Arguments about modesty

[JayneK]

In general, we should be suspicious of  a line of reasoning that leads to a wrong conclusion.  For example, Scipio's reasoning leads him to the conclusion that bikinis are modest.  The vast majority of people here consider this to be a wrong conclusion.  We should therefore suspect his argument of being fundamentally flawed.  This does not necessarily mean that everything he says is wrong, but he is putting the ideas together incorrectly.

It seems to me that the basic mistake he makes is to consider only the "time, place and culture" factor.  For Catholics, this cannot be considered in isolation.  We view modesty in clothing as being connected to the virtue of chastity.  Therefore we also need to think about whether clothing is ordered to sexual arousal.  We are living in a culture which treats the words "hot" and "sexy" as compliments.  It has blurred the line between appropriate attractiveness and provocation of lust such that many people are not capable of telling them apart.  In this situation, we cannot let the standards of the culture be the only thing to determine what is modest.

What makes sense to me, in a culture like this, is to figure out what is modest by first looking at what the opposite sex finds sexually provocative.  Obviously there will be individual variation in this, but there are general trends, and this gives us a base line to start from.  The first principle to use is to avoid clothing that can be reasonably expected to provoke lust.  Once one has a sense of how to do this, then one can think about "time, place and culture."

Other things being equal, one's clothing should not be so dramatically different from the cultural norms that it draws attention to oneself.  Scipio has made some good points on this aspect of the issue, although, again, he goes too far in his application of it.  It is not an absolute principle that overrides all other considerations.  Other things are not always equal.  If one were to have to make a choice between wearing sexually provocative clothing or not  fitting in, the right thing to do is to not fit in.

Ideally, though, we should be aiming for modest clothing that does not draw attention to ourselves.  Clothing should be neat, attractive and avoid extremes of fashion.  At the same time, we should be aware of what is likely to be sexually provocative and reject that from our lives.  Lust is a major temptation for many people and we have a duty to assist them.

It is not unusual for men  to be attacked when they post on FE about clothing that makes virtue difficult for them.  They are often labelled as "controlling" or treated as some sort of perverts.  I consider such attacks to be unreasonable.  There is nothing wrong with Catholics seeking assistance from others in leading virtuous lives.  Furthermore women need input from men in order to determine what clothing is likely to be an occasion of sin.  Rather than  attacking men for these sorts of posts, we should be encouraging them

[OCLittleFlower]

It is not unusual for men  to be attacked when they post on FE about clothing that makes virtue difficult for them.  They are often labelled as "controlling" or treated as some sort of perverts.  I consider such attacks to be unreasonable.  There is nothing wrong with Catholics seeking assistance from others in leading virtuous lives.  Furthermore women need input from men in order to determine what clothing is likely to be an occasion of sin.  Rather than  attacking men for these sorts of posts, we should be encouraging them

Agreed, provided that these men do so in a kind, charitable, respectful manner.  Some women really do not "know better" or may have another opinion about what is or is not modest (the pants issue, the "x many fingers below the collarbone" neckline issue, etc) and may have their own reasons for getting to that point.  Yes, men have the right to comment and advise, but unless you are the woman's father, husband, or confessor, you have no actual authority over her.   

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Scipio and I believe that moderation is important. Hyper modesty and “Plain Catholics” is a reaction to the indecent fashions today. But it’s an extreme reaction. We don’t have to go “that far” to make a statement for modesty because when we do we actually draw attention to ourselves, which is, ironically, not modest.

I have a problem with tight pants and bikinis. I don’t have a problem with well-fitted pants and one-piece bathing suits. I think Western standards could stand to be raised, but most Catholics can function okay in society. There are billions of people whose attire is totally proper. I’ve never felt the need to walk with my eyes to the ground. Yes, there are always those who push the limits.

I agree with “time-place-situation” - within reason. One expects to see more skin on the beach than one does in the workplace or the grocery store. I don’t think there is ever a “time-place-situation” for Catholics to accept fashions designed to arouse lust. Neither Scipio nor I condone pants (or skirts) that are skin-tight, or shorts that are so short they leave nothing to the imagination.

But we can't restructure society to placate those who find offense in everything. You know, a little desensitization in this respect might not be a bad thing. I don’t mean morally numb, with no sense or care of right and wrong. I mean ask the Lord to remove any hypersensitivity - yes, even over things that are sinful. We can avoid sin better by not obsessing over it. Some people place unnecessary burdens on themselves and others. I don’t think the Lord wants this either.

[QuisUtDeus]

Scipio and I believe that moderation is important. Hyper modesty and “Plain Catholics” is a reaction to the indecent fashions today. But it’s an extreme reaction. We don’t have to go “that far” to make a statement for modesty because when we do we actually draw attention to ourselves, which is, ironically, not modest.

