Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Jun 28th new
Why do you find that word choice interesting?
Jun 28th new
Because in or out of a speedo, people have dignity.
Jun 28th new
(quote) Tony-1031677 said: I was going to search in the forum for this but there is no way to search, hence a new post to make everyone happy and mad about each other's opinions on modesty.

People have pointed out there are cultural considerations in defining what is modest. Well, the example used most that I have seen is people in Africa that wear very little even when they go to Mass because that's what they wear, is not immodest there but would be very immodest to us in the developed world. Besides that, I don't know of other places where the normal fashion would be immodest to us.

People also point out environment circumstances, too. Obviously, beach/pool vs. not beach/pool. The summer when it is hot outside.

One reason why it is important to dress modestly is to not cause scandal and tempt another to sin through objectifying you or imagining you as only something to use.

I think it is easy to agree on some clothing that is always immodest: Yoga pants/leggings all exposed, bikini, speedo for men, extremely short shorts for women (men don't wear them as far as I know), skintight shirts/tops, and cleavage revealing shirts/dresses.

Now for questions for the community to answer, and if you have reasons, I hope you include WHY you draw the lines where you do.

1. Where do you draw the line to say that women's shorts or dress/skirt length are modest and not immodest?

2. If a swimsuit is considered modest, does clothing covering an equal amount of skin in a different environment than the beach/pool also deserve to be called modest, even if it's exposing a lot of legs and shoulders?

3. Assuming we agree revealing cleavage is immodest, how much, if any, of a woman's shoulders/neck may be exposed and still be called modest? Does it make a difference if it is a fancy dress or a tank top or spaghetti strap top?

4. Jeans: they cover the legs entirely. There are definitely super tight jeans that would be immodest like yoga pants. Yet most jeans for women are not super tight, but still are form-fitting without any bagginess. Do you think the normal jeans and other form-fitting, not-baggy pants that women wear are appropriate?

I look forward to hearing what you fellow Catholics think! As of now, I myself answer my own questions as follows. Still, others might be able to persuade me to shift my views.
1. I am actually undecided about shorts. Too short is too short, but I also have the thought, "What's so bad about exposing a little more leg, something both men and women have and know how it looks?" The middle thigh is just like the lower thigh, just higher. On the other hand, I think skirts should at least drop down to the top of the knees.
2. No, an equal amount of clothing is not modest in a different environment because environment does matter.
3. I am undecided. My friend that I think cares about modesty wore a dress that exposed half of her shoulders but was not revealing, and open in back to a little below her shoulder blades, and I thought it was modest enough and she looked elegant.
4. I think they are okay if they are not super skintight because they have become so common. They don't stand out like tighter pants do.
"Leggings" are getting creamed--here and in another thread. Maybe I'm not thinking of the same thing as others but what I consider "leggings" are not necessarily immodest.
---as for cleavage, guys, eyes up. Modesty, we've agreed, works both ways.
----Sometimes one piece bathing suits can be pretty daring so it's not as if "ban the bikini" is the answer
--And why is this, anyway? This "modesty" business? Let me suggest that our bodies, both in and out, are temples of the Holy Ghost and things of beauty. What's wrong with bikinis? Speedos? Nude bathing?
Jun 28th new
(quote) Sara-979131 said: Because in or out of a speedo, people have dignity.
Please do not accuse me of ever not treating anyone with dignity. That was uncalled for and hurtful. You knew exactly what I meant when I used the word "disgusting."
Jun 28th new
(quote) Sara-979131 said: Because in or out of a speedo, people have dignity.
I think there's a very good reason that men's and women's undergarments are not designed based on roughly the same shape, and I think the same ought to go for swimsuits. I mean, when doctors say that a Speedo is so constricting that it adversely affects blood flow and fertility, that might be grounds to define the fashion as disgusting, in a manner of speaking, insofar as it is unnatural. It's not so much a disgust with the person as a disgust with the article. I have that reaction when I see other men walking around in them...it's painful to behold.
Jun 28th new
(quote) Devan-877827 said: I think there's a very good reason that men's and women's undergarments are not designed based on roughly the same shape, and I think the same ought to go for swimsuits. I mean, when doctors say that a Speedo is so constricting that it adversely affects blood flow and fertility, that might be grounds to define the fashion as disgusting, in a manner of speaking, insofar as it is unnatural. It's not so much a disgust with the person as a disgust with the article. I have that reaction when I see other men walking around in them...it's painful to behold.

Thank You Devan. "It's not so much a disgust with the person as a disgust with the article."

I said that speedos are disgusting and that seeing a man in a speedo is disgusting. Both are true. No woman should be subjected to that or have to see that. I could explain "that" further, but I won't. A gentleman would not walk around in front of women in a speedo.

Jun 28th new
(quote) Lora-1060287 said:

Thank You Devan. "It's not so much a disgust with the person as a disgust with the article."

I said that speedos are disgusting and that seeing a man in a speedo is disgusting. Both are true. No woman should be subjected to that or have to see that. I could explain "that" further, but I won't. A gentleman would not walk around in front of women in a speedo.

Well, I said it about men and cleavage: Eyes up, guys. Same to you ladies. Eyes up.
Jun 29th new
(quote) Jim-875732 said: --And why is this, anyway? This "modesty" business? Let me suggest that our bodies, both in and out, are temples of the Holy Ghost and things of beauty. What's wrong with bikinis? Speedos? Nude bathing?
It is because our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost that we should stay modest. Our bodies are natural but nevertheless we are made by God to be sexually attracted to them and being immodest causes one to have impure thoughts. Not only is it a sin to tempt someone, but it's doubly a sin if you cause them to sin.
Jun 29th new
Sorry, I meant immodesty CAN cause impure thoughts**
Jun 29th new
All these "modesty" threads....................... too subjective for me. Things change you know? And I'll say it one more time..... if everybody keeps their eyes where they should be, there are no worries about the occasions of sin. Look, I'm no youngster. Was at the beach today. Saw lots many of you would adjudge "immodest." I can't remember any one thing, specifically and just wasn't paying much attention.. Maybe we're inundated by immodest stuff. WE are, of course, viewed as Puritanical by our European friends and I'm not sure they're wrong. Jeez, I sure wish Judy was here to give me a little guidance.
Posts 11 - 20 of 106