Introducing: Joseph Like Modesty Standards!

[MarysLittleFlower]

I could freely chose to agree with Abride, and that wouldn't make it binding on everyone just because I did it.

 

Also, just for the record, I am highly unlikely to court a lady who follows strict MLM standards. Just sayin'.

 

I'm kind of curious as to why... ? there are women at my parish who follow these standards and are married. Just sayin' :)

[arfink]

Just because, I get worried about a woman who has that kind of idea about how her body looks, and how temptation works. I don't want that.

[abrideofChrist]

I guess I'm just having difficulty understanding people's reactions to that website. I woulndt' call it "propaganda".

 

 

It has been pointed out that that kind of website has an agenda.  Most MLM materials supposedly quote a Pope's decree on modesty.  That claim has been debunked.  The Latin version found in the AAS doesn't mention a single "Mary like standard".  MLM leaflets and books also quote the anonymous "Cardinal Vicar".  Again, the burden of proof is on them because no reputable scholar has found such a document.  if one actually existed, it has no legal weight because the guy is merely a vicar.  To me, using suspect materials to claim that there is a moral obligation to follow their rules is a work of propaganda.  Worse, it deforms instead of forms consciences, which is one of the worst sins you can commit. What we do have right now is a sign at St. Peters which indicates that shorts, slacks, and short sleeves are acceptable and "modest" in the Basilica!  Don't you think the thousands of priests, cardinals, bishops, nuns, and faithful would have protested to the Pope (or Vicar!) had they been scandalized by the scanty clothing?

[abrideofChrist]

I'm kind of curious as to why... ? there are women at my parish who follow these standards and are married. Just sayin' :)

 

There are millions of women in burqas and they are married.  if I were a guy, I wouldn't want to marry one.  I'd like one to enjoy the freedom of being a cherished daughter of God with clothing to match.  Conversely, there are men out there who do follow Joseph Like Modesty rules.  they are typically Arabs and I  don't see a huge rush for Catholic men to follow their dictates for modesty in their culture.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just because, I get worried about a woman who has that kind of idea about how her body looks, and how temptation works. I don't want that.

 

I don't think women who dress this way thinks that the body is evil. Nor is it so simple as "showing your elbow is equal to being naked". That's an oversimplicification, imo. I think that showing certain parts of the body can indeed tempt to lust, and some of our fashions encourage showing these parts of the body. but I don't think that of ALL parts of the body. If I wear a dress that goes to my feet, and if the sleeves cover my elbows, that's not because I think every part of the body is equally "tempting" to others: I mean, to regular guys, which is really what we're concerned about here - not those who seek out temptations or are tempted by everything. I think we should do what is reasonable. But if I cover more than this, the reason is a bit different. For example at church, it just seems proper somehow. I can't explain it fully. But I think the way you described it, that's simplifying the view and I don't think it's how people with these standards believe :)

 

For example (I'm only posting this to reply to your post, I don't want to have a debate about this on the thread) - I read about how traditionally, there are parts of the body that are considered "shameful" to show (not because they're bad, but because they're more private to be shown to a spouse, not the whole world) - nowadays people think that's just the areas the bikini covers, but actually it's proximate areas too like upper thighs. At most, this could be a stumbling block to others in terms of lust, or if people are really used to it, it could still be a distraction (I'm a girl and even I'm distracted by girls wearing short shorts in church, not for the same reason as guys of course).

 

 Then there are other parts of the body that are "semi shameful" to show, - so they wouldn't really tempt to lust directly or equally, but they can be covered just for decorum or to uphold a certain standard of values in society, so we don't go down this slippery slope that we see happening today with people baring everything. That's my understanding at least. Then lastly, the face, hands, and feet, are not on any list - and we see Our Lady shows her face, hands, and feet, in representations of her.

 

So it's not like all is equal or all leads to lust directly or equally. It's more complicated than this... what I just wrote is based on what I remember from an excerpt from a theology textbook. Disclaimer: I'm not a theologian. But somehow, it made sense - it's maybe connected to customs. Our Lady of Good Success said today would be an almost total corruption of customs and modesty would be rarely found in women - and Mary also said at Fatima that fashions would be introduced that would greatly offend God. When bikinis were made, they couldn't even find models for them and had to hire strippers. How times have changed, now almost everyone wears them. Do you see what I mean? Following the standards given there isn't like saying that wearing a skirt just at the knee is the same as wearing a bikini. It's trying to uphold certain customs. Also, personally, I've found that some types of clothing are not that bad when you're just standing, but if you walk, or sit down, bend over, etc, - people can see more and then it becomes more immodest. So the idea about wearing a longer skirt - it's also so that when a lady sits down, she's still covered.