I don't think a comparison to Plain Catholics is fair because they remove themselves from the eyes of the world like the Amish so really no attention is drawn to them except their website.

I agree with “time-place-situation” - within reason. One expects to see more skin on the beach than one does in the workplace or the grocery store. I don’t think there is ever a “time-place-situation” for Catholics to accept fashions designed to arouse lust. Neither Scipio nor I condone pants (or skirts) that are skin-tight, or shorts that are so short they leave nothing to the imagination.

But the problem is at most beaches there are men and women who are exposing a heck of a lot more than a one-piece bathing suit shows.  I agree with cultural considerations, but an American at a topless beach in Europe is in trouble.  It's like the topless reader at the Papal Mass - "Oh, that's their culture." Find and good, but it wasn't JP2's culture.  We may laugh at the thought of a Victorian swooning at the sight of an ankle, but most likely it happened for real.  So, that said, a lot of the clothes people wear on the beach isn't to facilitate swimming.  It's to look sexy or get a good tan.  And why tan the parts of the body that people wouldn't see outside of the beach?  Hmm....  Like you say below, it requires us to become numb to these things.

So, either we can become numbed down to skin exposure (which has a whole other set of problems we can delve into if people like) or we can admit there is some type of norm we should agree upon.  A one-piece bathing suit for women that facilitates swimming but is as modest as is practical is a good start.  People who are still scandalized avoid the public beach.  That's fair.  What's wrong is to say "go to the beach anyhow" because by any remote Catholic standards most beaches are scandalous even considering time and place except to those who have become desensitized.

But we can't restructure society to placate those who find offense in everything. You know, a little desensitization in this respect might not be a bad thing. I don’t mean morally numb, with no sense or care of right and wrong. I mean ask the Lord to remove any hypersensitivity - yes, even over things that are sinful. We can avoid sin better by not obsessing over it. Some people place unnecessary burdens on themselves and others. I don’t think the Lord wants this either.

I disagree, and I'll tell you why.  There are several reasons, but the most important is this:  people generally only become desensitized after having the sensitive reaction.  Rescue workers are desensitized by exposing them to images of grisly scenes.  They have the normal reaction - vomiting, revulsion, etc. - that we should have for self-preservation (i.e., something bad happened here, get out).

Now take that to lack of clothing.  You will have these problems:

1) The exposure will most likely cause mortal sin at least in thought if not in act for the average person.  This is never allowed in Catholic moral theology.

2) Desensitizing will make it more difficult to engage in licit marital relations; people always want to push the sexual envelope, or in some cases, get to the point where they can't function under normal visual stimulation.

We can have a real long discussion on this, but for me one of the bottom lines is this:  we're asking people to expose themselves to the risk of mortal sin so that others can wear less clothing.  We're asking society to lower the bar of modesty - and even moral behavior - so others can do what they want.  That's not right and it's unproductive.  We should raise the bar and create a more Catholic culture. 

[Satori]

If modesty is purely to do with cultural standards, where do we draw the line? If in ten years women are taking off their tops at ordinary beaches and everyone is "fine" with it, including the law, has it become okay? Why would something that is blatantly wrong today be okay in ten years?

I have frequently spoken of the need for modesty not just in relation to chastity, but dignity, as well. The more skin it's okay to show, the more skin people are expected to show, and the more people are judged by their bodies. Just look at how many women's magazines today are devoted to "getting a bikini body." People are always going to be shallow when their hearts are untransformed, but why make it easier for them?

[StrictCatholicGirl]

I don't think a comparison to Plain Catholics is fair because they remove themselves from the eyes of the world like the Amish so really no attention is drawn to them except their website.

That's fair.  Will that be the next step for concerned Catholics?  Separation from society like the Amish have done?  Not that I would care if they did.  Our Catholic "ghettos" of the past were sort of like that.  They had their own village standards, which were not too different from other people's standards.  Of course, fashions all over were less revealing then.  I still say "period clothes" are a bad reaction to indecent fashions.  We can be in style and still be modest.
 

But the problem is at most beaches there are men and women who are exposing a heck of a lot more than a one-piece bathing suit shows.  I agree with cultural considerations, but an American at a topless beach in Europe is in trouble.  It's like the topless reader at the Papal Mass - "Oh, that's their culture." Find and good, but it wasn't JP2's culture.  We may laugh at the thought of a Victorian swooning at the sight of an ankle, but most likely it happened for real.  So, that said, a lot of the clothes people wear on the beach isn't to facilitate swimming.  It's to look sexy or get a good tan.  And why tan the parts of the body that people wouldn't see outside of the beach?  Hmm....  Like you say below, it requires us to become numb to these things.

