Typical!
#41
(07-09-2019, 09:51 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: In the spirit of honesty, is the bold really true? 
I'm not sure why you're questioning my "honesty."  I write what I mean, and I'm saying that every Catholic is required by the Church and by the Commandments to develop self-discipline when it comes to the Capital Sin of Lust.  It's not an option.  Men.  Women.  The fact that women tend to be tempted by different "stimulants" than men are is neither here nor there.  Men may be more tempted by visual images because of the way they are biologically programmed, but that programming does not excuse indulgence of lust, any more than women's propensity to gossip excuses us from developing self-control of the tongue and of our curiosity, not to mention mastery over the Capital Sin of Envy.  Temptations do not give Catholics license to indulge in disordered behavior.  I know that at my parish, temptations arise all the time to indulge in Pride, Envy, and uncharitable triumphalism by contributing to gossip.  Women don't have the "right" to be free from such temptations only in a church environment, just as men don't have the right to be free from all visual temptations in the same environment. Men and women, deal with it.  We are commanded to resist temptation and are given grace opportunities for that purpose.  The grace is always available to resist temptation.  What the Muslims do to hide women's female form says more about what low expectations they have of men than anything else.

A normally but modestly clothed female form still looks -- hello -- feminine.  Catholic women have never been commanded to hide their forms so as not to be recognizably female.  Any man or woman who goes around ordering Catholic women to wear formless clothes is out of line; there's no such dogma.  And any man who claims he can't control himself or that it is unjust for women to look like actual (modest) women at church is a man with a problem. He is the one who would need to work on himself.

I don't wish to respond to your graphic language, nor do I believe that my reply invited such language.  And I don't really want to discuss off-topic matters such as prostitution or different time periods.
Reply
#42
Quote:My two cents on the issue for what its worth.... I often wonder if our excessive focus on this matter tempts women to rock the boat for the sake of attention even if negative. Or perhaps we (as men) revealed our hand by showing how much power the sight of naked female flesh has over us. I've accepted this is my cross to bare in life and if a woman doesn't give a darn about that, it says more about her character than mine. Being hyper-vulnerable to female influence is what keeps a husband in the know as far as his wife is concerned, and allows him to check out the daily drudgery rapidly to focus on her. The double edge sword is that thanks to sin sometimes its difficult to keep other women from exploiting that knowingly, unknowingly, obstinately, or ignorantly. Over time though I have come to terms with the fact though that most women who feel so "empowered" by advertising their body are trying to divert your attention from their otherwise nasty or unpleasant personality. A nice body is great, but it gets old after awhile (literally) especially if the woman has a rancid personality. 

Take Taylor Swift for instance. By society's standard (and many guys) the skinny blonde that struts around in tight clothes with provocative moves should be a trophy. If I saw her stark naked you might as well pronounce me dead by. my reaction. She is a rancid snappy feminist whose time I would find of less value than a rock.

Alphonse approves.

[Image: th?id=OIP.5h8H3cnfgM4oFrN7XWn-cwHaGL&pid...=210&h=176]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#43
(07-08-2019, 03:31 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: There are plenty of dresses out there that go to the ankles and down the arm to the wrists if that’s what you want. There are plenty of those same dresses that don’t have a plunging neckline. I’ve seen plenty of women’s clothes that are attractive, yet modest and inexpensive. I swear it’s like some women go out of their way to be as plain as possible. Women like that do not look modest, they look like they are ashamed of themselves for simply being.
OK.  Here's a thought experiment that may be fruitful and even fun.  Guys, you say you never get to "win" the modesty argument in your families, that when you do see a family of modestly dressed ladies show up to church they look like they are straight off the set of Little House; fair enough.  I agree: "Frump Fest" is an issue at TLM parishes.  But if I were honest, I have a hard time finding things that look nice, modern, and feminine while also being modest.  I would swear that fashion designers think all women are prostitutes.  So, at least this lady needs some help.  That leads me to the challenge.

You win!  You get to choose an outfit or two and give us your opinions as to what you like - and why.
What would you have us wear?  I am genuinely curious and am not doing this to be nasty.

Credidi, you say you know where to find these mythical clothes that are at once modest, nice looking and inexpensive.  Where?  Help a girl out!  I'm 5'7" tall and a size 10.  The majority of the stuff I find online that's inexpensive is made for a Chinese woman who is around 5'2".  So, what's modest for her is either immodestly short on me or the proportions are wrong.  Do I even need to mention the differences in proportion in terms of hips and bust?  American and European women are way more curvy than our oriental counterparts.

