Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
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 29th new
(quote) Jim-875732 said: 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.
PLUS, isn't there something romantical about looking in each others eyes, rather than her cleavage or his..... erm... Speedo?
Jun 29th new
(quote) Jim-875732 said: PLUS, isn't there something romantical about looking in each others eyes, rather than her cleavage or his..... erm... Speedo?
I agree, Here is a quote from Catherine Hepburn


The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure that she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman is seen in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. True beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It's the caring that she lovingly gives, the passion that she shows & the beauty of a woman only grows with passing years.
Jun 29th new
It appears that I am the only person so far in this thread to answer the OP's 4 questions.
Jun 29th new
(quote) Jim-875732 said: 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.

This is the problem with liberalism. It introduces ambiguity into even the most fundamental of concepts which even children come out of the womb understanding. Thanks to the "lgbt" movement there are now 38 genders, or so I'm told.

It is in our nature to be modest, it's one of our better qualities, inasmuch as Aquinas defines virtue as the ordering of human beings to the service of our nature. Vice, the opposite of virtue, is a corruption of that nature. In other words, the highest is good is for man to live as God intended we should live.

Your argument seems to suggest that persons who adorn themselves immodestly with the intention of drawing undue attention to their body parts are not morally culpable for their actions, but only the people who predictably leer at them as a result. If you twist St. Paul's dictum to such a degree as to negate all forms of immodesty (because our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit) then what exactly is not permitted? Why is it people shouldn't (perish the thought) attend Mass without clothes?

We are temples of the Holy Spirit if and only if we tidy our bodies and prepare to receive it. The Holy Spirit isn't a squatter.


Jun 29th new
(quote) Susan-1048377 said: It appears that I am the only person so far in this thread to answer the OP's 4 questions.
you are. i really can't shorts are ok. Bikinis? ok. Leggings? ok. Tight jeans? ok. Let's not sweat the small stuff. I DO think, however, that people should wear......more..... to church.
Jun 29th new
(quote) Lora-1060287 said:

First of all speedos are beyond disgusting. Put the most gorgeous man in a speedo and he would look disgusting and ridiculous. I am not saying that a man wearing really short shorts, tight pants/jeans, or a tight shirt would cause a scandal - he would just look ridiculous. I think that you are right maybe that men are much more visual. For me I know that I notice a lot more about a man than how he physically looks. I think that men notice more also about women. You said it though "men are much more visual." I hope some of this made sense.

What about the combination of a speedo and a fashionably narrow tie?
Jun 29th new
Tony I think that immodest and moddest clothing lies in the fact of how clothing fits on a person based on their body type...a dress may look good on one person at mid thigh but awful on another person at mid thigh...Leggings/ yoga pants should NEVER EVER be worn out alone without something over it. Some things look better on others. It all depends on the cut of the outfit. I think that women should not expose their breasts in their outfits because to me that screams "I want attention".
Jun 29th 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.
1. Where do you draw the line to say that women's shorts or dress/skirt length are modest and not immodest?

If when the girl sits or bends over, her panties could be visible then the skirt is too short. If when walking the backside is hanging out the shorts are too short. If when they sit or are standing above someone (remember I am an archaeologist) and all the goodies in the kitchen are visible they are too short.

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?

I think there is some leeway here with bathing suits, however, I think bikinis are basically not modest ever, although the newer tankini versions are better. I generally have a swimdress, but I'd gladly wear the stuff from the early 1900's lol. . . that having been said, the last year I was allowed to wear a bikini was when I was twelve and even then my dad made my mom add two inch wide eyelet to the top and bottom of the top and to the top of the bottoms. And, I had to wear a coverup to the water front and put it back on as soon as i got out of the water. After that I had to wear a one piece. But, not all one piece suits are modest and can be as skimpy as bikinis. My little sister never wore anything but a bikini.

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?

I don't have a problem with a woman's neck and shoulders being exposed, nor the back even. However, something that plunges to the belly button in the front or to the curve of the back is too suggestive. I am also not shook up about a little bit of cleavage and am well aware that sometimes there isn't a lot one can do about cleavage unless they wear turtlenecks all the time. I don't have a problem with tank tops or spaghetti straps, especially if the bust area is well covered.

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?

Yoga pants and leggings have a place and I don't think they are immodest if worn appropriately. One of my friends is always cracking me up -- as we are on a college campus we see a lot of immodest clothing -- and she is always saying --- leggings are not pants honey, wear a tunic with them. . . lol and she's right. Worn appropriately there is nothing wrong with leggings and worn in yoga class, yoga pants are no more immodest than tights and a leotard in dance class.

As for jeans -- jeans that are painted on are inappropriate. Jeans that are so low one's backside and frontside are exposed are definitely not appropriate.

Otherwise jeans are okay.

Something you don't hear mentioned very often, but drives me crazy is not wearing a slip beneath something sheer enough to see through. . . wear a slip!!!!

Jun 29th new
(quote) Lora-1060287 said: 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."
I am sorry you found my response hurtful. I do not make the presumption that you treat people without dignity but I did find the word harsh. Actually, I do not know what you meant when you used the word- if you feel compelled, please explain. Otherwise: peace to you.

Here we were discussing the context of modesty and for the most part agreeing that the beach provides a unique one. Personally, I do not wish to see people squeezed into nylon and spandex. And otherwise, I agree that modesty is a function of living our faith, both interiorly and exterioryly.
Jun 29th new

This discussion reminds me a bit of a Christopher West talk I heard, on the topic of theology of the body. And what West said now has kicked up some dirt, I mean controversy. Take a look at his words:


"The following story illustrates what mature Christian purity looks like. Two bishops walked out of a cathedral just as a scantily clad prostitute passed by. One bishop immediately turned away. The other bishop looked at her intently. The bishop who turned away exclaimed, Brother bishop, what are you doing? Turn your eyes! When the bishop turned around, he lamented with tears streaming down his face, How tragic that such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men. Which one of those bishops was vivified with the ethos of redemption? Which one had passed over from merely meeting the demands of the law to a superabounding fulfillment of the law?

West explains that the bishop who looked away was continent, but the bishop who saw rightly was virtuous.

Citing examples from Wests writings, Eden explains that, By risking, he means specifically that men who struggle with lust should practice looking at beautiful women so that they might learn to raise their thoughts and feelings from lust, to joy at encountering the image of God in female beauty.

And here's the debate:

www.lifesitenews.com



Posts 21 - 30 of 106