 

I don't think the standards are that extreme though... at first they kind of seemed that way... but mid calf skirts or floor length skirts are easier to find these days, and as to the rest, it just takes some creative thought :) maybe ti's a change from our society, but it can be done using modern clothing too.

 

Sorry for this gigantic post :O I'm finding it hard to describe this in few words.

[arfink]

I would want to be able to say to my girlfriend or wife, "I think your body is beautiful, and I do not want you to hide it under a bushel-basket-dress."

There has to be a middle ground. Beauty is one of the 3 primary ways we encounter God in the world, and we are the only things in the world made in His image. We have bodies, and they are beautiful, and they reflect God. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone else around us not to hide that beauty. It must be protected, to be sure, but we must not treat it as a stumbling block.

 

These kinds of modesty standards do not reflect that reality. They are guided by the idea that the body is inherently a stumbling block for everyone except, as if by magic, married couples. There is a world of difference between protecting our dignity (with a reasonable standard of modesty that is in line with our circumstances and cultural norms) and subtly but surely subverting our dignity with unreasonable standards driven by a false notion that the body is nothing more than an occasion of sin.

[MarysLittleFlower]

It has been pointed out that that kind of website has an agenda.  Most MLM materials supposedly quote a Pope's decree on modesty.  That claim has been debunked.  The Latin version found in the AAS doesn't mention a single "Mary like standard".  MLM leaflets and books also quote the anonymous "Cardinal Vicar".  Again, the burden of proof is on them because no reputable scholar has found such a document.  if one actually existed, it has no legal weight because the guy is merely a vicar.  To me, using suspect materials to claim that there is a moral obligation to follow their rules is a work of propaganda.  Worse, it deforms instead of forms consciences, which is one of the worst sins you can commit. What we do have right now is a sign at St. Peters which indicates that shorts, slacks, and short sleeves are acceptable and "modest" in the Basilica!  Don't you think the thousands of priests, cardinals, bishops, nuns, and faithful would have protested to the Pope (or Vicar!) had they been scandalized by the scanty clothing?

personally, the standards of modesty that I try to follow aren't solely based on that one website or that singular decree. For me, it's the ideas that make sense - not whether the statement has legal weight, etc. I don't think it deforms consciences, I think our present norms in society deform consciences. I know that for myself, for the longest time I was desensitized to immodesty: simply from seeing it everywhere. And when you see people wearing bikinis, then yes skirts just to the knee seem modest: that's why people aren't scandalized, at St Peter's: but I'm talking about our society, as a whole. Maybe my post before, could help to explain my position more. I guess I'm arguing from customs and how they can be more or less perfect. I think we're talking about this website in particular but we don't have to - we can just talk about the ideas behind it all... if we look at Our Lady: is she not the perfection of modesty, chastity? So if this is the perfection, it's not just a question of "does this clothing cause lust" but a question of more perfect customs, or less perfect customs, based on how they relate to something more objective. I tried thinking about whether modesty can just be subjective, but to me it makes sense to think that there is something objective: because Our Lady said, modesty would be rarely found in women, in our age (Our Lady of Good Success apparitions, and they're approved by the Church if anyone is wondering, they were from several centuries ago, and everything else Our Lady said came true to the letter, including specific prophesies about Pope Pius IX and a Catholic President).

[ploomf]

Can I just say that as a women I very much resent it to have my body described as a stumbling block. I really really resent it. I mean I seriously resent it. These debates always make me think of this. 

