How Do You Tell If A Shirt Is Too Tight?

[Kitty]

Why is the word "bra" being blacked out? LOL I didn't know that was a naughty word.

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1861515' date='May 7 2009, 08:13 PM']There is a tremendous difference between modesty and scrupulous modesty. He was referring to the latter. When people begin to compare sleeve lengths, for example, it just begins to get ridiculous. There was a thread awhile back about a woman's bare shoulders being immodest, as well as her upper back, upper arms, knees, and what have you. It really bothered a lot of the female members.[/quote]

(Sorry I was graduating etc and didn't have internet access till now).

Define scrupulous modesty. Don't give examples.
Many conservatives would hold that bare shoulders and upper back is immodest not as some scrupulous nit picky conservative, but as a reasoned argument.

There isn't such a tremendous difference between modesty and scrupulous modesty if you have reasoned arguments on the situation.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1867399' date='May 14 2009, 06:46 PM'](Sorry I was graduating etc and didn't have internet access till now).

Define scrupulous modesty. Don't give examples.
Many conservatives would hold that bare shoulders and upper back is immodest not as some scrupulous nit picky conservative, but as a reasoned argument.

There isn't such a tremendous difference between modesty and scrupulous modesty if you have reasoned arguments on the situation.[/quote]

When someone believes that a woman should wear sleeves down to her wrists, I would consider that scrupulous. When someone believes that a woman's skirt must reach her ankles, I would consider that scrupulous. If someone points to a woman exposing a bare neck and calls her immodest, that is also scrupulous.

When it comes to bare shoulders, upper arms, and back, I think it REALLY depends on the kind of top it is. For instance, I would consider a tube top to be immodest. However, I have also seen some very cute peasant blouses that have scoop necks (thus go a bit low on the back), with sleeves almost to the elbow, but the top part of the shoulders are bare. I would not call that immodest.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1867399' date='May 14 2009, 06:46 PM']Define scrupulous modesty. Don't give examples.[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1867461' date='May 14 2009, 07:48 PM']When someone believes that a woman should wear sleeves down to her wrists, I would consider that scrupulous. When someone believes that a woman's skirt must reach her ankles, I would consider that scrupulous. If someone points to a woman exposing a bare neck and calls her immodest, that is also scrupulous.

When it comes to bare shoulders, upper arms, and back, I think it REALLY depends on the kind of top it is. For instance, I would consider a tube top to be immodest. However, I have also seen some very cute peasant blouses that have scoop necks (thus go a bit low on the back), with sleeves almost to the elbow, but the top part of the shoulders are bare. I would not call that immodest.[/quote]
lol

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1867399' date='May 14 2009, 06:46 PM'](Sorry I was graduating etc and didn't have internet access till now).[/quote]

Oh, I forgot to add, congratulations! Hope you had nice weather.

[Paladin D]

I commented on this earlier, but I suppose I'll do it again.

The main problem with this discussion, is that fashion standards change over time. What used to be deemed immodest back in the day, is no longer considered immodest today. Obviously there are some behaviors and styles of clothing that are very revealing, but some of what is discussed here seems to be rather subjective due to one's own preferences.

What may cause one person to sin, may not cause another person to sin. Me wearing regular gym shorts right above the knee, while doing my 2-mile run and having an old lady stare at me isn't my problem. What if wearing gym shorts right below my knee isn't enough? Am I suppost to wear a snow suit or long pants in 80-90 degree weather while doing a 14 minute 2-mile run???

I've seen a few people say the rule "If you have to even ask, then it probally is immodest." I agree with it to a point, but what if a Catholic never gets that thought while wearing a piece of clothing that YOU think is too revealing? That philosophy doesn't always work. For example: I don't think dresses that show bare shoulders are immodest.

It's a tough issue, because people's tastes vary, and you have some who are paranoid about revealing any skin, and you have some on the other side of the fence who have no problem with bikinis or dresses which reveal the back. I consider myself more in the middle on this issue. I wish there was a definite "clothing guide" so we can lay this debate to rest, but unfortunately you won't find such a list, because such lists are written by individuals who have their own perspective as to what is deemed immodest (fashion wise) due to their own personalities and weaknesses. If we all, as devout Catholics, wrote down specific lists we would come up with different results.

I don't know what answer I can possibily give you, but to pray and consult with your significant other (bf/gf or husband/wife) as to what he/she thinks so you both can better strive for holiness. You can't please everybody, because you have a complete spectrum of people out there who can be very fanatical and sick (ranging from the uptight-ultra-conservative-nutjob to the flaming-liberal-pinko-commie). If you don't have anyone (like me), take in the advice here, draw up your own conclusion, and go from there. If somebody sins because they saw your knee-cap, then they have a big problem, not you.