I see women dressed immodestly at Mass all the time, but am in absolutely no position to judge.  I have been one of those women who wears (GASP!) pants to Mass.  Now, I don't do it to be irreverent but rather because things may have gone so wrong that morning that those were the only clothes I could manage and still be (a) clean and (b) on time for Mass.  Have pity on me and give me some pointers because there are days when it's all I can do to half sleep walk into Mass.  The win for the day may be that all my children are clean, dressed appropriately, and we are all there.
Adoption, Home School, and Catholic Family Life:  StolenPears.com
[-] The following 1 user Likes Fontevrault's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#44
(07-10-2019, 04:02 PM)Fontevrault    Credidi, you say you know where to find these mythical clothes that are at once modest, nice looking and inexpensive.  Where?  Help a girl out! Wrote: I see women dressed immodestly at Mass all the time, but am in absolutely no position to judge.  I have been one of those women who wears (GASP!) pants to Mass.  Now, I don't do it to be irreverent but rather because things may have gone so wrong that morning that those were the only clothes I could manage and still be (a) clean and (b) on time for Mass.  Have pity on me and give me some pointers because there are days when it's all I can do to half sleep walk into Mass.  The win for the day may be that all my children are clean, dressed appropriately, and we are all there.

Some facts:
Fontevrault is correct regarding the difficulty of modest yet attractive, feminine clothes.  They seem to be either tiny or "Plus"-size.  And I do not define "attractive" as shapeless, for reasons I have already stated.  If they fit around the torso, they are also mini-length, most often -- therefore, unacceptable to wear to Mass.  If they are long enough, they are most often ill-fitting around the middle -- the waist, if a skirt; the whole torso, if a dress.

Just because someone has observed feminine-yet-modest clothing at Mass does not mean that acquiring them has been an easy task.  I know a trad woman who has to sew her own (beautiful and feminine) clothes, because most of what she sees out there is unacceptable for one reason or another, and she is definitely within norms, size-wise, so she shouldn't have to go through what she does.  The current fashion is mostly slutty, and when one looks for alternates, they are elusive.  (You'll find a great style that serves this purpose, only to discover that's the one style that pleases half of the females on the globe; therefore, only sizes 2 and 20 remain in inventory.)  The latter is mostly my problem:  the only modest styles are sold out of my size when I do find them.

The only "pity" suggestions I have for Fontevrault is to relentlessly look for skirts and dresses so that you have a larger quantity of them in your wardrobe than you do pants.  I no longer have pants in my wardrobe, other than work-out sweatpants for strictly that purpose and no other.  (I don't wear gym clothes anywhere but the gym.)  Therefore, my options on Sundays are skirts or skirts.  OTOH, dressing "nicely" takes planning.  Many a Sunday I have worn a less favorite skirt (or top) because I hadn't, earlier in the week, or Saturday, looked at my clothes and set aside a Sunday outfit before Sunday morning.  My children are older now but I have other responsibilities before Mass that make dressing sometimes just as challenging/time-consuming as it is for mothers with young children.  If all my Sunday clothes were dirty or unpressed on Sunday morning, I would always be late for Mass.

(Sorry for messing up the formatting of my reply.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Miriam_M's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#45
(07-09-2019, 02:13 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(07-08-2019, 03:31 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Prudishness is not better than immodesty. They are both vices in opposite extremes.

I certainly agree with this, and I do think there is a confusion among the traditionalist communities and coming from one traditional Order as well.  That Order recently published something very close to this paraphrase:  "At no time, and in absolutely no way, should a woman ever dress as to reveal her shape."

Excuse me?  God created a shape He wanted forever hidden?  

As a traditionalist woman I cannot disagree more with the above paraphrase.  A woman's shape -- if attractive -- glorifies God.  While it's not necessary to wear Lycra, it's also not necessary to wear a burka in order to be modest.