 

 

[arfink]

I don't think women who dress this way thinks that the body is evil. Nor is it so simple as "showing your elbow is equal to being naked". That's an oversimplicification, imo. I think that showing certain parts of the body can indeed tempt to lust, and some of our fashions encourage showing these parts of the body. but I don't think that of ALL parts of the body. If I wear a dress that goes to my feet, and if the sleeves cover my elbows, that's not because I think every part of the body is equally "tempting" to others: I mean, to regular guys, which is really what we're concerned about here - not those who seek out temptations or are tempted by everything. I think we should do what is reasonable. But if I cover more than this, the reason is a bit different. For example at church, it just seems proper somehow. I can't explain it fully. But I think the way you described it, that's simplifying the view and I don't think it's how people with these standards believe :)

 

For example (I'm only posting this to reply to your post, I don't want to have a debate about this on the thread) - I read about how traditionally, there are parts of the body that are considered "shameful" to show (not because they're bad, but because they're more private to be shown to a spouse, not the whole world) - nowadays people think that's just the areas the bikini covers, but actually it's proximate areas too like upper thighs. At most, this could be a stumbling block to others in terms of lust, or if people are really used to it, it could still be a distraction (I'm a girl and even I'm distracted by girls wearing short shorts in church, not for the same reason as guys of course).

 

 Then there are other parts of the body that are "semi shameful" to show, - so they wouldn't really tempt to lust directly or equally, but they can be covered just for decorum or to uphold a certain standard of values in society, so we don't go down this slippery slope that we see happening today with people baring everything. That's my understanding at least. Then lastly, the face, hands, and feet, are not on any list - and we see Our Lady shows her face, hands, and feet, in representations of her.

 

So it's not like all is equal or all leads to lust directly or equally. It's more complicated than this... what I just wrote is based on what I remember from an excerpt from a theology textbook. Disclaimer: I'm not a theologian. But somehow, it made sense - it's maybe connected to customs. Our Lady of Good Success said today would be an almost total corruption of customs and modesty would be rarely found in women - and Mary also said at Fatima that fashions would be introduced that would greatly offend God. When bikinis were made, they couldn't even find models for them and had to hire strippers. How times have changed, now almost everyone wears them. Do you see what I mean? Following the standards given there isn't like saying that wearing a skirt just at the knee is the same as wearing a bikini. It's trying to uphold certain customs. Also, personally, I've found that some types of clothing are not that bad when you're just standing, but if you walk, or sit down, bend over, etc, - people can see more and then it becomes more immodest. So the idea about wearing a longer skirt - it's also so that when a lady sits down, she's still covered.

 

I don't think the standards are that extreme though... at first they kind of seemed that way... but mid calf skirts or floor length skirts are easier to find these days, and as to the rest, it just takes some creative thought :) maybe ti's a change from our society, but it can be done using modern clothing too.

 

Sorry for this gigantic post :o I'm finding it hard to describe this in few words.

 

I understand that we must walk the line. But to my way of thinking, you're always going to wind up with a solution that is too far towards "the body is a stumbling block" whenever you treat ANY part of the body as an inherent stumbling block.

 

Let me be very very blunt. The reason we do not show our genitals in public should NOT be because it's a stumbling block, but because our reproduction is sacred, and it meant to be given only in a free, faithful, total, and fruitful way.

 

Everything else is mere practicum from that point, and "standards" become meaningless outside the context of social norms. We could (and have so far done so on Phatmass) fight about what those standards are until the sun has become a cold, dark lump of actinide ash and it no longer matters because we will be incapable of seeing.

[the171]

I am so much more than a stumbling block. I am more than an occasion of sin. I am a woman, the crown of creation.

[ChristinaTherese]

I dress mostly according to said standards, just because I want to and it's how I've been raised. It's not that I think it's awful to do otherwise, it's just that I do not want to wear tight or low-cut clothing myself, and I really prefer skirts. (I normally wear jeans, however, since I use my bike to get around very often and don't want to either have my skirt either caught in the chain or flying up far too high, both of which seem extremely possible.) I would feel awkward in clothing that did not cover at least a quarter of my arms (like normal t-shirt length) or was very much above my knees (and I want to be able to run and climb trees and basically do whatever I jolly well want to in my skirts, so they're almost always long and wide). But this is neither to say that I want to wear anything approaching a gunny sack (I tailor my clothes (yes, I sew my skirts, dresses, and the shirts I wear most) to be pretty fitted) nor that I think others are any less [insert noun here] because they dress differently (goodness, some of my best friends do so on a regular basis, and I respect them no less for it).

