Modesty as an act of charity


In any case, semper ubi sub ubi :wink: To avoid pulling a Basic Instinct Sharon Stone moment


The definition changes depending on where you are, though. I’m in South Korea, and no one bats an eye at ladies in short-shorts and miniskirts.


I’m a guy and I don’t normally lust just at short skirts, I just think they can look good


I think that’s reasonable. I don’t dress to help men out though. I am blessed/cursed in a way…i could be naked and men won’t look at my way :joy: I tend to not dress revealing bc it’s a matter of habit at this point.

I think having specific guidelines is ridiculous. With culture and all that


Interesting point: just because something is revealing, that doesn’t automatically make it a turn-on.


We’ve been around this topic a few times around here.

Here’s my thoughts, condensed: As a woman, what I want is to be able to wear something simple, affordable, and practical. And it’s already hard enough to find clothes that actually fit in a department store. (I’m pretty sure women’s sizes are determined by rolling dice.)

The concern many of us have is that, once you start making women responsible for not causing men to lust, it can be very hard to get off that track. It becomes, well, if a man expresses lust towards you, you must have been immodest. Sometimes, that just means you appeared in public while female.

I think my end thought is - I’m not going to go out of my way to be uncovered, or wear deliberately sexy styles. But I’m also going to dress primarily for what’s comfortable for me, within basic social norms.


Yep that’s right.



(young hearts be free tonight)


What you describe is the provocative outfit of a harlot that would throw men into fits of lust…
Showing your calves? Hair uncovered? Beyond the pale!

If in 1st century Palestine… or modern Saudi Arabia.

Modesty is very very VERY culturally specific.


There was a joking story I heard that a man walking around a modern american city was suddenly transported back a century - and raised an outcry because he was wandering around in public in his underwear. He was wearing shorts and a t-shirt.


I wish my knees were sexy enough to warrant that.


Nothing justifies assault but when a woman is dressing provocatively, she is giving non-verbal cues to people around her. It’s ignoring reality to pretend otherwise.

I expect many such women are seeking increased attention and the ego lift it can bring. It’s a double edged sword though, and will initiate attention from men for whom she has no interest. Attention from this group is labeled ‘harassment’. Again, nothing a woman wears justifies assault.

Maybe an analogy makes the point. If I walked around the kennel with steaks and bacon pinned to my clothing, all the dogs will be focused on me. The well trained dogs will just salivate and look, waiting for a command that they can eat the meat. However, some dogs lack discipline or just think they can get away with it and start taking bites without permission. It’s a fact we know all the dogs are not highly disciplined.

I have grounds to be angry with the poorly trained dogs, but why am I intentionally creating the situation in the first place? I know all the dogs are not well trained.

Much better to forgo the attention and just wear what your culture considers modest clothing. What is considered modest clothing varies by region and culture, so it is complicated.


Judging from CAF, it varies within culture too. I think I could talk to 5 different Catholics and get 10 different opinions.


Yes, it’s very complicated and with regional bias. Modest clothing in Florida would likely be provocative in the mid west.

BTW, I’m all for cultural shifts that redefine what is modest clothing. I despise that wearing a burka is a modesty requirement in many countries. In my ideal, modest clothing would be practical clothing.


Sometimes it’s just a personal bias, too.

I think modesty is one of those things that we ought not to think overmuch about how others are applying it.


Yes, it’s a fine line because we don’t want to say women don’t have any responsibility in how they choose to dress but we also don’t want to say that if a man lusts, it’s not his fault, it’s hers. The greater responsibility always lies with the man in his determination to avoid sin. But women have a responsibility to not intentionally dress in a way to incite lust. It should be made more clear though that she need not hide her God-given form under bulky clothes (or ugly denim jumpers, ugh.) so as to take all the responsibility upon herself. If she’s dressed modesty but looks pretty and attractive, and a man still lusts, then that’s his responsibility alone.

Yes. Because most modesty discussions and articles fall short of explaining the above and don’t point out where her responsibility ends and where his begins and they aren’t necessarily even at the same point. Like I said in the OP, (in the extreme example to make a point) if he sees a naked woman, he still has a responsibility to avoid lust even though he may fall due to his own personal weakness. It’s still his sin. The naked woman would have her own sin (if she wasn’t mentally ill) but her being naked still doesn’t take away any of his responsibility.


The moral law uses the term modest it seems. The civil law uses the word decent. Indecent exposure doesn’t excuse sexual harassment. Or does it? Civil law doesn’t concern it’self with charity. That’s a concern of moral law that forms civil law.


I think it’s more accurate to say that the guys perceive she is sending off cues (that she wants attention).

Unless you meant something else by cues. Tbh, not that much women wear immodest clothing for men. As a young woman, it’s definitely for other women (some lame competitive thing) and for themselves (vanity). Now, I’m talking about the common type of immodest clothing, not the Kardashian outfits. That’s a whole other story.

I know it’s a poor analogy, but men are more than simple creatures and women are not intentionally creating the situation. And it’s best to not assume they are. Like I mention above, there are different reasons for why one wears certain clothes. Idea of modesty varies a lot too. For example, my uncle thinks my skinny jeans are too much and that I’m trying to find a guy in school. My dad thinks it’s just pants, lol. One of them thinks I’m sending off ‘cues’, trying to get attention and so on. Not accurate!

Basically what I’m trying to get at is that a victim’s clothing has 0 importance in the situation and should not be brought up in the first place. Especially once you know that modest girls are being harassed and raped too.

Some random side note: I remember my brother saying something like “saying men are more likely to rape an immodest girl makes us look like we can’t control our natural sexuality” and I found that interesting.

To him, it makes it look like the difference between a rapist and an average man is self control when it’s more than that.


I don’t think women are idiots, they are able to perceive likely outcomes from their actions.

In P2 you acknowledge women are doing it intentionally. Have you really thought about what they are competing with other women for? The measuring stick is the attention of males, they want to be equally or more attractive than other females. The competition is not in the area of intellect.

When you compete for the attention of males, then you will receive more of that attention, even though your real goal was just to get girls around you to be envious.

I’m not victim blaming, just pointing out that some actions do have predicable consequences of increased attention. And when received from non-targets, it will feel like harassment rather than positive attention.


for some people who go to walmart badly dressed…more modesty would be a huge act of charity…you just can’t unsee some of those badly kept bodies.

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