Church/saint Teaching And Modesty

[MarysLittleFlower]

And there's the rub! To be honest, even if you do wear a bag (or a burka or whatever) there will be people who are tempted to objectify you. I PROMISE there are men out there who are turned on when they catch sight of you in a maxi dress or a calf-length dress. Not to be creepy, but to some men, that style of dress is actually more provocative.

 

And you know what, there's really nothing wrong with that. No matter how hard you try, you can't control other human beings and their normal biological reactions. Sexual attraction is normal and healthy. What a man does with his normal, healthy sexual attraction to you is where it can cross the line into an occasion of sin. And you can't control whether he chooses to cross the line to objectification. You can teach any sons you have to relate to women in a respectful, dignified manner. And you can dress nicely, to please yourself and look classy. But no matter how "nicely" you dress it's not going to mean people aren't going to be sexually attracted to you. There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree from a theological perspective... this isn't just something I came up with :) I listened to some talks about modesty by priests, and basically: they said that we should do what we can to limit temptation for those who are normal and trying to live a chaste life. So not those who look for temptation even when they see burkas. My understanding is that even if someone out there might still be tempted, we shouldn't do anything to contribute to that. If you dress modeslty and someone still gets tempted maybe because of their own issue - that's very different than dressing immodestly and contributing to a temptation for someone, by bringing this battle to their mind. (even if they say no to the temptation. and the choice to say yes or no is their choice, but we should all do our part too). That's what I was taught in those sermons.

 

I don't think this has been the Church's traditional teaching on modesty...in fact most Saints have preached we have an obligation to dress in a way that won't cause sin.  

 

But maybe i'm wrong?? :idontknow:

 

I read the same things...

[MarysLittleFlower]

Regarding the cultures where people don't wear much clothing... I think there was a quote before by a Pope, saying that we should judge modesty by the society that most shows virtue, and another quote saying that there are objective standards? I don't think that it's totally culturally defined (otherwise why did God make Adam and Eve modest clothing after they tried to cover themselves? their coverings weren't judged to be enough...). I don't know... it just doesn't seem to me like it's all relative, or like the cultures where very little clothing is worn, are just as correct in terms of modesty: this means that there isn't a rule of modesty at all, and that we can just switch to walking around in bikinis and it wouldn't matter. I dont' know...it seems like there's something more to it?

[Lilllabettt]

Regarding the cultures where people don't wear much clothing... I think there was a quote before by a Pope, saying that we should judge modesty by the society that most shows virtue, and another quote saying that there are objective standards? I don't think that it's totally culturally defined (otherwise why did God make Adam and Eve modest clothing after they tried to cover themselves? their coverings weren't judged to be enough...). I don't know... it just doesn't seem to me like it's all relative, or like the cultures where very little clothing is worn, are just as correct in terms of modesty: this means that there isn't a rule of modesty at all, and that we can just switch to walking around in bikinis and it wouldn't matter. I dont' know...it seems like there's something more to it?

 

 

Well, I personally don't think Scripture should be over-interpreted. But zooming in on that particular part my interpretation is that Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves (with their hands, with a bush, with a tree branch) and then God arranged for them to have something more permanent. Something makes me doubt that God made Eve a long sleeved, floor length type of outfit.

 

If we are going to define modesty by the standards of the"society that most shows virtue," it may be that we will shortly have to strip ourselves down.  While they are not without their problems these traditional communities are in many respects closer to Jesus Christ than our own.

What I have observed is that the genital regions of both adult male and female are covered; the rest of the body is exposed and prepubescent children go naked. Men are not offended when other men gaze on the bare necks, shoulders, thighs and breasts of their wives and daughters. The sex organs are what is germane to sex and that is what is hidden.  The human body in these communities is not sexualized the way

 it is in ours.

 

When John Paul II was Pope, he had native women appear bare-breasted at his public Masses. Not that I approve of everything that ever happens at a Papal Mass or that I think it was a prudent decision in context (they were in Italy) ... but clearly that particular, soon-to-be-canonized Pope had a more flexible definition of modesty.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Maggyie]

Regarding the cultures where people don't wear much clothing... I think there was a quote before by a Pope, saying that we should judge modesty by the society that most shows virtue, and another quote saying that there are objective standards? I don't think that it's totally culturally defined (otherwise why did God make Adam and Eve modest clothing after they tried to cover themselves? their coverings weren't judged to be enough...). I don't know... it just doesn't seem to me like it's all relative, or like the cultures where very little clothing is worn, are just as correct in terms of modesty: this means that there isn't a rule of modesty at all, and that we can just switch to walking around in bikinis and it wouldn't matter. I dont' know...it seems like there's something more to it?