[b]EDIT:[/b] I had to make a few adjustments to the original post, and fix a typo.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Paladin D

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1867808' date='May 15 2009, 01:06 AM']I commented on this earlier, but I suppose I'll do it again.

The main problem with this discussion, is that fashion standards change over time. What used to be deemed immodest back in the day, is no longer considered immodest today. Obviously there are some behaviors and styles of clothing that are very revealing, but some of what is discussed here seems to be rather subjective due to one's own preferences.

What may cause one person to sin, may not cause another person to sin. Me wearing regular gym shorts right above the knee, while doing my 2-mile run and having an old lady stare at me isn't my problem. What if wearing gym shorts right below my knee isn't enough? Am I suppost to wear a snow suit or long pants in 80-90 degree weather while doing a 14 minute 2-mile run???

I've seen a few people say the rule "If you have to even ask, then it probally is immodest." I agree with it to a point, but what if a Catholic never gets that thought while wearing a piece of clothing that YOU think is too revealing? That philosophy doesn't always work. For example: I don't think dresses that show bare shoulders are immodest.

It's a tough issue, because people's tastes vary, and you have some who are paranoid about revealing any skin, and you have some on the other side of the fence who have no problem with g-strings or anything of the sort. I consider myself more in the middle on this issue. I wish there was a definite "clothing guide" so we can lay this debate to rest, but unfortunately you won't find such a list, because such lists are written by individuals who have their own perspective as to what is deemed immodest (fashion wise) due to their own personalities and weaknesses. If we all, as devout Catholics, wrote down specific lists we would come up with difficult results.

I don't know what answer I can possibily give you, but to pray and consult with your significant other (bf/gf or husband/wife) as to what he/she thinks so you both can better strive for holiness. You can't please everybody, because you have a complete spectrum of people out there who can be very fanatical and sick (ranging from the uptight-ultra-conservative-nutjob to the flaming-liberal-pinko-commie). If you don't have anyone (like me), take in the advice here, draw up your own conclusion, and go from there. If somebody sins because they saw your knee-cap, then they have a big problem, not you.[/quote]

Exactly, which is why it is impossible to squeeze it into a definition.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1867811' date='May 15 2009, 02:07 AM']Exactly, which is why it is impossible to squeeze it into a definition. [/quote]

I truely wish we could, but it's difficult. Simply because individual (and society) tastes change. Doesn't mean it's a good thing or bad, it's just the way things are. Not implying we all should go on a free-for-all and wear whatever we want without regard to others, but you also just can't please everyone. Just try and use your best judgement and common sense, that's all.

I wouldn't be suprised if Catholics back in the 1700s would shake their heads and wonder why women are wearing Phatmass t-shirts.

[ariaane]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1860827' date='May 7 2009, 07:51 PM']What Paladin said is pretty much dead-on. Driving home from school, I had some jerk trying to get my attention by pulling up alongside my car and honking. When we got to a light, I made sure to hang back a bit so our front windows weren't lined up. He attempted to make eye contact by leaning into his side mirror, nearly hanging out of his car. (I had a similar incident a few months ago, where a man WAS hanging out of his open car window.) So guess what I was wearing? [b]A huge, over-sized college sweatshirt (which was at one point my older brother's) and dark blue jeans. There was no way this man could have been "seduced" by my figure. Not only was I wearing a pretty shapeless, lazy outfit - but I was in my CAR. I had sunglasses on so the man did not even get a clear view of my face. [/b]

Maybe he was "turned on" because I am a college student (have the sticker on the back of my car) - some men do have disturbing "fantasies" like this. [That alone reminds me of two friends from my first university who were told by their cab driver that he "likes" college women, especially freshman. They explained him as a very creepy, inappropriate man.] Can my college sticker encourage lustful thoughts? Is it immodest? Should I remove it from my car? If we begin to analyze every single detail that could [b]potentially[/b] arouse the opposite sex, we will begin to be afraid to leave the house or show any individuality.

We may also begin to judge others - and in judging others, we may be lead to immodest thoughts, which is the complete opposite of what we wish to attain (modesty)! For example, a young man is walking in the mall. He is so consumed with thoughts of modesty - for himself and for women - that he begins to scrutinize what many women are wearing. He sees a woman in a short, clingy skirt. He scoffs at how immodest this is. But he does not even REALIZE that he is staring at the woman's behind! When he does realize this, he begins to think on it, and thus falls into lustful thoughts. We can take a similar example, again focusing on this young man - but instead of seeing an immodesty dressed woman, he sees a modestly dressed woman. [b]She is wearing a comfortable sweatshirt. He then wonders what she is wearing under that sweatshirt, hoping that it is just as modest. He is UNDRESSING this woman in his mind. [/b]

[b]It is just my opinion that too much scrutiny and too much fascination with modesty can actually lead one into temptation, which is - ironically - the OPPOSITE of what we want to achieve.[/b][/quote]

Agreed. This particular over focus on modest dressing for women is sounding like the discussions that the SSPXers have.

