Introducing: Joseph Like Modesty Standards!

[EmilyAnn]

First things first: if you choose to dress like these "Mary-like standards" then that's your choice. Before anyone gets mad at me, I am not attacking that choice. 

 

1. These standards are, to the best of my research, fraudulent. There are two different dates cited, with two different cardinal vicars as the supposed author. I can find absolutely no original source for the material, it is only found on sites promoting it. 

2. Even if they were not fraudulent, that does not make them Church teaching. Even if that was the cardinal vicar's opinion, no-one would held to those standards.

3. They imply that women who do not adhere to these fictitious standards are immodest. In my eyes, the attitude that seems to come hand in hand with these standards is the Catholic equivalent of "slut-shaming". 

4. I strongly oppose the labelling of such standards as "Mary-like". Putting that label on them is just a block against criticism - you can't criticise the standards because then you'd be criticising the Blessed Mother. It's to make them seem sacrosanct, and they're not.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Modern women do more than those in previous centuries. Fashions change for a reason. I agree. Some of the fashions aren't too savory, but some of the changes are necessary.

I run, I swim, I work, and I do a lot more. Fashions have changed. We can follow the fashions without being immodest. We must be dynamic.

 

I'm trying to think about this.... honestly, I'm trying to think, really carefully.

 

There's the freemason quote I posted that indicates that maybe the whole idea that we need more revealing fashions to do certain things, is more like just something we've been told. The Pope also said, if we are doing something and can't be dressed modestly, it's better to give it up. How do we know why gender roles changed too. I'm not saying women should not do anything at all... but I think it's possible to do a great many things in a skirt, even a long skirt :) like how nuns do everything in their habits. I've seen a picture of a figure skater from long ago wearing a long (really flared) skirt, and skating. Today, they wear leotards. I think we can do more in skirts than we might think :) I mean, I guess i'm sort of testing that lol... :P I wouldn't say that it's necessary... I'm just thinking of the quote too, "the good of the soul is more important than the good of the body". This can relate to the change in conscience formation, level of sensitivity, etc, as well, this also relates to virtue and sin and good of the individual souls in a society.

 

I'm trying to think of what we do for which we need to follow only the new fashions (I don't mean modern looking modest fashons, but the new cultural standards). I work too... In my job, i can wear a longer skirt (like I'm not a construction worker, is what i'm saying). According to one of the Popes, we don't need to have public beaches with men and women together.. I used to wear a bikini on the beach btw. I just began questioning it after, mostly based on my own conscience. Sometimes, my family has gone camping and went swimming at a lake where no one else is around. I don't think we have to give up absolutely everything, just choose certain situations and not others, perhaps, but if we do have to give something up, I think we should. For example, if I can't swim and be modest at the same time, I think it's not worth it and it's better to just not swim (or whatever). This is just my own perspective. But I see the Pope said this too so that's why I believe this way.

 

Thinking aloud again...

[EmilyAnn]

 I've seen a picture of a figure skater from long ago wearing a long (really flared) skirt, and skating. Today, they wear leotards. I think we can do more in skirts than we might think :) I mean, I guess i'm sort of testing that lol... 

You are clearly not a figure skater. I am, and very long skirts are quite frankly dangerous to a skater. In a lot of spins/lifts/jumps a long skirt could very easily get caught on your blades and cause you to fall. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

First things first: if you choose to dress like these "Mary-like standards" then that's your choice. Before anyone gets mad at me, I am not attacking that choice. 

 

1. These standards are, to the best of my research, fraudulent. There are two different dates cited, with two different cardinal vicars as the supposed author. I can find absolutely no original source for the material, it is only found on sites promoting it. 

2. Even if they were not fraudulent, that does not make them Church teaching. Even if that was the cardinal vicar's opinion, no-one would held to those standards.

3. They imply that women who do not adhere to these fictitious standards are immodest. In my eyes, the attitude that seems to come hand in hand with these standards is the Catholic equivalent of "silly sally-shaming". 

4. I strongly oppose the labelling of such standards as "Mary-like". Putting that label on them is just a block against criticism - you can't criticise the standards because then you'd be criticising the Blessed Mother. It's to make them seem sacrosanct, and they're not.

 

EmilyAnn, what i've been trying to do is not look at the website itself, or the quotes themselves, but the ideas behind them, which could be thought about theologically, socially, etc. It really wouldn't change anything for me, if the particular quote about Mary-like standards was not used in the argument, because my view is based on much more than just that one quote. As for what is Church teaching, since i'm not a priest, Bishop, Cardinal, or the Pope, I can't give a Church teaching or teach in the name of the Church. I'm just trying to examine things as to their effects on society, etc. I'm not aware of having said anything against Church teaching... if I have, someone please correct me. But what I said seems to be in line with Tradition and also with history. We can just consider... how Christian women have always dressed vs how our society tells us to dress... we can just ask, why did thse changes occur. Does it seem odd to anyone else that they did? I don't know if others feel similarly here. But I just think that it's odd.

