matches for marriages. Only then do they go “on a date”, but the purpose is to find a mate, not just have fun as kids today do.

All such dates are chaperoned, and children do not marry unless their parents agree to the match.

(It might sound harsh, but its really not. And divorce is very, very low in the very Orthodox Jewish community.)

 

[nannygirl]

If you only knew how much and how often I have defended your religion (esp. the traditional form of it) to those who would wrongly defame it, you’d regret calling me a troll. You would not believe (or maybe you would) how many non-Catholics I have encountered, both on and offline, who had the most bizarre misconceptions about Catholicism. Having studied Catholicism in depth (as well as other religions; I have a degree in comparative religion), I am well able to correct misconceptions others have about mostly all religions, including your own.

I added those links to my sig line to avoid having to reply and risk derailing numerous threads because people were trying to convert me and kept asking me questions about what Jews believe.

By including those links, I resolved the problem for the most part.

I have read several of your posts and find them to be informative and thoughtful. I am new to this and I didn’t think you were “trolling” at all. You seem like a nice lady who has a lot to contribute to these conversations. I can understand your reason for your links. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Oh, that’s alright. Misunderstandings happen. Yes, I went back and looked at the pattern you posted…its cute, and as I sew just about everything I make I am familiar with that pattern. What I like about it is that it is fitted through the waist and flares out nicely below. That gives it a feminine look which I like. I would lengthen it a bit and use the view with straps were I making it for myself!

Definitely the straps.
Although my sister has requested the strapless version. But she’s shapelier than I am, and it would look lovely on her.

 

[SeekerJen]

But other than that, the basic rules are: no sheer fabrics; no short sleeves; no short dresses (skirts must be at or preferably below the knee); no pants at all, ever; stockings must cover the legs, no bare legs; no low cut tops/no cleavage can show.

About the sheer fabrics: I can understand not wearing those alone, but what if they’re layered over something? I have a couple of very light white cotton blouses that I wear with tank tops underneath for modesty. It’s a very cool and light thing to wear on hot days, but you can see that my arms are “less” covered than my torso. I’ve always felt that this is sufficiently modest, but is it really?

 

[laudamus_te]

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?

OK, so it’s been a real case of misunderstanding here, on both of our parts. Let me clear up what I meant by “traditional Catholic standards.” By that, I did not mean to imply any “Church Doctrine” but what passes as modest, to my experience, in traditional Catholic circles. There is also the “Marylike Standards of Modesty” publication which I’m sure everyone is familiar with. My statement was not judgmental because I prefaced it with “IMO.”

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.

I don’t wish to expose my arms to the sun because I do not like tanned skin. I feel it is unattractive as well as unsafe. That is my personal preference, yes. I do not like to expose the upper part of my arms because I feel it is immodest. If you feel that is puritanical, then that is your opinion and you’re welcome to it. However, my opinion is backed up by the dress code at my Traditional chapel, as well as the Vatican, which dress code was posted earlier, which does not allow sleeveless tops. Why do you think that is? It is because bare arms are immodest. Just because the majority of the people in this day and age think bare arms are perfectly acceptable, does not make it so.

You say I have a very narrow view of modesty. I would say that you have a very liberal view of modesty. Mine may be the anomaly here, but that does not make it wrong. You will notice, however, that I have not attempted to make you feel like an outcast for your more liberal views. But to heck with it. I’m OK with people calling me names like Puritan. I’d rather be called that than immodest any day.

 

[laudamus_te]

BTW: you keep returning to the “tank top and hot pants” strawman. Not one woman or man on this thread has come close to trying to defend wearing such obviously immodest clothing. You are attempting to create an argument that is noexistent.

No, one woman on this thread stated, I quote:
“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.”

So, if you have no problem with that then you don’t know your Catholic faith.

The debate here is the standard of modesty. You insist there is some “traditional Catholic standard”. Fine. Provide the proof. Show me where the Vatican has stated that a woman must wear a dress, it must come to her lower calves or ankles, she must cover her arms to the wrist and cover her neck. Show me that and I’ll go away quietly.

