Question about modesty

[Scriptorium]

I can't understand why bare upper arms might cause scandal. I've seen photos of my grandmas and they didn't wear long sleeves in the summertime. I think the clergy of the past were over scrupulous and nowadays they don't say anything about modesty. Isn't that the way it always is? 

This is something I don't get. I once asked about it. The theory was that you show as little skin as possible, not because upper arms are tempting, but because it is unnecessary to expose them.

With that said. I have no issue with wearing sleeveless shirts, or my kids. I don't wear spaghetti strapped shirts or anything that is so small you can see undergarments. I don't wear them at church because they are more casual wear. Also, there are some gorgeous gowns that are sleeveless that I don't see as immodest at all.

It's called charity. Just because something may be licit, doesn't mean that it is best for you to do it. You should always (reasonably) err on the side of caution for our weaker neighbors (read St Paul and St Benedict). That means cover the arms with at least a quarter sleeve, and the other directions. This is where the directions are coming from. Here is a fact: A lot of men go to hell because of sins against the sixth and ninth Commandments. A lot of women go to hell for enticing them to sin. Masturbation, fornication, and other mortal sins of the flesh are at epic proportions. If anything, if you call such modesty "heroic", it allows you to be counter-cultural and really show some concern for your fellow men. + PAX.

[verenaerin]

I can't understand why bare upper arms might cause scandal. I've seen photos of my grandmas and they didn't wear long sleeves in the summertime. I think the clergy of the past were over scrupulous and nowadays they don't say anything about modesty. Isn't that the way it always is? 

This is something I don't get. I once asked about it. The theory was that you show as little skin as possible, not because upper arms are tempting, but because it is unnecessary to expose them.

With that said. I have no issue with wearing sleeveless shirts, or my kids. I don't wear spaghetti strapped shirts or anything that is so small you can see undergarments. I don't wear them at church because they are more casual wear. Also, there are some gorgeous gowns that are sleeveless that I don't see as immodest at all.

It's called charity. Just because something may be licit, doesn't mean that it is best for you to do it. You should always (reasonably) err on the side of caution for our weaker neighbors (read St Paul and St Benedict). That means cover the arms with at least a quarter sleeve, and the other directions. This is where the directions are coming from. Here is a fact: A lot of men go to hell because of sins against the sixth and ninth Commandments. A lot of women go to hell for enticing them to sin. Masturbation, fornication, and other mortal sins of the flesh are at epic proportions. If anything, if you call such modesty "heroic", it allows you to be counter-cultural and really show some concern for your fellow men. + PAX.

Then why not go to full length sleeves? And for that matter, why don't we just separate the sexes till an arranged marriage. There is nothing wrong with either sex finding the other attractive, that in itself is not a mortal sin. And the assumption that it will lead into a mortal sin shows disordered thinking, which is that particular person's issue, not the women wearing short or no sleeves.

[kayla_veronica]

I can't understand why bare upper arms might cause scandal. I've seen photos of my grandmas and they didn't wear long sleeves in the summertime. I think the clergy of the past were over scrupulous and nowadays they don't say anything about modesty. Isn't that the way it always is? 

This is something I don't get. I once asked about it. The theory was that you show as little skin as possible, not because upper arms are tempting, but because it is unnecessary to expose them.

With that said. I have no issue with wearing sleeveless shirts, or my kids. I don't wear spaghetti strapped shirts or anything that is so small you can see undergarments. I don't wear them at church because they are more casual wear. Also, there are some gorgeous gowns that are sleeveless that I don't see as immodest at all.

It's called charity. Just because something may be licit, doesn't mean that it is best for you to do it. You should always (reasonably) err on the side of caution for our weaker neighbors (read St Paul and St Benedict). That means cover the arms with at least a quarter sleeve, and the other directions. This is where the directions are coming from. Here is a fact: A lot of men go to hell because of sins against the sixth and ninth Commandments. A lot of women go to hell for enticing them to sin. Masturbation, fornication, and other mortal sins of the flesh are at epic proportions. If anything, if you call such modesty "heroic", it allows you to be counter-cultural and really show some concern for your fellow men. + PAX.

Yes, blame it on the short sleeves, it has nothing to do with the all the mainstream pornography.....

Then why not go to full length sleeves? And for that matter, why don't we just separate the sexes till an arranged marriage. There is nothing wrong with either sex finding the other attractive, that in itself is not a mortal sin. And the assumption that it will lead into a mortal sin shows disordered thinking, which is that particular person's issue, not the women wearing short or no sleeves.

+1

[DeoDuce]

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

[jovan66102]

I can't understand why bare upper arms might cause scandal. I've seen photos of my grandmas and they didn't wear long sleeves in the summertime. I think the clergy of the past were over scrupulous and nowadays they don't say anything about modesty. Isn't that the way it always is? 

This is something I don't get. I once asked about it. The theory was that you show as little skin as possible, not because upper arms are tempting, but because it is unnecessary to expose them.

With that said. I have no issue with wearing sleeveless shirts, or my kids. I don't wear spaghetti strapped shirts or anything that is so small you can see undergarments. I don't wear them at church because they are more casual wear. Also, there are some gorgeous gowns that are sleeveless that I don't see as immodest at all.

It's called charity. Just because something may be licit, doesn't mean that it is best for you to do it. You should always (reasonably) err on the side of caution for our weaker neighbors (read St Paul and St Benedict). That means cover the arms with at least a quarter sleeve, and the other directions. This is where the directions are coming from. Here is a fact: A lot of men go to hell because of sins against the sixth and ninth Commandments. A lot of women go to hell for enticing them to sin. Masturbation, fornication, and other mortal sins of the flesh are at epic proportions. If anything, if you call such modesty "heroic", it allows you to be counter-cultural and really show some concern for your fellow men. + PAX.

Yes, blame it on the short sleeves, it has nothing to do with the all the mainstream pornography.....

Then why not go to full length sleeves? And for that matter, why don't we just separate the sexes till an arranged marriage. There is nothing wrong with either sex finding the other attractive, that in itself is not a mortal sin. And the assumption that it will lead into a mortal sin shows disordered thinking, which is that particular person's issue, not the women wearing short or no sleeves.

+1

+2 from a guy!

[verenaerin]

I have no problem with wearing shirts which cover my collar bone and up to my elbows, and I always wear pants.  I don't know why it's difficult for women to wear clothing with similar coverage.

I will take your example and bring out my pants to wear.

[kayla_veronica]

.

[verenaerin]

I can't understand why bare upper arms might cause scandal. I've seen photos of my grandmas and they didn't wear long sleeves in the summertime. I think the clergy of the past were over scrupulous and nowadays they don't say anything about modesty. Isn't that the way it always is? 

This is something I don't get. I once asked about it. The theory was that you show as little skin as possible, not because upper arms are tempting, but because it is unnecessary to expose them.

With that said. I have no issue with wearing sleeveless shirts, or my kids. I don't wear spaghetti strapped shirts or anything that is so small you can see undergarments. I don't wear them at church because they are more casual wear. Also, there are some gorgeous gowns that are sleeveless that I don't see as immodest at all.

It's called charity. Just because something may be licit, doesn't mean that it is best for you to do it. You should always (reasonably) err on the side of caution for our weaker neighbors (read St Paul and St Benedict). That means cover the arms with at least a quarter sleeve, and the other directions. This is where the directions are coming from. Here is a fact: A lot of men go to hell because of sins against the sixth and ninth Commandments. A lot of women go to hell for enticing them to sin. Masturbation, fornication, and other mortal sins of the flesh are at epic proportions. If anything, if you call such modesty "heroic", it allows you to be counter-cultural and really show some concern for your fellow men. + PAX.

Yes, blame it on the short sleeves, it has nothing to do with the all the mainstream pornography.....

Then why not go to full length sleeves? And for that matter, why don't we just separate the sexes till an arranged marriage. There is nothing wrong with either sex finding the other attractive, that in itself is not a mortal sin. And the assumption that it will lead into a mortal sin shows disordered thinking, which is that particular person's issue, not the women wearing short or no sleeves.

+1

+2 from a guy!

 

You like me...you really like me!

[Scriptorium]

And the assumption that it will lead into a mortal sin shows disordered thinking, which is that particular person's issue, not the women wearing short or no sleeves.

Not will but can. And if you don't care about your neighbor, then I'd ask you to read St Paul and St Benedict about charity for the weak. And as for someone's "issue", you can use that argument for many situations. How about children! Is it their issue? But they're weak. Why make any (reasonable) special provision for them. Why make any provision for our neighbor to help him not sin. What has become of the second part of that great commandment? It is well documented what gets men going, so I am always surprised when a women (or man for their part) aren't excited about helping their neighbor and resisting our depraved culture. That sounds like exciting stuff for us to do in our time to become saints.

Yes, blame it on the short sleeves, it has nothing to do with the all the mainstream pornography.....

This sentence explains why such a debate is a waste of time. Please go back and read my post. And clearly you are disconnected from the nature of sin and what may trigger a certain sin. What do you think comes before the porn viewing? People don't just wake up wanting porn. They start with the small things and work up. Porn is an increase of the perversion and seeking of temporal pleasure. The original perversions and seekings were in the form of lust toward someone one is not entitled to lust after. If you listen to the same talk the OP was referring (I believe), the priest quotes good old St Gregory about that moral law, one is not allowed to behold, what one is not allowed to covet. That means, everyone is bound to custody of the eyes. If he finds himself lusting, he is to turn away. Sleeveless blouses, or short skirts, or tight pants, or any of these things are not monumental in and of themselves, but when you take them and throw them into the miasma of our sexual culture, then you have a perfect brew for destroying souls. As we as Catholics take away pieces of that deadly recipe, we our doing our part to change the tone of our culture, witness to Christ and the saints' purity, and directly love our neighbor, especially those struggling with purity.

I say this because:

1) I am one of those weak ones.
2) I am married and women scantily dressed is always a stumbling block for me practicing custody of the eyes.
3) I dress modestly for my neighbor, because I wish them to do me the same.
4) I have been free from porn and masturbation for over ten tears now, but believe me our whole society and its spirit calls me everyday to go back into mortal sin.

All I ask is charity, the greatest of virtues which never dies. + PAX.

[verenaerin]

And the assumption that it will lead into a mortal sin shows disordered thinking, which is that particular person's issue, not the women wearing short or no sleeves.

Not will but can. And if you don't care about your neighbor, then I'd ask you to read St Paul and St Benedict about charity for the weak. And as for someone's "issue", you can use that argument for many situations. How about children! Is it their issue? But they're weak. Why make any (reasonable) special provision for them. Why make any provision for our neighbor to help him not sin. What has become of the second part of that great commandment? It is well documented what gets men going, so I am always surprised when a women (or man for their part) aren't excited about helping their neighbor and resisting our depraved culture. That sounds like exciting stuff for us to do in our time to become saints.

Yes, blame it on the short sleeves, it has nothing to do with the all the mainstream pornography.....

This sentence explains why such a debate is a waste of time. Please go back and read my post. And clearly you are disconnected from the nature of sin and what may trigger a certain sin. What do you think comes before the porn viewing? People don't just wake up wanting porn. They start with the small things and work up. Porn is an increase of the perversion and seeking of temporal pleasure. The original perversions and seekings were in the form of lust toward someone one is not entitled to lust after. If you listen to the same talk the OP was referring (I believe), the priest quotes good old St Gregory about that moral law, one is not allowed to behold, what one is not allowed to covet. That means, everyone is bound to custody of the eyes. If he finds himself lusting, he is to turn away. Sleeveless blouses, or short skirts, or tight pants, or any of these things are not monumental in and of themselves, but when you take them and throw them into the miasma of our sexual culture, then you have a perfect brew for destroying souls. As we as Catholics take away pieces of that deadly recipe, we our doing our part to change the tone of our culture, witness to Christ and the saints' purity, and directly love our neighbor, especially those struggling with purity.

I say this because:

1) I am one of those weak ones.
2) I am married and women scantily dressed is always a stumbling block for me practicing custody of the eyes.
3) I dress modestly for my neighbor, because I wish them to do me the same.
4) I have been free from porn and masturbation for over ten tears now, but believe me our whole society and its spirit calls me everyday to go back into mortal sin.

All I ask is charity, the greatest of virtues which never dies. + PAX.

I'm not trying to be snarky but this is an honest question-

Are you saying that sleeveless shirts are a gateway to p@rn? And just so that we are talking about the same thing- this is what I am talking about, not some immodest undershirt.