Modesty for men
Men's shirts must be collared to be appropriately modest? What then of shirts  like the Irish "grandfather shirt," traditional in rural Ireland, which is paired with a worsted wool waistcoat, jacket, or a woolen jumper, depending on the weather.

Clothing of this sort was worn in daily life, and still is by some, on occasions both casual and relatively formal. It is a marvel to think that they do not know that, because the shirts do not readily admit a neck-tie, they are in actual fact exhibiting themselves indecently. Fortunately, we traditional Catholics have a very firm grasp (if mostly second-hand) of what Catholic life was like in the 1950s, before the Holy Father did away with both the Papal Tiara and the cravat.
Only a f*** hipster would go out of his way to dress like an old Irish farmer. In this case, using richgr's definition (which is what I've heard from most trad priests) then yes it would be immodest.

The fact is, for a very long time now t-shirts have been considered as sloppy dressing and still immodest in many situations.
Such Irish shirts have been manufactured for over two centuries and have been adopted abroad as an element of men's fashion. I fail to see how adopting a countryside garment as an article of mainstream wear is really any more offensive than adopting articles of sporting clothing for non-sporting use, e.g., the polo shirt, which was an worn on the tennis and polo courts, the Henley shirt, a collarless pullover worn by English competitive rowers before its mainstream adoption, and suchlike.

The traditional attire of rural Britain, consisting of tweed vests and jackets, leather brogues, leather country boots, Wellington boots, and suchlike has achieved global popularity as dressy casual wear. Sport coats or sports jackets are called so for a reason; they were country clothes adopted by the gentry for sporting use, but now are worn in non-sporting contexts.

Let's apply the same standard to the generations of urban and affluent men who have, consciously or not, usurped the country dress of the English rustic when donning tweed sports jackets and woolen pullovers for use in their daily life.

With the ascent of the two-piece business suit, collared shirt, and necktie, men have lost much of the latitude they once had in dressing, at least when dressing "well." Just to use one example, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, if they could afford it, chose from dozens of options when it came it to shirt collars (attached and detachable), where modern tailors and retailers offer, perhaps, only two or three.

The problem with this fixation is that it really does not propose to make up in any way for further restricting the already-restricted choices that men have, reducing the modest, Catholic choice as one or two ways of dressing that have happened to survive from the already-narrowed field of the 1950s. Since dress is an important element of culture and our visual communication as a society, I do not think a confident program of cultural renewal can propose to narrow acceptable dress even more than it already has been narrowed. Instead, we need to revive the entire pictorial vocabulary of outward appearance, drawing upon good sources.
I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were defending going out in undergarments.
In any case, I've never seen such a shirt so its not natural to me (its not quite globalized as you think). I thought it was one of those cases of some random dude dressing as a Bavarian peasant outside October, just because.

There are many more varieties today than I'd like. I would have thought this obsession with varieties to be a feminine trait. This is actually the first time I hear a man complaining that there's not enough variation in men's clothing (aside, of course, from fashion people or gays).

I for one tend to dress smart/academic casual because it fits more where I work than a business suit. It doesn't call much attention to myself (especially when I mix with the folks from economy or architecture departments) and its better than the sloppy star-wars t-shirt or whatever.
IDK, I don't see why something like this would be immodest.
[Image: 73641637d215ec6ba656bb8873f02893.jpg]

I could see if the guy was super muscular and his shirt was super tight to show off his body. Someone may not think it's high fashion to wear shorts and a t-shirt, but I cannot imagine such a thing would illicit lust from women. It gets hot in the summer, male shorts usually don't show off all that much and I've never heard of women being "hot" for men's legs  :LOL:.

Obviously that's an outfit that I wouldn't wear to Mass, but for normally going out and about it's not so bad compared to what a lot of people wear.

At Mass, we can argue about what's appropriate. How does one decide? Can someone wear jeans or must they only wear slacks? Is a sweater ok even though it doesn't have a collar? Dress shoes only? Is a polo fine in the summer? Must one only wear a suit? I'm sure people weren't wearing suits all throughout history.

I guess one could say that if you dress better to work than Mass, it's an issue. Others would argue that they're being forced to dress that way for work and they certainly don't like to dress like that. Others don't dress all that well for work, so what then?
well if one must, wear a nice suit with 500 doller italian shoes and american wool sox at all times and a top hat on head, with a nice white starched shirt and a black tie, at all times, that is how a gentleman dresses, or a nice wool sweeter from alex maine, some bills khakis, allen edmond shoes, capps are acceptable too, a nice custom made tie and white shirt from gitman bros, and neatly trimmed beard, and a nice leatherman at the side for those that are mr fix it, all the stuff in the second variation are american made companies or offer products that are, and are very expensive, but this is a must and the mark of a true man.

or if your going to hunt just bring a nice remmington, smith and wesson or henry rifle and wear a usa made shag suite, and you dont have to wear anything underneath your in the woods no one is going to see you lol

oh and dont forget a nice cuban cigar for the mark of a REAL MAN.  lol
(03-05-2016, 06:05 PM)GangGreen Wrote: (snip)

It gets hot in the summer, male shorts usually don't show off all that much and I've never heard of women being "hot" for men's legs  :LOL:.

You're hearing about it now:  I'm a leg woman. I love a nice set of manly gams. Most definitely. Nice calf muscles, that little dented line between the vastus lateralis and the biceps femoris --- swoon!
(03-01-2016, 05:15 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Joking aside, yes, one should not go like a bum to Mass.

If one is a bum, one should go to Mass like a bum.
(03-01-2016, 09:13 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Most men, guidos aside, do not go around with inordinate amounts of skin showing. We also don't wear tight clothing. Also, the way most men dress doesn't incite lust in women. Most women are so intoxicated on feminist hatred for men that they are thoroughly repulsed by even our existence so that makes lusting require much more than skin.

? Not so at all. The way men dress most definitely incites lust in women. And even rabid feminists (the non-lesbian ones) get turned on by men, even if they also hate them, which I believe they do.
god is more impressed by an expensive suit to show off how traditional you are rather than a polo and khakis and extra cash in the offering basket.


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)