It is not incumbent upon women to protect men from the necessity of developing custody of the mind, eyes, and heart.  This 21st century world is filled with temptations to the flesh -- the vast majority of them not present in Catholic churches but on the local and national news, in images on the Internet (and I don't mean visited porn), and while merely walking down the street or stepping into a grocery store.  We women, as well as men, might well have to develop our own custody of the senses because we are prone to verbal incitements and temptations, as well as visual.  Men are not required to wear oversized shirts and baggy pants just because I happen to be very attracted to chests, backs, and the rear ends of men who are basically in shape. If I can't control my wandering eyes and heart when around a nicely proportioned man, it is my problem, not his.

For some of us shapely women, it is indeed very difficult to find clothes which are modest but not actually ugly or ill-fitting.  I'm not going to wear a sack of potatoes for the sake of any man who wants a Catholic church to be the one place that women do not look like women -- and I don't mean sluts.

In the natural order of things, the reason people need to develop custody of the mind, etc. is due to our injured nature.  That's also why Adam and Eve clothed themselves.  You can't separate one from the other.  There is a normal appreciation of masculine and feminine beauty that affects most people.  This is why we consider a modesty of dress AND custody of our physical senses and imagination.  Both. 

There is also the abnormal appreciation of masculine and feminine beauty that requires a greater personal custody of one's senses and imagination.  The general population can't help what sets folks off with this affliction, and often can't even know.  It's incumbent on these folks to develop greater protections for when they go out into public.

It is only your problem being affected in a normal fashion by masculine beauty if it is properly and modestly clad, and you fail to guard yourself knowing your weaknesses and temptations.  However, a man would share in the problem if he has failed to clad himself in a modest fashion.  Likewise with men affected in a normal fashion by feminine beauty.

Men and women both can't be excused by the "custody of the eyes" proposition if they choose to prance about in public immodestly.

Anyone who's requiring women to wear potato sacks is being disingenuous about what modesty requires of women by pushing his/her own hangups on women.  It is possible by craft and frugal purchasing to dress both modestly and feminine in the USA.  The question simply is, what does the standard of modesty require in this regard?
Reply
#46
(07-10-2019, 05:01 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(07-10-2019, 04:02 PM)Fontevrault    Credidi, you say you know where to find these mythical clothes that are at once modest, nice looking and inexpensive.  Where?  Help a girl out! Wrote: I see women dressed immodestly at Mass all the time, but am in absolutely no position to judge.  I have been one of those women who wears (GASP!) pants to Mass.  Now, I don't do it to be irreverent but rather because things may have gone so wrong that morning that those were the only clothes I could manage and still be (a) clean and (b) on time for Mass.  Have pity on me and give me some pointers because there are days when it's all I can do to half sleep walk into Mass.  The win for the day may be that all my children are clean, dressed appropriately, and we are all there.

Some facts:
Fontevrault is correct regarding the difficulty of modest yet attractive, feminine clothes.  They seem to be either tiny or "Plus"-size.  And I do not define "attractive" as shapeless, for reasons I have already stated.  If they fit around the torso, they are also mini-length, most often -- therefore, unacceptable to wear to Mass.  If they are long enough, they are most often ill-fitting around the middle -- the waist, if a skirt; the whole torso, if a dress.

Just because someone has observed feminine-yet-modest clothing at Mass does not mean that acquiring them has been an easy task.  I know a trad woman who has to sew her own (beautiful and feminine) clothes, because most of what she sees out there is unacceptable for one reason or another, and she is definitely within norms, size-wise, so she shouldn't have to go through what she does.  The current fashion is mostly slutty, and when one looks for alternates, they are elusive.  (You'll find a great style that serves this purpose, only to discover that's the one style that pleases half of the females on the globe; therefore, only sizes 2 and 20 remain in inventory.)  The latter is mostly my problem:  the only modest styles are sold out of my size when I do find them.

The only "pity" suggestions I have for Fontevrault is to relentlessly look for skirts and dresses so that you have a larger quantity of them in your wardrobe than you do pants.  I no longer have pants in my wardrobe, other than work-out sweatpants for strictly that purpose and no other.  (I don't wear gym clothes anywhere but the gym.)  Therefore, my options on Sundays are skirts or skirts.  OTOH, dressing "nicely" takes planning.  Many a Sunday I have worn a less favorite skirt (or top) because I hadn't, earlier in the week, or Saturday, looked at my clothes and set aside a Sunday outfit before Sunday morning.  My children are older now but I have other responsibilities before Mass that make dressing sometimes just as challenging/time-consuming as it is for mothers with young children.  If all my Sunday clothes were dirty or unpressed on Sunday morning, I would always be late for Mass.

