Modesty again...

I’ve been reading & posting here for a while now & I keep reading threads about modesty and clothing. I’m wondering where the general line is between modest, but flirty or modest, but flattering and immodest.

I tend to wear clothes that are my size to a size larger b/c I’m more about comfort than beauty (I also don’t wear make-up or fix my hair much b/c I don’t care that much - neither does my husband). However, in these days of stretch jeans & shirts, even that doesn’t necessarily make things loose. Its also not my intention to hide the beauty of shape God gave me. Tailored/fitted outfits are flattering and make up a large portion of my wardrobe. In other words, I do have some outfits that cling in all the right places & accentuate/highlight the positive aspects of my body. These same bodily aspects are generally considered attractive by men - breast, waist, hips, & legs. I consider this clothing to be modest & flirty &/or flattering. However, from reading some discussions here, apparently some would consider me the immodest for wearing these outfits.

Doesn’t God call us to use the talents/gifts He gave us to proclaim His goodness & glory? When I wear something that fits me just right I feel that I am showing the world what God gave me and my portrayal/bearing while wearing such is what makes it modest or immodest. I can be wearing something completely covering me & still, if I behave immodestly or someone thinks immodestly about me, the result is still the same. I think parents need to teach their children more than ‘cover up your body’. Instead they need to teach them how to behave modestly regardless of their clothing, surroundings, or temptations. Isn’t that where the emphasis needs to be rather than restricting clothing?

I have read many discussions here on modesty. I think most people can agree that a woman covered from head to toe in a wool tent is modest. (Assuming the tent has no slit or holes and isn’t in a color that compliments her skin, hair or eyes.;)) Outside of that, much of this is opinion and not everyone shares the same opinion of what is modest.

I believe modesty is important. When I was younger I didn’t understand that, but I do now. Yet I remember reading one thread on modesty while wearing a turtle neck sweater, long skirt and boots. Seriously, the only skin showing was my wrists, hands and face. Yet the skirt had a slit :eek: that revealed the boots underneath and the sweater hinted that I had curves. According to that thread (and confirmed by my husband), I was dressed “sexy”, which someone on the thread equated with immodesty. :shrug: Gotta watch showing those wrists when we type.

You used the word “flirty” and I don’t quite know what you mean by that. If by flirty you mean fun and stylish, that’s different entirely different from low cut and revealing. I also don’t understand how your clothes can be tailored yet in a size too big. I do get your point about how we act also being part of modesty. Also what is modest in one situation may not be modest in another. As I sit here typing right now, my cloths reveal not only my wrists, but also my ankles. (My boots were appropriate in winter, but it’s spring now.)

Yes, everyone has their own definition of modesty, and we all don’t agree 100%. But I think that we should all be able to agree that we as ladies should never dress in a way which would (for the majority of men) cause them to lust. This may mean going above and beyond just “covering up”, but I think it’s a necessary work for us to do, and I believe we should do so willingly and unbegrudgingly out of love for our brothers in Christ. Each woman will be held accountable if she willingly invites another person to sin. We each have to guard our own souls.

By flirty I mean cute, fun, and/or stylish. Nothing low cut or revealing. Mostly the baby-doll shirts, peasant shirts, etc are what I’m talking about. Those and the ones made w/ stretchy material that fit to curves, but not like a 2nd skin.

I wasn’t very clear on the tailored fit/size larger I’m talking about. What I’m referencing are those shirts that have a large portion of spandex (or whatever stretchy stuff) in them that are designed to hug the curves available. Instead of buying the medium that would ‘technically’ fit me, I generally buy the large that still shows my curves, but doesn’t fit like a 2nd skin. The same w/ pants - I generally buy the stretch ones in a size larger than the ‘technically’ my size ones that look like you’re poured into them. However, they definitely show that I have womanly hips & thighs. The waist doesn’t really gape or anything, but I usually have room to eat a really large meal w/o feeling uncomfortable in the slightest. I can also generally wear my ‘normal’ clothing for a month or so after I start showing I’m pregnant (I’m 10 weeks & still button all my pants normally & stuff - last pregnancy I didn’t really start having to wear maternity clothing until I was 20 weeks).

Congratulations on your pregnancy!

Your explaination makes more sense. I understand now.

As we’ve mentioned, people have differing opinions on what is modest. Some don’t consider pants on women modest, but that is a minority opinion. Tight fitting clothing is generally immodest, but sometimes clothes may fit tight because of unwanted weight gain or other reasons (like pregnancy :)). As women, we do need to pay attention to what message we send by how we dress and not to cause men undue problems with lust. But I also hope people will be charitable towards those who may not meet with their definition of modesty.

Nothing wrong trying to look good.

Could be wrong trying to attract looks.

Probably wrong to test people’s stamina.

Definitely wrong to entice people into sinful thoughts (the fact it’s elective on their part doesn’t justify it).

Dangerous to think that one has some kind of mission to show his own beauty. :wink:

I think we should judge modesty by what the opposite sex thinks. That would be simple, if they all thought alike!

I think it looks like a bell curve. There are a few men on either end, but a whole lot more in the middle. We don’t want the opinions of those that think that any hint that you have female physique is immodest, or those who think that anything goes. It’s the guys in the middle who count.