 

I don't see any "silly sally-shaming" in this. If we beleive in objective truth, we need to believe that certain things are true, and certain things are not. Something is either immodest or not. We can judge fashions to be immodest or not. We can't judge people's hearts or their level of knowledge etc. that's for God to know. But we can say: this is immodest.. or this is modest... because we're talking about clothing here, not something that we can't observe like the soul. This is judging facts, about our society, not judging people. If there's a temptation to judge people, then we should say no to that temptation. I don't know.. I see a difference between saying "this particular outfit is immodest" and commenting on the condition or choices of a woman's soul. There was a time when I dressed fairly immodestly but I believed I was modest. I think really deep inside, I didn't feel really comfortable, because in church I was aware of my clothing, rather than it sort of blending it like it does if you wear something really modest. (In my experience at least). In addition, because of our society being desensitied to modesty, someone could have a great intention and really try to be modest, - and even if it's not truly Mary-like, they are acting based on what they know, so we really can't talk about their hearts and leave that to God. But talking about outfits, separate from individuals, I think that is different ?

 

as for calling them "Mary-like", I dont know what else to call them, because indeed, they do seem more Mary-like to me. That's what I think of them, personally. I don't think anyone here is intending to dishonour the Blessed Mother, of course. We all love Mary :) I just really do think, certain clothes are more Mary-like, and certain are less so, so I'm not sure what else to call them and still keep the meaning of it. Because for me, the meaning relates to emulating our Blessed Mother.

 

Maybe in this thread, we can refer to them just as the "standards" and then if someone agrees they are Mary-like, they can use that term.

[MarysLittleFlower]

You are clearly not a figure skater. I am, and very long skirts are quite frankly dangerous to a skater. In a lot of spins/lifts/jumps a long skirt could very easily get caught on your blades and cause you to fall. 

 

Maybe I'm not a professional figure skater (I've skated in figure skates my whole life though), - but I did see a photo (an old photo) of a figure skating champion from around a century ago, and she definitely wore a long flared skirt. Maybe the moves have changed since then and they would not have done the same jumps, spins, etc. She was skating on one leg, the other extended behind her. Maybe they only added all the complicated moves afterwards. I wish I could find that picture just out of interest now. Anyways... I don't think it needs to be leotards. :) The Pope said also if something includes immodest clothing, it's our duty to give it up, just as a point.

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[the171]

Sorry, I can't give up running. It's for health. Even popes had opinions.

[MarysLittleFlower]

We can still dress modestly for running I think :) I tried to figure it out when I went roller blading, - that's still in progress :P

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[the171]

I can't run in a skirt. I cannot run in pants. Shorts are really the only way to go.

[the171]

I'm not saying what I wear is immodest. I think I am modest in my shorts. I KNOW I am modest in my shorts.

[MarysLittleFlower]

why only shorts? (if you feel comfortable answering! if not, don't worry :)).

[MarysLittleFlower]

THE171, I hope it's kind of more clear what i've been trying to talk about here: I mean the general topic. I'm not talking ONLY about - would a certain outfit tempt a guy on the street. I'm talking about contributing or not to the way our culture has changed/is changing and how this affects conscience, sensitivity to morals, ETC. In the end, this affects temptation and sin too. Since shorts are everywhere, maybe longer shorts won't surprise anyone (though I do think short shorts must be distracting, even to girls). My question is more like: should shorts be an article of clothing to be worn on its own... etc. Why do we have this... how did things change over time... how does this affect people, the formation of the conscience, morals, the future moral development of society, etc. It's kind of a general topic I guess so I haven't been talking about individuals (can't do that anyway) - but since society is made up of individuals and since human souls is what matters, I guess it's something to just pray about and ask God to help see His will. This is what I'm trying to do, sometimes it's hard to be really open but I found asking for the intercession of Our Lady and the Saints has helped. I'm not expecting anyone to start agreeing with me just because I said these things - it's not like I'm a leader of the Church. I'm just giving topics for discussion and if anyone is interested, maybe pray about it, ask God, because He knows all things and the truth on everything. :) I just found that for myself, I felt more at peace not participating in the standards of dress that came to be recently, because of the effects, and because of how they came to be. I just felt more at peace so that's why I started wearing longer skirts, that's all. :)

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[EmilyAnn]

Maybe I'm not a professional figure skater (I've skated in figure skates my whole life though), - but I did see a photo (an old photo) of a figure skating champion from around a century ago, and she definitely wore a long flared skirt. Maybe the moves have changed since then and they would not have done the same jumps, spins, etc. She was skating on one leg, the other extended behind her. Maybe they only added all the complicated moves afterwards. I wish I could find that picture just out of interest now. Anyways... I don't think it needs to be leotards. :) The Pope said also if something includes immodest clothing, it's our duty to give it up, just as a point.

That move is called a spiral, and it's not dangerous to do in a long skirt. 

 

This is called a sit spin:

 

A woman doing a sit spin in a long skirt would be disastrous. I could go on. 

[the171]

I've seen women who tried the sit spin in a long skirt. They bit the ice.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Sure, I wouldn't argue with that.

 

I guess the question would be, - why was it necessary to think of this move, if it requires women to wear what would be considered immodest clothing, assuming the changes last century have not been for the better, etc. (I mean assuming the standards truly reflect a level of modesty that has been forgotten).

 

I know some might say - like I'm arguing against the development of a sport, etc, - but if the good of the soul is more important..... etc.

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[EmilyAnn]

Sure, I wouldn't argue with that.

 

I guess the question would be, - why was it necessary to think of this move, if it requires women to wear what would be considered immodest clothing based on "the standards", etc.

Why do you hold "the standards" as objective modesty, assuming all things outside them are immodest?