(Sorry for messing up the formatting of my reply.)


I hear what you're saying, but I believe it was St. Thomas who said that modesty is distinct from temperance because everything under the virtue of modesty is easy to achieve. 

I believe that by craft and frugal purchases, one can easily assemble a modest wardrobe for him or herself.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux
Reply
#47
I never suggested that modesty is not necessary.  Otherwise, why would I have posted so much about the difficulty of finding Sunday-appropriate (or any day appropriate, for that matter) feminine clothing?

I'm saying that the complaints I have read and heard from some Catholic men is that women are responsible for ensuring that men are not tempted.  This is false, on many fronts, because both men and women have control over our cooperation with occasions of sin.  If every woman at Mass dressed ultra-modestly for the sensitivities of every man there (including every teenage male, and good luck with that), there would be a woman out of the periphery of the parish, before or after Mass, who dressed "seductively," whether conscious of that or not.  Temptations to every Capital Sin abound in our modern life, with lust being only one of them.  One of the most offensive occasions of sin is the magazine rack in the grocery store line, which we have probably all distastefully encountered.  Although some Catholic activists have tried to address this issue with store managers and corporations, they have largely failed.  What I do is look straight ahead; if I do not, the slutty covers and provocative article titles will affect me.  If one accidentally falls on the floor or conveyor belt in my view, I have a choice to look the other way, turn it over quickly, etc.  If I find myself so affected, so sensitive, that I "cannot" help bringing some images and words into my heart and allowing my imagination to cultivate them, then I have a bigger problem than censorship can subdue.  It means I have not sufficiently developed my spirituality (prayer defenses, prayer reflexes, which we are told to use in time of temptation).

And it is in the nature of the TLM to include at least one newcomer each Sunday -- which might be a man wearing flip-flops and basketball shorts or a woman unaware of what's expected in terms of her appearance.  We cannot "control" an entire crowd of Mass attendees.  Some people tempt me to anger; others to pride.  Too bad for me: I'd better learn to resist occasions of sin with the help of Our Blessed Mother, always available to me and to all men.

Women should dress modestly for multiple reasons, only one of which is not to contribute to occasions of sin.  Mainly, a woman should dress modestly because of the solemn nature of the occasion, out of respect for all of the other attendees at Mass, to set a good example for other women, and to affirm within herself her own chastity, modesty, etc.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Miriam_M's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#48
(07-10-2019, 05:42 PM)yablabo Wrote: I hear what you're saying, but I believe it was St. Thomas who said that modesty is distinct from temperance because everything under the virtue of modesty is easy to achieve. 

I believe that by craft and frugal purchases, one can easily assemble a modest wardrobe for him or herself.

You may "believe" it, but you are wrong about the "easily" part.  It is possible, most often with difficulty.  That is because we do not live in either a modest or temperate age.  This is not about parsing definitions but about the reality of the sensory-indulgent and sensory-"entitled" age in which we live.
Reply
#49
(07-10-2019, 06:05 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(07-10-2019, 05:42 PM)yablabo Wrote: I hear what you're saying, but I believe it was St. Thomas who said that modesty is distinct from temperance because everything under the virtue of modesty is easy to achieve. 

I believe that by craft and frugal purchases, one can easily assemble a modest wardrobe for him or herself.

You may "believe" it, but you are wrong about the "easily" part.  It is possible, most often with difficulty.  That is because we do not live in either a modest or temperate age.  This is not about parsing definitions but about the reality of the sensory-indulgent and sensory-"entitled" age in which we live.

Browsing the Jewish women's apparel online gives an opposing view.

I've personally built an entire wardrobe buying singular items from Mod Li, Modcloth, Roaman's, Walmart and Wrapunzel.  Some items do need to be altered upon arrival, but that's mostly finding a complementary fabric to add a couple inches to a hem-line.  I layer the majority of my clothes regardless of whether it's 120 F out or not: e.g., wearing a long sleeve or 3/4 sleeve layering tee if necessary.

I'd suggest to check out wrapunzel.com.  The models are all modestly dressed and do not come across as frumpy.
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux, St.Eliza
Reply
#50
Yes, well, that store does not sell clothing but the head wraps - which are cool by the way.
Adoption, Home School, and Catholic Family Life:  StolenPears.com
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)