 

Oh, and I really don't care if you or any other man would want to date me. In fact, I would prefer that nobody did. (Which is not the case.... Sigh.) :P

Edited May 11, 2013 by Christina Thérèse

[Nihil Obstat]

This strikes me as somewhat non-parallel to its counterpart. :P

[MarysLittleFlower]

There are millions of women in burqas and they are married.  if I were a guy, I wouldn't want to marry one.  I'd like one to enjoy the freedom of being a cherished daughter of God with clothing to match.  Conversely, there are men out there who do follow Joseph Like Modesty rules.  they are typically Arabs and I  don't see a huge rush for Catholic men to follow their dictates for modesty in their culture.

 

I don't know much about why they were burqas. I only have my own ideas for my own modesty standards. I don't feel "enslaved", I feel much more free than I did before. Mary-like modesty doesn't mean exactly copying Mary's dress (though it's beautiful and I would be glad to, personally) - it can be done with today's clothing it might just take a bit of work (but for example, a longer dress with a cardigan, is Mary-like, imo.) The MLM standards on the website aren't talking about dressing in burqas - they are much, much more relaxed than that... I don't see how they are extreme.

 

 

I would want to be able to say to my girlfriend or wife, "I think your body is beautiful, and I do not want you to hide it under a bushel-basket-dress."

There has to be a middle ground. Beauty is one of the 3 primary ways we encounter God in the world, and we are the only things in the world made in His image. We have bodies, and they are beautiful, and they reflect God. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone else around us not to hide that beauty. It must be protected, to be sure, but we must not treat it as a stumbling block.

 

These kinds of modesty standards do not reflect that reality. They are guided by the idea that the body is inherently a stumbling block for everyone except, as if by magic, married couples. There is a world of difference between protecting our dignity (with a reasonable standard of modesty that is in line with our circumstances and cultural norms) and subtly but surely subverting our dignity with unreasonable standards driven by a false notion that the body is nothing more than an occasion of sin.

 

 

I have tried to explain in my post before, that it's not about every part of the body being a stumbling block at least not equally. It's not that simple. Nor does it talk about dressing in burqas. Take a look at the standards... just cover knees and a bit lower, shoulders... doesn't seem that intense :) I think it's just reasonable... there's nothing unreasonable there, imo.

 

Take a look at Mary... is she not the most beautiful of God's creatures? :) I think if we want to see what feminine beauty is, what perfected feminine beauty is, we should look at her example. She is covered, her dresses are very modest, this doesn't take away from her beauty at all. In fact, it highlights her innocence and internal modesty. I think beauty comes from within... I don't think we need to show a certain level of skin, to be beautiful. Isn't there a reason, why Mary dresses as she does? In her apparitions, she has different clothing, but it's always equally modest. Why not look to Mary? why to our culture? What is more of God? :) and the modesty standards don't even tell us to dress as modestly as her  - for example, head coverings or sleeves to the wrists are not mentioned, and skirts are approved to be mid calf... it seems to me like it's kind of the minimum... and Mary is the perfection of virtue. Nuns' habits are similar to what she wears as well :) but in our culture, the minimum is the bikini.... I just ended up questioning our culture after thinking through all this.

 

I don't want to just debate, I can tell you what I believe but I can't make you think like I do, - that's not my job anyway. Just maybe ask Jesus for light on this :) I'm not saying I FOR SURE have it right either...I just hope, that I understood it correctly. But I noticed, it's brought me peace, and before I never even thought much about modesty.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Can I just say that as a women I very much resent it to have my body described as a stumbling block. I really really resent it. I mean I seriously resent it. These debates always make me think of this. 

 

 

I think it's like that not because our bodies are bad but because we are all fallen human beings. The guys around us, are fallen, like us. So yes we can cause others to stumble, because of sin in us, not because of the body itself, which is not evil. It's not because of the body. I think we should all help each other: guys are responsible if they consent to a sin, but if a girl presents that battle to his mind, that's a problem too... I just think it's loving, to dress modestly :) it doesnt mean you can only wear a bag... we can wear normal clothes, - not tight doesn't mean - a shapeless bag.

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[arfink]

Read my other post. I am saying you can't call any part of the body a stumbling block, because that is not what the body is, and to do so undermines the dignity of the human body, and thus of the human person.

 

What I am trying to say is, if you don't start with the proper understanding of what modesty is for, it will be twisted into a form of objectification no matter how many times anyone says the standards are reasonable.

Edited May 11, 2013 by arfink