What do you think is acceptable clothing in public?

I don’t have hair on my chest! Yay!! :smiley:

report for porno link !:wink:

I know, right?

These people need to stop attracting attention to the body, sheesh!

I heard a speaker say “teach your daughters to dress so that when she grows older, a man will fall in love with her eyes and smile.”

That is my personal guideline for modest dress.

:blush:

We live in a day and age where people are much too quick to toss modesty out the window in the name of style and sport. I don’t think there should be any excuse for being immodest in public. If you can’t do your sport without stripping to your skivvies, then find a new sport. This idea that the gym and the arena are somehow special places where we can do as we please with our bodies is nonsense.

Honestly, I think this applies equally to men and women, and frankly, it’s applicable to all ages. We should be teaching our kids that a bikini is just as inappropriate as a speedo.

Thankfully, the gym I go to for exercise is mostly populated by geriatrics who all dress appropriately.

Someone gets my idea exactly! :thumbsup:

If you wish to split “public” into various categories then by all means do so. I don’t agree with that, personally–I don’t think, for example, that something can be inappropriate for the street and appropriate for the beach at the same time, but that’s my 2 cents. I was thinking of a more general idea of public dress.

Yes, but leaving it bare might give away your bra size. :wink:

I second what epiclotus said.

I am a 19 year old guy, but I have to say that my views on this subject aren’t the most popular, especially this day in age. I tend to have more of a strict view on what is and isn’t modest, and I am not saying that I am judging everyone else for the way they dress, but I know that I wouldn’t want my girlfriend/future wife, or my daughters to be dressing just the same as everyone else does these days.

I think that as far as bikinis go, they can be pretty provocative. They are covering the same amount of skin that women’s underwear covers, or less! Yet somehow you will see a completely different reaction from people if a woman is wearing a bikini compared to wearing her underwear. I tend to be really “old school” when it comes to how much skin people show. I think a lot of the skin should only be shown around one’s wife/husband.

I am very blessed to have a girlfriend who holds the same beliefs as me, because I know that many people think my views are ridiculous. (Even my own father, mother, and sister think that my expectations are out of reach for today’s society)

If you look at the history of the bikini, for instance, it is pretty disturbing to see how it came about, and who the first people who agreed to wear it were. And let me once again say that these are my opinions, and I am not attacking anyone else for what they wear. This is just how I feel personally on the subject.

The Blessed JPII would disagree with you on that, just FYI:

Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment… There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labor, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then, we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve.** When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.”**

-Love and Responsibility (JPII)

Thank you for this information. I will look at things with a clearer mind.

Depends where you are. At the beach, I would expect to see people in swimsuits. Hopefully they would cover the essentials. At an indoor event like a symphony concert, professional theater play and similar I would expect to see people dressed anywhere from formal to somewhat casual like business casual (local custom varies) but not in torn jeans, short shorts, halter tops and such. Out on the street, at the mall, the movie theater, etc. I would expect to see a variety of clothing - however, I really don’t think a lot of today’s clothing is appropriate for anything but wearing around your own house/apartment. I don’t like seeing anyone’s rear because their pants are too low or their shorts are too short nor do I want to see their belly button. I don’t think it’s appropriate for women to let it all hang out in front even though that seems to be acceptable by the general public. Same goes for skin-tight clothing. Don’t get me started on shoes - to me flip flops are only appropriate at home or at the beach.

I realize that people in different climates may come up with different ideas of adequate clothing. In the NW USA, we have such mild weather most of the year that our homes and churches are not air-conditioned. Most businesses are however. I would like it very much if I could go to the park or to the mall without seeing so much of everybody.:blush: Thus decency for me would be to cover private areas adequately. I don’t need to see a belly-button either, except maybe at the ol’ swimmin’ hole.

Thank you for this quote! I think what is acceptable depends on the social situation as well as the society in which one lives.

Having said that, I feel that at minimum women living in Western society should have their breasts, buttocks and genitals covered and men should have at minimum their genitals and buttocks covered, as these are the body parts that are “sexualized” in this society. These are the body parts that I feel should be covered at the beach or pool (and, yes, I am a Catholic woman who not only believes bikinis are okay but also owns one), but they are not appropriate for wear outside of that setting.

For “street wear”, society expects that clothing will cover more than the above. I’m fine with shorts and mini-skirts (that don’t show the buttocks), bare midriffs, bare shoulders and bare backs. Then again, some of these things aren’t what I would call “modest” … just “acceptable”. To me, “modest” would include covering the torso and half of the thigh and now be so tight as to show every detail of any of the “sexualized” body parts. It also includes covering undergarments (no “pants on the ground”). I’m less uptight than many about “cleavage” because I know how difficult it is to find clothes that cover this area completely yet are still considered stylish.

:thumbsup:

What I consider to be modest (and not just the minimum required) is:

For swimming, males should wear trunks. They can go shirtless, but hips should be fully covered, please and thank you.

For females, I generally think a tankini or a standard one-piece is good.

For normal street wear, I think that outfits for both genders should cover everything from the knees to the shoulders, with a pretty high neckline like that of a polo shirt or T-shirt. Clothes should fit properly, without being really baggy or really clingy. Dresses for formal events may have lower necklines than normal clothes and still be appropriate.

I don’t necessarily think that breaking any those guidelines is automatically immodest, but I those are the guidelines I use to be on the safe side.

. Clothes should fit properly, without being really baggy or really clingy. Dresses for formal events may have lower necklines than normal clothes and still be appropriate.

I don’t necessarily think that breaking any those guidelines is automatically immodest, but I those are the guidelines I use to be on the safe side.
Can I ask why it’s okay/appropriate for formal attire to have a lower neckline than normal clothes?

Why are bare shoulders or upper arms and/or the lower part of the thigh are considered by some to be immodest or unacceptable?

(Or should I start a different thread?)

Context- lower necklines are much more common on really formal dresses, and therfore won’t attract attention the same way they would on street clothes. I think it’s the same as how a one-piece swimsuit is modest swimwear, but is not OK for going out to eat.

Maybe I should clarify a little: is there any absolute standard that you apply to all public settings–or, in other words, is there any standard of dress that you consider inappropriate for any public occasion? For example, “I think that no matter where you are, you should/should not wear _ because _.”

I don’t necessarily oppose splitting public dress into various groups, but I was thinking of something general.

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.