Covering Shoulders

[julianneoflongbeach]

Why is this at all necessary anywhere? I have never thought bare shoulders were sexual in any way shape or form. I've never met, or even heard, of a guy going, "Oh baby! look at those shoulders! Gotta get me some of that." Yet more and more women cover their shoulders as a matter of course, at least in church. How is this a issue?

[BarbTherese]

Mine goes back to pre V2 education by Dominican nuns - bare shoulders and sleeveless dresses? ..... absolutely not!  Never really got over it.

[NadaTeTurbe]

I've never seen a women covering her shoulders because of this  Sounds a little islamist for me... 

[Lilllabettt]

the suggestion that "more and more women" are covering "their shoulders as a matter of course, at least in church," out of a growing sense of modesty is hilarious. If such a  trend exists in a western state, please call the world media to inform them of this breaking news.

Unless you are wearing a floor length gown, bare arms and uncovered shoulders are more informal and casual than not. 

I do not uncover my arms and shoulders at work because I would be under-dressed. Not because I think my coworkers would consider me a hot tottie. And this is only fair. If a man wore a sleeveless shirt in my office, he would be disciplined for dressing unprofessionally. Hardly fair for women here to wear sleeveless dresses w/o a sweater or something.

Are more people choosing to "dress up" for Church? I seriously doubt that as well. In my opinion the only believable cause for such a trend would be the weather turning colder.

Maybe you should ask yourself why other people's clothing choices bother you so much?

 

[truthfinder]

Lillabettt has described it well - I would have used the would 'un-dressed' but under-dressed is probably the better sentiment.  Remember that modesty is more than about preventing sexual attraction in another.  It's much broader and encompasses dressing appropriately for the environment in which we find ourselves.  Wearing sweat pantaloons and a fingertip length shirt certainly covers 'everything' but it's not modest or respectful if that's what I show up in to teach a class.  Nor would wearing a ballgown, regardless of how covering it is, because I am expected to look at least somewhat professional. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

"dressing appropriately for the environment in which we find ourselves" For me, it's not even modesty, it's... common sense ? Education ? Manners ? I think of modesty as an attitude (not only clothing) that doesn't draw attention to yourself. Dressing appropriately is a part of it (I don't dress the same way if I go to the Lubavitch synagogue, or if go to a normal synagogue). This is a problem that facespeople who come from unprivileged background : they don't know how to dress for a job interview, for a job, another kind of job... Understanding how people dress and why, and being able to imitate them if necessary is a very important social skill. 

[Archaeology cat]

I'm in Florida - bare shoulders are normal. Most of my dresses are sleeveless, and yet are still dressy.

[julianneoflongbeach]

There are catholic churches near where I live (near L.A., city of lasciviousness) that actually have signs describing how people should dress in church. Like "no shorts on women, cover knees, cover shoulders" ala Mormonville. And, yes, there are plenty of women even in SoCal in the 90+ degrees heat that are all, "you look naked from behind in the pews if your shoulders aren't covered; you're being distracting and immodest, blah blah".

I don't care what other people wear, but I'm bothered by others trying to tell me what to wear. Bare shoulders on women is not the same thing as on guys. I have plenty of very nice "tanks" that would be perfectly acceptable in an office environment, are modest, and not at all sloppy. But more and more people are coming out of the woodwork saying that's not only unacceptable but immoral to wear everywhere.

And the primary reason this got me riled is that there is no apparent reason, from a logical religious standpoint, why that would be true and people, Catholics, are still acting like that. I can accept anything that makes sense. This doesn't.

[beatitude]

Churches will sometimes set dress guidelines. I've noticed that they tend to do it more in areas with a high number of tourists, especially in places where people come straight from the beach into Mass. It is up to the discretion of the individual church, and I think it is intended to remind people that they are entering sacred space, not as a judgment. If the churches were demanding that you only wear skirts and your neckline can't go lower than an inch and you must have flat shoes, I'd be getting concerned, but no shorts and no bare shoulders does not seem like an unreasonable thing to ask.

If I see someone in church who is wearing something that personally I don't find church-appropriate, I wouldn't assume anything about them, good or bad. But I think we need to extend the same charity to churches who have felt the need to give some guidelines on dress, because usually there are reasons why they have done so. If you pray in one of those churches (and I find it difficult to believe that every single church in California has these standards) then what does it cost you to wear something other than shorts and a tank top when you go? Where is the harm to you?

