Yet another thread about modesty: would a low social standard be harmful to relations between men and women?

I have been thinking about this for a while, but all these threads about modesty brought it up again for me.

The idea seems to be that it’s ok to dress according to social standards of what constitutes modest dress, as long as we don’t go too far, which is somewhat left undefined.

Some people who are very serious about modesty will bring up some documents from the early part of the 1900’s, most of which accept the at-that-point recent raising of hemlines but not slacks on women.

Some who are not that serious accept shorter skirts and sleeves than those documents recommend, but still condemn slacks, and some go further

And then there are the rest of us… confused, and some of whom are still wearing slacks.

But when I was thinking about all this, and the whole, “society sets the standard” idea, it occurred to me that maybe if we have a standard which is immodest, and men are continually having to “turn off” their natural reaction to what women are revealing, that this would have a bad effect on the way men see women, in that I think God intended men to view women one way: as potential wives and mothers (not necessarily of the man looking) and so to treat them as… well, women.

Instead it seems that men have to turn off their natural reaction to women because otherwise they would be sort of overwhelmed. So they end up in this state where part of their mind is habitually repressed, and they do not look at women in the way they are supposed to.

I can see that this might explain quite a lot of things that are going on nowadays, altho I would really hate to have to give up my pants, not to mention those of my skirts on which the hemline is above the ankle.

Is this a nutty idea or do you think there might be something in it?

That’s an interesting thread. I’m a pants wearer, mostly because I can move around and get things done easier. I’ve always been a bit tomboyish, so skirts are not something I’m comfortable in. I think that skirts can be just as immodest as pants in some circumstances, and I think that a woman can dress modestly in pants.

I also think that modest clothing can still allow for the natural attraction of male for female, in the same way as men’s modesty can attract a woman. I personally like to see a man with his hair done, in a suit.

I was told once that I wasn’t a good girlfriend, but I’d make a good wife, and I guess I’d rather advertise my wifely appeal than my girlfriend-ly appeal. I think that a man is not attracted to a woman’s spousal potential when he sees her dressed immodestly, so that kid of dress lowers the importance of proper courting and ultimately the importance of the sanctity of marriage.

But I’m also confused about where the line is.

I think men will always be men. Our reactions to the feminine will always be consistent. What has changed is what a small clique of fashion designers will present to the Western world at least. They pick the body type. And over the last 40 years, all I’ve noticed is a trend toward showing more skin. Why?

Soon, rubber bands will be sold as undergarments. Why? Already we have a bit of cloth and a bit of string.

I’ll leave it to the Christian women to understand this and encourage their sons and daughters to respect each other as they mature.


Actually, I myself have noticed that certain traditional outfits for women include slacks, and I think that Vietnamese women look totally feminine in their ao dias (spelling?) so I am not so much considering the pants vs skirts aspect as the aspect of whether being surrounded by skimpy fashions causes men to actually shut down a bit when it comes to women because they have to constantly put up their defenses against the stimulation?

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