Swimming Suits and Modesty

[chiella]

I am certainly no expert in this subject - in fact, that is exactly why I pose the question.  I don't fully understand the teachings of the Church in regards to women's dress.  I know I have more resources, but at this moment I would need some time to find them.  However, here are a couple links with some discussion on the issue:

http://www.catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html

Also, as for women wearing pants, it is my understanding a lot of this come from Biblical scripture too.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/cathdres.htm
http://www.catholicplanet.com/women/dress.htm

[Satori]

No one wore pants in Bible times. Men of European descent only started wearing pants relatively recently. Women are to wear feminine dress -- not feminine as in ruffles and floral prints, but as in distinctively female. Modest trousers cut for a woman's body and worn with a woman's shirt and shoes are feminine. We can argue about this till the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is nothing specifically masculine about trousers, just as there is nothing specifically feminine about skirts and dresses, since in many cultures men still wear both (Middle Eastern robes, Scottish kilts).

[Walty]

No one wore pants in Bible times. Men of European descent only started wearing pants relatively recently. Women are to wear feminine dress -- not feminine as in ruffles and floral prints, but as in distinctively female. Modest trousers cut for a woman's body and worn with a woman's shirt and shoes are feminine. We can argue about this till the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is nothing specifically masculine about trousers, just as there is nothing specifically feminine about skirts and dresses, since in many cultures men still wear both (Middle Eastern robes, Scottish kilts).

That's probably the truth, but you have to admit that after the invention of pants (and for many years thereafter) there was an immensely deep-seated cultural sensibility that pants were masculine dress.  It may not be a big deal now, but when women first started wearing pants I can only imagine how scandalous that must have been.  And because of that it is hard to believe that the first women who did so did it innocently.

[Satori]

No one wore pants in Bible times. Men of European descent only started wearing pants relatively recently. Women are to wear feminine dress -- not feminine as in ruffles and floral prints, but as in distinctively female. Modest trousers cut for a woman's body and worn with a woman's shirt and shoes are feminine. We can argue about this till the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is nothing specifically masculine about trousers, just as there is nothing specifically feminine about skirts and dresses, since in many cultures men still wear both (Middle Eastern robes, Scottish kilts).

That's probably the truth, but you have to admit that after the invention of pants (and for many years thereafter) there was an immensely deep-seated cultural sensibility that pants were masculine dress.  It may not be a big deal now, but when women first started wearing pants I can only imagine how scandalous that must have been.  And because of that it is hard to believe that the first women who did so did it innocently.

True, and I think that's probably why Padre Pio wouldn't let women into his confessional wearing trousers. However, the first pants were probably worn in the West by women farm laborers, not for revolutionary reasons but because jeans were the most practical attire for the kind of work they were doing.

Also, as I've stated on here before more than once, I am very much in favor of women wearing skirts, especially to church, but that's because the skirt is still the standard of formal dress for women in the West and I think both men and women need to return to more decorum and beauty in both dress and manner. Still, that doesn't mean women must wear skirts at all times, even when it's impractical to do so.

[INPEFESS]

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/cathdres.htm

That's a neat site.

[Walty]

No one wore pants in Bible times. Men of European descent only started wearing pants relatively recently. Women are to wear feminine dress -- not feminine as in ruffles and floral prints, but as in distinctively female. Modest trousers cut for a woman's body and worn with a woman's shirt and shoes are feminine. We can argue about this till the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is nothing specifically masculine about trousers, just as there is nothing specifically feminine about skirts and dresses, since in many cultures men still wear both (Middle Eastern robes, Scottish kilts).

That's probably the truth, but you have to admit that after the invention of pants (and for many years thereafter) there was an immensely deep-seated cultural sensibility that pants were masculine dress.  It may not be a big deal now, but when women first started wearing pants I can only imagine how scandalous that must have been.  And because of that it is hard to believe that the first women who did so did it innocently.

True, and I think that's probably why Padre Pio wouldn't let women into his confessional wearing trousers. However, the first pants were probably worn in the West by women farm laborers, not for revolutionary reasons but because jeans were the most practical attire for the kind of work they were doing.

Also, as I've stated on here before more than once, I am very much in favor of women wearing skirts, especially to church, but that's because the skirt is still the standard of formal dress for women in the West and I think both men and women need to return to more decorum and beauty in both dress and manner. Still, that doesn't mean women must wear skirts at all times, even when it's impractical to do so.

Agreed.  I've never had a problem with women wearing pants, but I think that also may have a lot do with the fact that I was raised in a very secular and very untrad household.  It wasn't until the past 3-4 years or so when I started to spend more time with women who either mostly wore skirts/dresses or did so exclusively that I started recognizing how attractive (and in a young, trendy, and cute way not just in an old lady way) and feminine they do seem over pants.  In fact, a lot of guys I know might be more inclined to look at a gurly with lust if she's wearing an appropriate skirt as opposed to pants simply because skirts and dresses just look a lot more feminine while pants look kind of tomboyish and frumpy in comparison. 
That being said, pants are pretty commonplace for women these days obviously.  On top of that, most women have to do some sort of work that is more easily done in pants.  Now, I think it's pretty awesome when I see pictures of women in the 20s and 30s out in the garden doing hard work in a dress, but that's not always practical, I suppose.

It's tough stuff I'm sure.  I'm glad I'm not a girl.

[Scipio_a]

Oddly...both of these are of equal modesty...that is to say, they are both acceptable in this time place culture...and their respective situations.

