Modest attire?

[nicollette]

Hi guys, I noticed that Charlemagne's account is gone.  Looks like he might not be a memeber any longer.  That happened kind of quick.  

Hey Vox, your article brings a point to mind.  Are you familiar with Regency styles?  Like those found in Pride and Predjudice?  I know England was mostly CoE at this point in time, but regency was condisered modest.  Here is an example:

[FifthMark]

As a Traditional Catholic who attends Mass celebrated by the SSPX, I would gladly concede some skirt or sleeve length if women would avoid wearing pants.  That trend has to be the fashion plague of the 20th (now 21st) century.

 

I would speak further but I fear being overwhelming in my "chauvenistic," "man-centered" appreciation for true female dress.  As such, I will simply point contrarians to Colleen Hammond's wonderful book, "Dressing with Dignity."  She is a one-woman army against the fashions that displease Our Lord.

 

http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/669/keywords/dressing+with+dignity/

[lumengentleman]

whistle!

 

Keep in mind: priests possess jurisdiction contigently from their bishop.  A priest living five dioceses away from me can not come into my local diocesan parish and start laying down the law to the parishioners.  Only the parish priest can do that, and only because he has his jurisdiction from his bishop.

 

As it concerns the SSPX and Independent priests, none of them have jurisdiction, because none of them are under the jurisdiction of a diocesan bishop (this is not news - not even the SSPX bishops claim any jurisdiction).

 

In reality, none of those priests should be arrogating any authority to themselves above and beyond the basic respect that is due to their Sacramental Ordination.

 

But, also in reality, they are the keepers of the Sacraments to which we want access.  Unfortunately, that means that if a particular (non-jurisdictional) priest starts throwing his weight around and acting like a bishop, you only have two choices: submit, or find another parish.

 

If these priests were under the jurisdiction of a local bishop, you could have recourse to the bishop to appeal your case.  But that's just not an option in SSPX or Independent chapels.

 

I guess if it's an SSPX chapel, you might be able to appeal to the District Superior, and failing that, to the Superior General - but that might get you into more hot water than you're willing to deal with.

[Varus]

I agree totally. I mean, neither myself nor anyone I know would go on and have wet dreams after seeing female biceps or triceps. What nonsense......

As you, Pax, I am quite sensitive in that sense too, but what can you do?

That is our problem, so we are the ones to deal with it. We can't go on demanding bhurkas, can we?

Some people should really try to get an apostolate going in Afghanistan.

 

 

 

With all that has been said in the past, this may come as a shock, but a woman's arm being exposed to me is not that big of a deal. Even a sleeve only a couple of inches in length does not do anything to incite impure thoughts in me, and I am more on the sensitive side in that regard. I was just asked about the sleeve length issue by a lady a few weeks ago, and expressed the same sentiments to her. I'm not trying to diminish the reasoning given behind a certain sleeve length, but from a man's perspective an arm is not really something that is a source of temptation. Take my observations for what they are worth.

[Archbishop_10K]

I find the notion that men are driven to lust by seeing a woman's forearms to be quite offensive. That would be like like suggesting women would be driven to lust if they saw a man in a t-shirt.

 

HOWEVER, I'd still pay attention to what the priest is saying, just out of principle and respect to his authority. Is he speaking on behalf of Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium, or is he just making this stuff up? I couldn't really tell what basis he was arguing from in those articles.

[FifthMark]

As apparently I don't fear being burnt at the stake, I'll just come out and say it: I find the upper arms of women to be one of their least attractive assets.  On that principle alone, I would ban sleeveless shirts and enforce sleeves to the elbow.

 

As for elbow-length sleeves for modesty's sake, I'm sure there's an argument to be made there as well, but I've never seen it.  I find it laughable as well that men might find temptation upon glancing at a woman's upper arms (especially given the above comments).

[miss_fluffy]

I have always found men's lower arms and hands very attractive.  Perhaps men should start wearing long gloves to church. 

[FifthMark]

I couldn't really tell what basis he was arguing from in those articles.

You have to draw the line somewhere.  "The less skin the better" as a rule of thumb, without going to burka excess of course, and considering arguments that may stem from necessity or availability.

 

Before the canonballs start heaving over the bow, I would like to commend all women who strive for modesty and decency in dress and truly reflect Our Lady's virtues in their attire.  I realize how difficult their task is in the midst of our corrupt culture and I applaud their efforts.  Also, before the argument is made that this is simply a "men don't understand as they don't have to abide by rules of dress" thing, I would like to state for the record that I take my own medicine and generally avoid sleeveless shirts, shorts, and anything else that might be considered immodest.  I invoke the "necessity" clause for my road biking outfit, however.

 

Let the beatings begin.

[miss_fluffy]

I would like to commend all women who strive for modesty and decency in dress and truly reflect Our Lady's virtues in their attire.  I realize how difficult their task is in the midst of our corrupt culture and I applaud their efforts.   

Thanks!  I have been making a strong effort so it bothered me that most of the "modest" clothes I have purchased recently don't live up to the Marylike description from the article.  And I did have to go quite a few different places to find shirts that didn't show too much.  One discount store I went to did not have one single shirt that looked descent enough for my standards.

 

  

Let the beatings begin.

 

There will be no beatings!  I can't escape bikers/ joggers daily as I walk from place to place.  There's no reason for you to enforce strict rules outside of mass.

[JLeigh]

 

As apparently I don't fear being burnt at the stake, I'll just come out and say it: I find the upper arms of women to be one of their least attractive assets.  On that principle alone, I would ban sleeveless shirts and enforce sleeves to the elbow.

Uh, Ladies? Is a bonfire in order here?