First, I didn't require numbness.  At least I didn't mean numb when I said "desensitized."  I meant soothing the rough edges.  Now back to the beach: Yes, there are exhibitionists.  But if we are busy swimming or collecting seashells, we'd be having too much fun to worry about who is there to pick up chicks or get a tan.  I'm not saying we won't be tempted, but we won't be judging WHY others are there in the first place. That's where it gets obsessive.  And if one is wearing a two-piece, those normally hidden parts of the body are going to get tanned when she sun bathes.  Just like a man goes shirtless at the beach and gets a tan on his back and chest, body parts that are usually covered when he's on the street.  There's no reason to over-think it.
 

So, either we can become numbed down to skin exposure (which has a whole other set of problems we can delve into if people like) or we can admit there is some type of norm we should agree upon.  A one-piece bathing suit for women that facilitates swimming but is as modest as is practical is a good start.  People who are still scandalized avoid the public beach.  That's fair.  What's wrong is to say "go to the beach anyhow" because by any remote Catholic standards most beaches are scandalous even considering time and place except to those who have become desensitized.

No, I agree with you.  Those who would be scandalized should avoid the beach.  I don't feel very comfortable around drinking, so I avoid bars, church festivals, and Oktoberfest.  Most people (not just Catholics) would have a problem with people drinking, and wearing bathing suits, outside of those areas where such activity is permitted.
 

Now take that to lack of clothing.  You will have these problems:

1) The exposure will most likely cause mortal sin at least in thought if not in act for the average person.  This is never allowed in Catholic moral theology.

2) Desensitizing will make it more difficult to engage in licit marital relations; people always want to push the sexual envelope, or in some cases, get to the point where they can't function under normal visual stimulation.

We can have a real long discussion on this, but for me one of the bottom lines is this:  we're asking people to expose themselves to the risk of mortal sin so that others can wear less clothing.  We're asking society to lower the bar of modesty - and even moral behavior - so others can do what they want.  That's not right and it's unproductive.  We should raise the bar and create a more Catholic culture.

But I don't think I condoned the exposure of lots of skin.  I said I had a problem with tight pants, bikinis, short shorts, and that the bar could stand to be higher.  As for who decides the standards, every community decides its own standards.  Always has.  I live in a conservative, Midwest town.  The people here dress conservatively.  In other communities, not so much.  The issue we are dealing with today is that "the village" is global.  We are invaded by other standards that don't mesh with our own.

Quis, I'm not really disagreeing with what you've said and I understand your concerns.  I just think it's important to keep pointing out that temperance is the real virtue - the mean between bikinis and burqas.

[QuisUtDeus]

Yeah, I doubt there was much anorexia, bulimia, and liposuction in the days of hoop skirts.  Most of that crap comes because people feel pressured to look good naked, and they feel pressured that way because everyone is exposing themselves.

When men get their ideals of female bodies from Twiggy and pornography, that's what women have to compete with to get attention.

It's a lot easier to compete with Grace Kelly by doing one's hair, makeup, and a nice dress.  One can't compete with Pamela Anderson without body modification and slutty clothes.  Back in the old days, only a husband (theoretically) knew what his wife's body was like and didn't have much to compare it to.  Nowadays, everyone knows what everyone's body looks like.

And I may be picking on women in this case, but the reality is that women are the greater victims of this crime.  I know men are anorexic, etc., too, but clearly women, especially young single women, are more affected.

Go back to makeup, nice dresses, nylons, etc.  Get rid of the "natural look", bare midriffs, and short hair.  Ban porn and modern fashions.  Seriously.  Women are on a level playing field then, looks-wise without resorting to self-mutilation.

The feminists would like people to believe that men should change.  True, but that hasn't worked so far - actually the opposite has happened.  Porn has gotten mainstream and there are way too many women emulating that without knowing it.

As long as some women are going to dress like sluts, that's the bar men will measure women by, and thus the bar women will measure themselves by.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Yeah, I doubt there was much anorexia, bulimia, and liposuction in the days of hoop skirts. 

Women had other problems in those days.  Corsets, bustiers, and high heels are self-mutilating too.  And definitely designed to attract male attention.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Get rid of the "natural look", bare midriffs, and short hair. 

What's wrong with short hair?

[JayneK]

  I just think it's important to keep pointing out that temperance is the real virtue - the mean between bikinis and burqas.

I understand what's wrong with bikinis.  Can you explain what is wrong with burqas in a culture that accepts them?