No, they really aren't...

One is close to the most revealing our culture would allow given the time and place, while the other is not.

I like PeterI'Is response to this...but the fact is that....yeah they are of essentially equal modesty...situation is the key here...revealing or not revealing has nothing to do with it...time place culture and situation.


If he wore the swim suit to the black tie dinner carrying the UNP that would not be acceptable in this time place culture..or the situation.



My comment about women being more SEXUALLY aroused by the suit...PROVES that exposed skin is not the measure of immodesty....

[Scipio_a]

<P>

<EM>„Was the [2nd Vatican] Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those [traditionalists] who say that it was, are becoming louder and the followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">integralist</SPAN> [i.e. a modernist word for traditionalist] groups in which the desire for piety, for a sense of the mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of catholicity. <SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">We cannot resist them too firmly</SPAN>….”</EM> (my emphasis) (Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1987, Page 389-390)

Maybe now Benedict XVI would say: "We cannot undermine them too firmly"?</P><P></P>

The above has some emphasis added from the late great HMiS.  But I bolded the portion I want to focus on here.  The above quote cause a little stir a while back.  It focused on pretty much one meaning of this statement.  I would like to focus on another possible and TRUE meaning...even if it was not the one intended by the then Cardinal Ratzinger...and that is that by denying the Catholic view of culture, and it's due place, many trads do exude a sectarianism that limits not only themselves and their families needlessly...thus creating undue hardship on themselves and those they love....creating a sort of uber scrupulosity that is a sickness in their spirit that they MUST eradicate, but they do a great deal of disservice to the "trad movement' by their "bitter zeal' and sectarian opinions...by cutting themselves off from the world in every conceivable way...and not partaking of their legitimate culture...they run people off from the Faith....that's just a fact.   The only converts they will find are folks of a similar sick disposition and attitude...thus relegating the Faith (or at least the best part of it...the TLM and all that goes with it) to a bunch of looneytoons


Fortunately there are folks the TLM and refuse NO who do not live limited lives from a false sense of religious duty.  The church has never made rule regarding dressing except in a chapel...various priests have had personal opinions...Pio comes to mind....but that really is no measure.



in case anyone wanted to look up sectarian....http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sectarian

[INPEFESS]

<P>

<EM>„Was the [2nd Vatican] Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those [traditionalists] who say that it was, are becoming louder and the followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">integralist</SPAN> [i.e. a modernist word for traditionalist] groups in which the desire for piety, for a sense of the mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of catholicity. <SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">We cannot resist them too firmly</SPAN>….”</EM> (my emphasis) (Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1987, Page 389-390)

Maybe now Benedict XVI would say: "We cannot undermine them too firmly"?</P><P></P>

The above has some emphasis added from the late great HMiS.  But I bolded the portion I want to focus on here.  The above quote cause a little stir a while back.  It focused on pretty much one meaning of this statement.  I would like to focus on another possible and TRUE meaning...even if it was not the one intended by the then Cardinal Ratzinger...and that is that by denying the Catholic view of culture, and it's due place, many trads do exude a sectarianism that limits not only themselves and their families needlessly...thus creating undue hardship on themselves and those they love....creating a sort of uber scrupulosity that is a sickness in their spirit that they MUST eradicate, but they do a great deal of disservice to the "trad movement' by their "bitter zeal' and sectarian opinions...by cutting themselves off from the world in every conceivable way...and not partaking of their legitimate culture...they run people off from the Faith....that's just a fact.   The only converts they will find are folks of a similar sick disposition and attitude...thus relegating the Faith (or at least the best part of it...the TLM and all that goes with it) to a bunch of looneytoons


Fortunately there are folks the TLM and refuse NO who do not live limited lives from a false sense of religious duty.  The church has never made rule regarding dressing except in a chapel...various priests have had personal opinions...Pio comes to mind....but that really is no measure.



in case anyone wanted to look up sectarian....http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sectarian

Hey Scippy, just an honest question from my curiosity...

I've noticed that you seem to be very passionate about your views on this topic. But, I mean, if everyone here is overly concerned about modesty and they don't need to be, then they're just missing out on a little fun, right? I can understand why those who disagree with you would be pasisonate; they're trying to keep people from sinning, so they should be passionate. But if these people are being overboard about modesty, what's at stake for failing to convince them they're wrong other than that they would be missing out on a little extra liberty that seems to be very important to you?

I'm not trying to be smart or rile you up; I'm just interesting in knowing why liberating people from their strict views of modesty is such an important task.

[Texican]

I'm not Scorp, but I think what he's saying isn't that people deny themselves a bit of liberty, but rather that they, by their position, tend to drive away others, by their almost puritanical view of modesty, and also tend to view others as somehow less Catholic, simply because these others don't share their view of modesty, thereby creating divisions where none should exist.  At least that's how I read this post:

by denying the Catholic view of culture, and it's due place, many trads do exude a sectarianism that limits not only themselves and their families needlessly...thus creating undue hardship on themselves and those they love....creating a sort of uber scrupulosity that is a sickness in their spirit that they MUST eradicate, but they do a great deal of disservice to the "trad movement' by their "bitter zeal' and sectarian opinions...by cutting themselves off from the world in every conceivable way...and not partaking of their legitimate culture...they run people off from the Faith....that's just a fact.   The only converts they will find are folks of a similar sick disposition and attitude...thus relegating the Faith (or at least the best part of it...the TLM and all that goes with it) to a bunch of looneytoons