I have explained in the previous post what I meant by “traditional Catholic standard.” Where did I say that a woman must wear a dress, it must come to her lower calves or ankles, she must cover her arms to the wrist and cover her neck? Show me that, please, and I’ll go away quietly.

 

[skatepixie]

Hmm, not really. I wouldn’t wear clothes for yardwork or exercise to Holy Mass. I also wouldn’t wear a gown appropriate for a formal evening event to Holy Mass.

Exactly. My prom gown was modest (actually too long…I tripped on it and fell because I’m awesome like that) but I would never wear a red evening dress to Mass. Too much of a distraction to other people.

 

[laudamus_te]

I must tell you that I am sorry in that I misjudged you! Truce? You’re forgiveness if I may ask…

Absolutely. I thank you and admire your humility.

Only thing we really disagree on is tight pants in that it doesn’t bother me, yet I only wear pants riding and then, well loose ones aren’t comfortable. I like a “second skin” that is just there and doesnt get in the way.

I guess I have an issue with thinking of gloves as ladylike because I’ve really only worn them to protect my hands either from dirt or a heavy mouthed horse (trust me, if you have a 1000lb+ beast pulling on your hands, you don’t want it to happen on your bare skin ) so I think of them as an athletic thing. I don’t think of a helmet or crash vest (gotta love them foam blocks, so sexy…or not! ) as attractive/ladylike/pretty either.

As for winter, I don’t think it exists here in Orange County the way you (you as in everyone outside of Southern California) think of it. A friend of mine came out from Michigan and he laughed at how little it took for us to shiver and grab a heavy jacket. He would be walking around in a T-shirt, commenting on the nice weather (approx 65), and I’d be shaking in a ski jacket, much to his amusement. Him: You’re shaking! Me: I’m cold! Him: You don’t know cold… Me: Yeah, you’re right, but I feel cold! He apparently had this dialogue with many a girl from California until he gave up and just figured we were all nuts.

You may be surprised to know that I live in Southern California, near LA. There are only a few days in the winter when gloves are practically a necessity, so I like to take advantage of those days to wear them. I haven’t worn gloves much, and not in the summer at all, but I would like to begin wearing them more. I have some little crocheted ones which will look nice with dresses, but I’d really love to get some soft, lightweight kidskin gloves in a pale color. Finding them to fit is the problem.

I used to ride when I was a teenager, and had the equestrian pants/boots ensemble. I do think it’s possible to ride horseback in a skirt - my sister has done so. I’m thinking the beautiful, full skirts like the Spanish and Mexican ladies would wear for western saddle, or the more fitted skirt and jacket for english saddle.

As for looking attractive to men…not a real priority. However, I don’t want to look unattractive. So while I might not be actively dressing to attract men, I don’t want them to think of me as an ugly person either.

Makes sense, especially if one is hoping to find a mate.

 

[skatepixie]

Absolutely. I thank you and admire your humility.

Aww. Thanks!

You may be surprised to know that I live in Southern California, near LA. There are only a few days in the winter when gloves are practically a necessity, so I like to take advantage of those days to wear them. I haven’t worn gloves much, and not in the summer at all, but I would like to begin wearing them more. I have some little crocheted ones which will look nice with dresses, but I’d really love to get some soft, lightweight kidskin gloves in a pale color. Finding them to fit is the problem.

I used to ride when I was a teenager, and had the equestrian pants/boots ensemble. I do think it’s possible to ride horseback in a skirt - my sister has done so. I’m thinking the beautiful, full skirts like the Spanish and Mexican ladies would wear for western saddle, or the more fitted skirt and jacket for english saddle.

Yes, sidesaddle is an option in theory, except for the fact that I don’t have the $$$ for one, and they are a bit difficult for jumping. I would be wary of a full skirt though, just because any loose fabric can get caught on something and you can get dragged.

 

[jdmayer]

I have a couple of jumpers that I wear because they are comfortable. I am not fat, nor am I ashamed of my shape, sometimes one just wants to dress comfortably.

