skirt length?

[Iolanthe]

JayneK, don't you think we should be listening to the men who say they don't find a lot of traditional Catholic girls attractive because they're simply too dowdy? Do you think it's a good idea to ignore them and listen to the fringe few who go crazy when they see a knee-length skirt? Because I have heard the first complaint a lot.

[Anastasia]

But if we're getting to the part of the discussion where men give up responding to my points and making personal attacks instead, then let's get to it.

Iolanthe, you bring that reaction on yourself.  You really come across as hostile to men.

I think we ought to be very careful deciding who "deserves" to get name calling. Anyone could just as easily defend treating say, Melkite, in that way because in their opinion he comes across as against Church teaching on homosexuality. Or OldSalt: could we say that he should get all the negative fishies he gets because some see him as pro-Novus Ordo?
The whole business of what we are willing to ignore in uncharitableness is a very slippery slope. Posters can certainly point out ideas they think are wrong or violations of the rules, but saying that someone deserves to have bad things happen to them seems like crossing a line.

[JayneK]

Protrident talked about, among other things, what a woman looks like in tight pants. He said that in response to the pictures I posted, which only showed women in dresses. He also made very detailed remarks about other body parts that were also not visible in the pictures. He basically letting his imagination run wild and saying whatever came into it, which is probably sinful in itself. There is a way to discuss modesty without including gratuitous sleaze, and he has failed to do that. His comments were immodest and there's no way they could be helpful in developing a healthy, normal attitude towards modesty.

I found his comments helpful and reasonable.  I saw nothing the least sinful or inappropriate in them.

[JayneK]

But if we're getting to the part of the discussion where men give up responding to my points and making personal attacks instead, then let's get to it.

Iolanthe, you bring that reaction on yourself.  You really come across as hostile to men.

I think we ought to be very careful deciding who "deserves" to get name calling. Anyone could just as easily defend treating say, Melkite, in that way because in their opinion he comes across as against Church teaching on homosexuality. Or OldSalt: could we say that he should get all the negative fishies he gets because some see him as pro-Novus Ordo?
The whole business of what we are willing to ignore in uncharitableness is a very slippery slope. Posters can certainly point out ideas they think are wrong or violations of the rules, but saying that someone deserves to have bad things happen to them seems like crossing a line.

I did not say that she deserves name calling nor did I intend to imply it.  I only intended to convey that find negative reactions to her posts understandable.  I find the examples you give above also understandable.

[Iolanthe]

 I saw nothing the least sinful or inappropriate in them.

Well, I did.

[Someone1776]

Protrident talked about, among other things, what a woman looks like in tight pants. He said that in response to the pictures I posted, which only showed women in dresses. He also made very detailed remarks about other body parts that were also not visible in the pictures. He basically letting his imagination run wild and saying whatever came into it, which is probably sinful in itself. There is a way to discuss modesty without including gratuitous sleaze, and he has failed to do that. His comments were immodest and there's no way they could be helpful in developing a healthy, normal attitude towards modesty.

I found his comments helpful and reasonable.  I saw nothing the least sinful or inappropriate in them.

I am a man and I found the comments very inappropriate. I had no impure thoughts looking at those pictures. His verbal undressing of those women was far closer an occasion of sin. There was no need for it.

[JayneK]

But if we're getting to the part of the discussion where men give up responding to my points and making personal attacks instead, then let's get to it.

Iolanthe, you bring that reaction on yourself.  You really come across as hostile to men.

Stop trying to bait me. This is a discussion about modesty. I thought Vetus Ordo, Crusader Philly, and 1776's comments were helpful and reasonable. Then there were a few other comments that were just smut, so I spoke up. Let's stick to the topic, please.

I was not trying to bait you.  I was trying to kindly point out to you the way you may come across to some people.  People don't just attack you out of the blue.  It is a reaction to something you do.

[JayneK]

JayneK, don't you think we should be listening to the men who say they don't find a lot of traditional Catholic girls attractive because they're simply too dowdy? Do you think it's a good idea to ignore them and listen to the fringe few who go crazy when they see a knee-length skirt? Because I have heard the first complaint a lot.

I think we should listen to all the men and take all their views into account. 

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I can say, as a man, I know immodest when I see it, kinda like what Potter Stewart said. I have seen pants and dresses worn in an extremely immodest manner at my university.

On the other hand, I have also seen skirts worn immodestly. A sad example is the local all girl Catholic high schools. The "fast" or "cool" girls wear their skirts extremely short, in order to attract guys.

Modest clothing can be worn immodestly, and clothing once considered "immodest" can be worn modestly. I don't see what the big deal is. I think, yes, if one is going to Mass, a skirt should be prefered over pants. But is this an absolute necessity. No.

Some trads take this too far. Like saying women who wear pants "cross dress." I know these trads, their hearts are in the right place, but that takes it too far.

[Iolanthe]

JayneK, don't you think we should be listening to the men who say they don't find a lot of traditional Catholic girls attractive because they're simply too dowdy? Do you think it's a good idea to ignore them and listen to the fringe few who go crazy when they see a knee-length skirt? Because I have heard the first complaint a lot.

I think we should listen to all the men and take all their views into account. 

Except that the men with the most respect for women, who are most likely to have balanced views, are usually too nice to make comments like the one about trad girls being dowdy and unattractive. Meanwhile men who see every woman as a piece of meat are making comments all over the place and being encouraged to do so. You see the problem

I find your attempt to gaslight me about how I supposedly bring on the attacks I get on here not infrequently very disturbing. You're trying very hard to make it a point when it isn't even the topic of conversation. Something a bit a weird about that.