My own definition of modesty is dressing so that Joe Average sees a person, rather than having his attention riveted on one or more body parts. I. e. your clothes should say, “Here I am,” not “Hey! Look at these!”

Other than that, it changes by situation, and, to a certain extent, with fashion. And, of course, by figure. An outfit that looks elegant on a very slender person (like Audrey Hepburn) can make a voluptuous person look like a trollop.

There, I bet that cleared it all up for ya! :shrug:

Highlighting the ‘breast, waist, hips, & legs’ is immodest. You’re highlighting sexually attractive or near to sexual attractive (and thus suggestive) parts of the body.

As a woman you’re not visually stimulated like a man is looking at these parts. But by drawing attention to them you are an occasion of mortal sin, and so objectively mortally sinning yourself however much your ignorance or lack of intention might mitigate – and so you’re trading vanity for negligent spiritual homicide. I don’t want to ruin your day, but there’s no way one can say it and mitigate it.

I suggest you read some traditional resources on modesty and read about the sin of lust and what men are supposed to do to avoid it, so you better understand what you can do to be a good example to other women and not a temptation to sin for men.

If you want men to focus on your physical beauty in a way that is not vain, cultivate your hair, colorful and well cut clothes that does not emphasize sexual or close to sexual body parts, be very aware of the need to avoid emphasizes the parts of the body that inspire men with sexual thoughts.

Right now standards are very low, so it is even more counter cultural than usual to do this. But it is very serious and necessary. :eek: :thumbsup:

“Highlighting the ‘breast, waist, hips, & legs’ is immodest. You’re highlighting sexually attractive or near to sexual attractive (and thus suggestive) parts of the body.”

What a crock of…

What about combing your hair? Brushing teeth… oh my. We wouldn’t want to do anything that may make someone attracted to us.{sarcasm}.

Should anyone caught wearing makeup be summarily beaten with sticks in public by the American Taliban?

You can mischaracterize what I said because you do not like it, but I am not saying anything deserving such a response.

I wrote what I did not because of any opinion of my own but because of the fact that lust is a mortal sin, that being an occasion of sin is not permitted.

I don’t like having to tell people these things, I am, perforce, forced to because it is necessary.

We live in a time of cultural decadence in regards to modesty. Adhering to the standards of this culture is an obvious error, however inconvenient it may be, and upsetting it may be to realize one was doing so.

Lust is a mortal sin. Period. One should not be thinking about anyone that way. :slight_smile: And the interior desire in people desiring marriage for perfectly faithful spouses points to this fact. You don’t want your spouse, past, present, or future desiring someone else. And so, you have a responsibility to not do so, and to not encourage others to desire you that way. That is the beauty of fidelity and real love.

And I am happy to uphold that standard!

You’re falling out of proportion. There’s a whole world of difference between the two extremes you describe and you know it.

But:

There I disagree. There’s not enough information to tell. I see no reason why highlighting the waist should be immodest - even Victorian dresses did that, as well as in this or other fashion they actually highlighted the other parts from the list. Hello, corset.

I take issue with big cleavage, second-skin tight clothes and visible underwear. I have some issues with “belly lines” because they’re so out of touch with the Western civilisation. Are we in a seraglio? The biggest danger, in my view, is putting parts of the body on a vulgar, aggressive display. Probably a half of highschool outfits should be banned, or more, but there’s much more to it than merely highlighting this or that.

Needless to say, if that “highlighting” takes attention forever away from the face, something’s wrong with it. We’re supposed to interact on a rational human level, not a level of cats in the spring season. :stuck_out_tongue:

How is everyone defining ‘modesty’?

I know that may sound like a rather stupid question, but to me, being modest, means not flaunting one’s assets, whether physical or otherwise, for the purpose of one’s own gratification. This means neither bragging nor deliberately encouraging others to pay compliments.

As far as clothing goes, I see nothing at all wrong with dressing smartly and in a way that flatters the figure, of the occasion merits the effort and if it is practical. The paradox here is illustrated well in the newspapers over here (maybe it has reached the US too) The French PM’s ‘wife’ and a Spannish princess were photographed from behind, climbing up a flight of steps. Both were dressed smartly, in mid-calf-length, long sleeved, fairly high-necked dresses and the gist of all the media comments was how sexy they look in their well-cut but not at all tarty dresses.

In my opinion, their outfits were totally appropriate for the situation and they did both look lovely. Despite the the obvious effects on a few exciteable press photographers - I would not describe them as ‘immodest’

Are us ladies supposed to carry around several changes of clothes so we can dress to not-impress for all men? I know many men who find revealing, tight clothes distasteful and not at all exciting, but appear in a smart Miss Moneypenny type outfit and they drool! Others even like to see women in jeans and fleeces…Taken to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should all wear floor length black robes and veils with just a slit for the eyes.

:confused:However, I do wonder about some wedding dresses I’ve seen! I do think choosing a dress that pushes your cleavage right into the celebrant’s face is totally inappropriate:eek: What a way to celebrate the sacrament of marriage and a lifetime of commitment: provoking a man who has devoted his life to celebacy and to Christ to enable people like you to receive this amazing gift and making sure all your friends and family can see at least 7/8ths of what should be for the eyes of your husband. Granted, nearly every woman wants to feel like a princess on the wedding day, but if we are discussing immodesty, they many weddings would win 1st prize:rolleyes:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.