Of course, dressing should be within limits. But men who just have far too much testosterone need to learn how to channel their sexual urges into something productive, like sport.

If some men are so sexually excited that they're turned on by the site of a woman in a baggy unflattering sweater, then I suggest they seek out a sex addiction therapist. And that's no joke.

[Resurrexi]

I'm glad I'm a guy and don't have to worry about modesty in the ways that women do.

[ariaane]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1867868' date='May 15 2009, 11:02 AM']I'm glad I'm a guy and don't have to worry about modesty in the ways that women do.[/quote]

Only if you don't wear unbuttoned polo shirts. lol

[Slappo]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1867869' date='May 15 2009, 01:04 AM']Only if you don't wear unbuttoned polo shirts. lol[/quote]

Hey....
I only don't wear them unbuttoned because my girlfriend asked me not to...


Also, since when is [b]everything[/b] the sspx people did bad?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1867808' date='May 14 2009, 09:06 PM']I commented on this earlier, but I suppose I'll do it again.

The main problem with this discussion, is that fashion standards change over time. What used to be deemed immodest back in the day, is no longer considered immodest today. Obviously there are some behaviors and styles of clothing that are very revealing, but some of what is discussed here seems to be rather subjective due to one's own preferences.[/quote]

Pius IX doesn't thing standards for modesty change over time and I have a tendency to agree with him on that even though I find Pius IX's rules for modesty a little over the top.

If society starts saying that going completely in the nude is okay, does that mean standards have changed overtime and therefore we can go without clothes?

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1867461' date='May 14 2009, 03:48 PM']When someone believes that a woman should wear sleeves down to her wrists, I would consider that scrupulous. When someone believes that a woman's skirt must reach her ankles, I would consider that scrupulous. If someone points to a woman exposing a bare neck and calls her immodest, that is also scrupulous.

When it comes to bare shoulders, upper arms, and back, I think it REALLY depends on the kind of top it is. For instance, I would consider a tube top to be immodest. However, I have also seen some very cute peasant blouses that have scoop necks (thus go a bit low on the back), with sleeves almost to the elbow, but the top part of the shoulders are bare. I would not call that immodest.[/quote]


Again those are just lists of things that would be considered scrupulous etc by you... not what scrupulous modesty is.

I think in a post I previously made about not leaving my polo shirts unbuttoned caused the whole topic on scrupulous modesty, so let me clarify something: If I thought unbuttoned polo shirts were immodest... I wouldn't leave an unbuttoned polo shirt in my avatar picture. I don't think that is immodest, but I used is as an example that yes of course I am also cautious of what I wear and I'll even go beyond what is necessary when asked to. Obviously it isn't necessary to have the top button on a polo buttoned.

But is worrying about how tight a shirt is across a woman's chest scrupulous? I sure don't think so. As for Socrates comment on cleavage overflowing or nipples busting out... I can probably find plenty of sleeveless shoulderless backless belly shirts that cover up breasts to the point where they are not busting out... that doesn't make them modest though...

[ariaane]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1867897' date='May 15 2009, 03:40 PM']Hey....
I only don't wear them unbuttoned because my girlfriend asked me not to...


Also, since when is [b]everything[/b] the sspx people did bad?[/quote]

No offence to your girlfriend, but although she looks like as innocent as an angel in your avatar, if she’s aroused by you having your top button on your shirt unbuttoned, then maybe sex addiction therapy would be beneficial for her too. After all, testosterone exists in both the male and female sex...

Really, is it just me who is [i]not[/i] brought to the verge of climax when I see a person of the opposite sex partially dressed or with the top button of their polo shirt unbuttoned?

PS- The SSPX are dissidents. Full stop. They not only drag the name of Pope Pius X through the mud by their erroneous and heretical claims, but judging by the fact that I’ve lurked on the Fisheaters website (where the Lefavbrites all converge) for the last couple of years, they are the biggest hypocrites going.

They are sooo quick to over scrutinise how women dress, and will even have an aneurism if a women daren’t veil her head in mass, but yet they are advocates of sodomy within marriage and other perverseness.

They are so quick to call themselves true Catholics, but many of them even deny the Primacy of not only the current Pope, but JPII.

Many are sedevacantists who are still hiding in the closet.