 

God didn't make Adam and Eve "more modest" clothing... he replaced their fig-leaf clothes with clothing made from animal skins. If you read the verse it doesn't say he was concerned to make sure Eve wore a dress and not slacks, or that her skirt was at least knee-length or that her blouse covered her shoulders or breasts, and how likely is it that Adam's clothing covered his chest? Who knows? It was not important enough for the inspired writer to record. The point of the animal-skin clothes was that it demonstrates that God continued to care for his poor children even after they disobeyed him. He didn't wash his hands of them; he continued to provide them with what they needed to survive, better than the carpy stuff they manged to cobble together on their own.

 

If you were a contemporary of Mary's and you were spotted in Nazareth in a skirt that fell to calf-length, exposing your ankles and part of your leg, that would be considered harlot-like dress. Even among contemporary Orthodox Jews, you are not going to see a woman wearing a wedding dress that doesn't have long sleeves down to the wrists, and anything else is considered shameful. It's 100% cultural.

[Guest Allie]

And there's the rub! To be honest, even if you do wear a bag (or a burka or whatever) there will be people who are tempted to objectify you. I PROMISE there are men out there who are turned on when they catch sight of you in a maxi dress or a calf-length dress. Not to be creepy, but to some men, that style of dress is actually more provocative.

 

And you know what, there's really nothing wrong with that. No matter how hard you try, you can't control other human beings and their normal biological reactions. Sexual attraction is normal and healthy. What a man does with his normal, healthy sexual attraction to you is where it can cross the line into an occasion of sin. And you can't control whether he chooses to cross the line to objectification. You can teach any sons you have to relate to women in a respectful, dignified manner. And you can dress nicely, to please yourself and look classy. But no matter how "nicely" you dress it's not going to mean people aren't going to be sexually attracted to you. There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

 

Thanks Maggie.

[the171]

The sisters are tagteaming. I love it!

[Papist]

  :huh:

[Lilllabettt]

no one can withstand los luchadores

 

[dominicansoul]

Mary's Little Flower,

 

I respect the fact that you are a recent convert who has been affected by your conversion in such a way that modesty is very important to you.  You recognize that you had not dressed modestly in the past and are struggling to do that now, and for that I commend you.  I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding you in this area.  Continue to look towards the Church and Her Saints, because they will not fail you.

 

Do avoid the extremes, though.  Pray to recognize what true modesty is.  You dont' want to listen to the opinions of those who are very scrupulous when it comes to modesty.  (They believe every modern style is wrong, and immoral.)  You definitely don't want to listen to the opinions of those who think modesty is relative.  (They believe there are no such things as immodest dress.)  The Church is not extreme, but very balanced in this matter.

 

I will keep you in my prayers as I have been.  I love converts :)  the zeal you all have remind me to never take our Faith for granted.  :) 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

It is not strictly relevant to this conversation, but I have mentioned this before. Few things warm my cold traddy heart so much as the sight of a bunch of young girls in white dresses. We had our Corpus Christi procession today, and the young girls of the parish were spreading rose petals. :)

I think that must be the archetype of modesty.

[Lilllabettt]

See the difference? I would like to point out that the non-modest picture features a person wearing a long sleeved, long-hemmed dress. More coverage does not equal modesty.  The native people below are wearing next to nothing, but their bearing is very modest.

 

Modesty is relative to time,place, body, and situation.  Modesty in the 1600s is different from modesty in the 21st century.  A particular dress might be fine on a smaller girl but immodest on a larger one. What is modest in Menlo Park, CA is different from what is modest in Ethiopia. A swimsuit would be immodest at the grocery store, but not at the pool.

[Papist]

See the difference? I would like to point out that the non-modest picture features a person wearing a long sleeved, long-hemmed dress. More coverage does not equal modesty.  The native people below are wearing next to nothing, but their bearing is very modest.

 

Modesty is relative to time,place, body, and situation.  Modesty in the 1600s is different from modesty in the 21st century.  A particular dress might be fine on a smaller girl but immodest on a larger one. What is modest in Menlo Park, CA is different from what is modest in Ethiopia. A swimsuit would be immodest at the grocery store, but not at the pool.

 

Why?

[Lilllabettt]

Well ... the reason there are different standards for modesty in different times and places because culture develops in different ways.

 

If I had to speculate I would say the native people pictured wore less clothing from the beginning because of the temperature. So because women's breasts were never concealed and they never came to think of them as private or sexual; they serve a functional purpose of feeding babies.

 

The reason a shirt might be modest on a smaller girl and not on a larger girl is because women have breasts, and in our culture breasts are sexualized.

The reason a swimsuit is modest at the pool and not at the grocery store ... well, if common sense  doesn't tell you that I'm not sure what to tell you. Pray to St. John Paul to help you understand what he meant when he said that.

 

[Papist]

So, you really don't know.

[Lilllabettt]

Ummmm well, no, no one "knows" why it is, just that it is.  Anthropologists have written dissertations trying to answer that question since before their discipline was created. Its one of those huge questions human beings can hardly get their arms around. The word "why" is like that a lot.