If you feel comfortable in tank tops outside church, then no one has the right to tell you not to wear them. The debate on clothes like that is nothing new and everyone has an opinion. It can get frustrating, but it's best ignored.

[Gabriela]

Oh look, a modesty thread.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Actually, wearing reasonably modest clothing in a Catholic church isn't a new thing. It's been around for awhile. When I was married in the Catholic church (yes, in LA), brides were not allowed to wear sleeveless (much less strapless) wedding gowns. Apparently that rule has changed in many parishes.

To me, it's not a question of modesty so much as it is a question of dressing appropriately and respectfully for the occasion. Just as you wouldn't wear shorts and a tank top to a religious wedding in a church, that also makes sense for a Mass. There was a time when people dressed in their best clothes to go to church. That custom no longer applies, but the question still remains of what is appropriate for church.

How tough would it be to have a couple of short-sleeved blouses that you could wear with a skirt to Mass? Since stockings are no longer required (at least in SoCal) this outfit wouldn't be overly hot. By the same token, I'd also expect men to wear long pantaloons and a short-sleeved shirt to Mass. Personally, I don't want to see people's armpits at church. 

However, if, as Beatitude said, you feel comfortable enough to wear tank tops to work (although many workplaces do not allow them), then why do you let the opinion of others at Mass bother you? Just remember that the other people at Mass didn't come up with the "no tank top" idea all on their own. It's been a custom in Catholic churches for a long time. 

 

Edited August 24, 2015 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[CrossCuT]

The dress code at my workplace is business casual and I have seen women on many occasions wear sleeveless shirts and it looks totally fine.

[Ice_nine]

The dress code at my workplace is business casual and I have seen women on many occasions wear sleeveless shirts and it looks totally fine.

harlots!

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think the Catholic understanding of modesty of dress has two purposes that are in the end, related: providing covering so as not to cause temptation to others, and also reflecting the human dignity of the individual.

When Adam and Eve were unfallen, they didn't have concupiscence, but also it seems to me that they had some sort of "glory" around them: they didn't quite look like we do today when unclothed. When they fell, they acquired concupiscence and also lost this "glory" or light... now, it is more dignified for people to be clothed. Peter Kreeft talked about people who visited Heaven and couldn't decide if people there were clothed or unclothed: not because they looked naked like we do, but because they had something that "covered" them in a way that seemed natural and part of them, rather than artificial clothes... kind of like a type of glory, perhaps - I don't know but these people had difficulty even explaining it. The people weren't "clothed" but neither would they say that they looked like unclothed people on earth.. it's like a different type of "clothes". Anyway, we don't have anything like that and for us it's actually more dignified to cover ourselves. If we look at Our Lady, she's the perfect example of modesty.

when Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they tried to cover themselves with leaves, but we notice in the Bible that then God made them coverings Himself - the leaves weren't enough. So we get the idea here that simply covering the minimum isn't enough for modesty. How much do we cover? Do we cover shoulders or not? I seem to recall reading in some moral manual perhaps, that there are levels of what is considered ok or not ok to cover, and this is based on how proximate they are to the parts of the body that would cause the most temptation if seen.

Parts that are proximate should still be covered, it said. If they are not, it can lead the other person to imagine more (think of why skin tight clothing is immodest... same idea) - even if the parts themselves are not inherently sexual. Modesty then isn't just about covering the minimum but not suggesting more, and not emphasizing the body.

The manual talked about covering the back, shoulders, stomach, upper legs, etc, for this exact reason. Maybe seems extreme today but...is our society desensitized to immodesty? Could be... and I remember reading a quote from a Pope from the last century, that modesty should be based on the most virtuous society, not one in which this value has been lost. Based on this, I started questioning our society and assumptions I grew up with. It was hard. But to answer the question finally I do personally cover my shoulders.

Edited August 24, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

I guess I cover my shoulders for the added reason that I don't see modesty as entirely cultural and relative. Guys may be used to shoulders today. But I imagined myself among the Saints in Heaven and before Our Lady and asked "what would she think?" about my outfit - and I just didn't feel peace about all the outfits I've worn in my life.... so I'm just trying to do more than the cultural view I guess.

Edited August 24, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower