Arguments about modesty

[Rosarium]

I think we shouldn't forget avoiding scandal.

Romans 14 shows this as being important.

[Satori]

I would never go topless in public (seldom in private) because it isn't practical, but as I have said before, I think in a healthy society, breasts would be admired for their beauty and utility rather than slobbered over as sexual objects. Women would be able to wear relatively low-cut blouses but would be very modest about covering their pelvises, rear ends and thighs, which are much more sexual than a milk sac.

I bet the widespread introduction of infant formula is to blame! Ladies, another reason to breastfeed!

[JayneK]

I think we shouldn't forget avoiding scandal.

Romans 14 shows this as being important.

Exactly. Almost everything in the chapter could apply to clothing.  Look at verse 21:

*It is good not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother is offended, or scandalized, or made weak.

It is explicitly stating that this principle applies to "any thing" not just the specific situation that St. Paul has been discussing.  To consider cultural norms only without applying this principle is not consistent with Catholicism.  Since our culture is not Catholic, we must always measure it against Church teaching.  Our culture cannot be the sole guide of our behaviour.

[cathkath]

I have followed this argument page after page. I am compelled to chip in. Please don't flame me immediately. I am hyper-sensitive. 

Being Catholic is practical. It may be difficult to be a good Catholic in this culture, but it is practical. I say this from the vantage point of being an ex-episcopalian. As far as I am able to understand it, the argument regarding acceptable clothing for Christian women centers on modesty; however, I am aware that there is  a Biblical prohibition (Deuteronomy) against women wearing manly clothing. I don't wear manly clothing. I wear pants. They fit me. I weigh only 110. My pants are not tight.  They are comfortable and feminine. I don't wear them to Mass--I wear them to the grocery store. 150 years ago, men became excited at the sight of a woman's ankle peeping out from under her hoop-skirt. This is no indictment of men, God love you, it is just the way it is and always has been.  Men just have a lot more to look at these days (Bless your hearts as well as your eyes!) A lot of what we are talking about is cultural, not necessarily what is Catholic--and what is not.

I live in Southeast Texas. It is sweltering six months of the year. I wear sleeveless blouses (not to Mass.) In order to see anything untoward beneath my skinny arms, I would have to unbutton the blouse. Again, my blouses are not tight. However, if I needed a size 40DD bra, I might (just might) depending on the cut of the blouse, be wearing something immodest.  I am 56  years old as of June 18th. I am a pitiful child of the silly, innocuous seventies, and I went through as a participating member of that  bikini clad, bra-less, disco dancing, hot pants era. I was my father's nightmare. I received my share of wolf-whistles. I was offended by some, until I figured out that a wolf-whistle is a wolf-whistle whether it is from a Tom Selleck look-a-like or a balding, fat-bellied construction worker. If I accepted one as a compliment, I must logically accept the other. I quit going bra-less; I gave up hot pants (they were passe, anyway,) and I started wearing a one piece bathing suit.  Disco is stupid, but I like to dance, and I still like the Bee Gees.

It's common sense, people. Shoes can be immodest. Hair styles can be immodest. Make-up can most definitely be immodest. I am going to Mass to worship. I stand in front of the mirror on Sunday mornings now and ask myself the proverbial,  "If Jesus were here (and He is) what would he think of my attire?" I give Him my best--no hose unless it's winter, but that's a cultural thing,  a long flowing skirt, a pretty (feminine, but without a low neck, and not overly fitted) blouse, a veil, and high-heeled sandals (shoes are my weakness.)  If some man is inflamed at the sight of my manicured toe-nails, sue me. God is not honored by ugly clothing. Depictions of Mary (and I know many of them relate to local cultural sensibilities) all lovingly portray a beautiful, young woman, dressed in soft, feminine clothing--not a black burka. Of course, she is veiled. For Mass I am veiled. But I don't wear one to run to the post office on Saturday morning.

Whichever judge said he couldn't define pornography but he knew it when he saw it had the right idea. Most of us know immodesty when we see it, and there are some obviously objective standards. The nineteen-year-old wearing a snug-fitting mini-dress with spaghetti straps and purple toe nail polish at Mass this morning as she went up to receive Jesus--was both immodest and scandalous. So was her boyfriend. He was wearing a Hawaiian shirt, shorts (nice legs, good tan, yes we notice,) and flip flops. The lady in trousers (loose fitting and navy blue) with a tailored blouse and closed-toed pumps but no veil? I'll leave that up to the experts.

Being Catholic is practical ( defined as level headed, efficient, and unspeculative according to the Free Dictionary.)

[cathkath]

Sorry. This post belongs to another thread, folks. Don't know how to change it.

[Vetus Ordo]

I would never go topless in public (seldom in private) because it isn't practical, but as I have said before, I think in a healthy society, breasts would be admired for their beauty and utility rather than slobbered over as sexual objects. Women would be able to wear relatively low-cut blouses but would be very modest about covering their pelvises, rear ends and thighs, which are much more sexual than a milk sac.

Female breasts have, always had and always will have a sexual component to them, there's no way around it.

In a "healty society" women would dress and act like ladies, not like sluts eager to show their bodies and feel "sexy" or "flattered". Men would instinctively respect them more for that, more than any feminist propaganda will ever do, I guarantee you that.

[JayneK]

I would never go topless in public (seldom in private) because it isn't practical, but as I have said before, I think in a healthy society, breasts would be admired for their beauty and utility rather than slobbered over as sexual objects. Women would be able to wear relatively low-cut blouses but would be very modest about covering their pelvises, rear ends and thighs, which are much more sexual than a milk sac.

Female breasts have, always had and always will have a sexual component to them, there's no way around it.

In a "healty society" women would dress and act like ladies, not like sluts eager to show their bodies and feel "sexy" or "flattered". Men would instinctively respect them more for that, more than any feminist propaganda will ever do, I guarantee you that.

I have trouble imagining how breasts could not have a sexual component, but it is a problem when they become primarily sexual such that it interferes with women being able to feed their babies.  There are people who are offended by women breast-feeding in public and complain that this is immodest.  That does not seem right to me.

[Vetus Ordo]

I think breast-feeding should be done in private. It's an unnecessary exposal of the woman's breasts and offends public decency.

[Vetus Ordo]

I think breast-feeding should be done in private. It's an unnecessary exposal of the woman's breasts and offends public decency.

Not to derail but...I cannot stand seeing this ridiculous sentiment. When was the last time you saw a Catholic American woman whip out her boobs for all the world see so she can feed her baby?

I've never been to the US.

As for my country, women don't breast-feed in public.

[JayneK]

I think breast-feeding should be done in private. It's an unnecessary exposal of the woman's breasts and offends public decency.

If you have a hungry baby, it is necessary.  Ideally, one feeds one's baby in a quiet, clean and pleasant place.  But sometimes the baby becomes hungry when the ideal situation is not available.  There is something wrong with a "public decency" that requires hungry babies to be left screaming while their mothers are present wanting to feed them.