I sincerely hope that no one on this thread would see me when I occasionally wear my denim jumper and make assumptions about how I feel about my body or my self esteem. I like both my body and I have enough self esteem, I promise.

Oops, didn’t mean to suggest that ladies who wear jumpers are insecure or uncomfortable with their bodies. I simply meant that some people prefer to dress in a less flashy manner, which I’m sure could be for a variety of reasons.

 

[jdmayer]

I can see where some jumpers are not very flattering. I wore some easter-egg colored jumpers for a year in high school. They were uniform. And while they were not the most flattering things I have ever worn, they were the most comfortable and practical things I ever wore. Quite modest too…

GREAT POST!

 

[laudamus_te]

When it comes to modesty I like to look at the saints. “May the fashions of the world not be the model for our attire, but rather the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints…:” - Bishop Bernard Fellay

I am particuarlly thinking of St. Gemma. Here are some photos of her everyday dress:

img153.imageshack.us/img153/3076/stgemmaclothesxm6.jpg

img72.imageshack.us/img72/5134/stgemmaclothes2gq1.th.jpg

img218.imageshack.us/img218/5084/photogemmayl6.jpg

She wore the same type dress everyday, even on feasts and occasions, yet she is remembered as an absolutely beautiful young woman, despite her clothing choices. I think her clothing choices added to her beauty. The dress was plain in form and color and the hat she wore was the same. Yet she had an offer of marriage and many thought her very beautiful. She was modest and simple. Her dress was much like jumpers in that they usually are not always flattering to the form, and her dress certaintly was not. And I notice how plain her hair is done. Very plain, but yet she is so beautiful!

img153.imageshack.us/img153/1347/juanita18vn1.jpg

She wears a high colar, but if you notice it has a bit of embellishment. So, I take away that a little “jazz” is ok. And her hair is done in a way that is much like her day, but not extreme. Simply done. I think she is pretty too!

img218.imageshack.us/img218/8885/blalexandrinamariadecosat3.jpg

Bl. Alexandrina has a very simple hair style too, and a dress with a pattern on it. Not so plain in fabric. She is modest though and has a high color. She looks simple, modest, and pretty.

img218.imageshack.us/img218/1811/biografiavyu4.jpg

Bl. Victoria Diez is wearing earrings and a dress that has a colar not as high, but still just a couple fingers below the colar bone. Hair still simply done.

There are many more pictures, I am sure. I am finding it difficult to find one of a saint/bl. with their whole self in the picture. It is difficult to know how long their skirts/dresses were. Overall though I think from seeing the pictures that they dress simply and do not wear anything too tight of clingy. Basic, modesty guidelines I think I have already read spoken of on the thread so far. I have read that St. Padre Pio wanted all women who entered the confessional with him to wear skirts/dresses 8 inches below the knees.

I think the 'traditional modesty standards" that have been spoken of by some on the thread are these:

“Standards of Modesty in Dress
Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956
‘A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.’” - The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
(taken from: catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html)

I hope I do not offend anyone. What other people wear is not my buisness. I was just putting my little opinion into the conversation. One of my dearest friends and I, both believe in dressing modestly, but we have different “limits” so to say. We can respect that about each other and just appreciate the others’ desire to do what is pleasing to God. And so, that is how I feel about all who have posted on the thread so far. It is obvious to see that everyone wants to please God and recognizes a call for modesty in dress. I appreciate that.

Thank you for your post, and the photos of those lovely women saints. This is precisely my attitude toward what is properly modest - simplicity and naturalness, and a timeless style which has nothing to do with “fashion.” I agree with Piux XII’s standards of modesty. I don’t see how what was considered modest only as recently as the late 1950s could be considered “puritan” today.

I also like the idea of having very few pieces of clothing. Making do with a minimum. I am still trying to get past the "can’t wear the same thing two days (or even 3 days - gasp!) running, and I’m determined to pare down my closet. There is a lady who attends my chapel who I admire very much, because she wears the same clothes (perhaps her tops change) over and over. Yet she always looks very nice, modest and most importantly (to me) unaffected by the trends and trappings. Simplicity is a good thing.

 

[tcraig]

I also like the idea of having very few pieces of clothing. Making do with a minimum. I am still trying to get past the "can’t wear the same thing two days (or even 3 days - gasp!) running, and I’m determined to pare down my closet. There is a lady who attends my chapel who I admire very much, because she wears the same clothes (perhaps her tops change) over and over. Yet she always looks very nice, modest and most importantly (to me) unaffected by the trends and trappings. Simplicity is a good thing.

I used to live in Italy. I was very affected by this historically Catholic country. Italians, in my opinion, are the best dressed people in the world - much better than the French (who always get the attention), though the French also dress quite beautifully.

Italians have very small, very simple, classical wardrobes. No ankle-length “prairie dresses”; the women wear dresses/skirts and pants, but the pants are more in the style of the 1940’s (fitted and classic). I would see my neighbors wear the same item of clothing several times in a week, but it was always accessorized differently or worn with different clothing pieces.

I now have about 20 pieces of clothing in my “working wardrobe”. I feel that I dress better than ever, have better quality clothing - yet I have never have a wardrobe so small! But I am so grateful for my time in Italy, and the lessons that I learned there.

That is why I am always so suspicious about the “modest” clothing standards promoted in traditionalist circles in the U.S. - I feel that they are tainted by puritanism, and have little to do with true Catholic modesty.

 

[CarrieH]

I also like the idea of having very few pieces of clothing. Making do with a minimum. … Simplicity is a good thing.

Someone once told me that this is how many European women dress – they have small wardrobes but of high quality, and they wear the same few garments over and over until they wear out. Not a bad idea at all. And I’ll bet there aren’t many jumpers made of upholstery prints in their wardrobes!

 

[HashemEchad]

I have a problem that I’ve had for the last 7 years…I exercise…a LOT. So indoors, I have to wear workout clothes a lot (sport bra, bike shorts, etc)

I also use my bikes for transportation frequently, so its hard for me to dress in skirts all the time exclusively.

What I usually do is wear bike shorts underneath a skirt, but its hard trying to keep the skirt fabric from catching in the gears of the bike!

Anyone else have this problem? Ever since my older daughter started dressing modestly (long skirts), she has become far less physically active (stopped riding her bike), which worries me. I believe physical fitness is primary (or should be) in everyone’s life, esp. children.

Any suggestions?

I wonder what Old Order Amish girls/women do when they ride their bikes??

 

[strngrnrth]

I posted the original halter top comment, and to clarify, I am in favor of modesty. I don’t wear halters and hot pants, but not because they are so cruelly tempting to men. It’s because they are humiliating.
I like to cover my arms because sunburns hurt. I like to wear loose pants because tight ones are extremely uncomfortable. I like to avoid being ogled because being ogled feels gross and intimidating. It’s not a guilt thing at all. It’s a comfort thing.
However, I believe safety and practicality are serious, not frivolous, matters. When a “jumper” as people seem to be calling farmer dresses now, is practical, I say, good for it. When a jumpsuit makes more sense, wear one. When it’s important to get hot clothing off for a medical reason (and heat exhaustion is a life-threatening emergency), have something lighter on under it so you won’t be in your unmentionables on the sidewalk in front of the gawkers. For swimming, well, as noted in my profile, I am in the Pacific northwest. We don’t swim or sunbathe at the beach because our beaches are rocky and windswept, stormy, dark and usually cold even in summer, and we don’t go in the oceanbecause it’s very powerful. Surfing exsts but it’s for the brave and the go in groups. When we swim, it’s at a public pool, which would have dress rules and not allow anything that isn’t officially a swimsuit, or in a river, which can be very fast and rocky.
I believe in wearing what the situation calls for, safety concerns first, dignity and rules next, then convention, then personal style, then fashion. I feel more compassion for men when they aren’t ordering me to be harmed so they don’t have to be inconvenienced for thirty minutes by looking at a tree or the water while I exercise. I know they’re different but if charity comes first, how about my life? Is that worth any charity, too?