On Modesty
- Login to post comments
January 17, 2010 - 13:18
I am going to bring up a topic on modesty that can incite World War III.
Here in these videos, Jason Evert covers about modesty:
Why Modesty?
Modesty and Romance
I really like this statement mentioned in the video:
To understand modesty, girls need to look into guys physchology. -Pope John Paul II
I found several articles that I really agree with:
In Singapore, I found it quite challenging because most of the times the clothing does not really fulfill the modesty guidelines as outlined by the author of the first article above:
clothes should cover the body (which is their function) but not cling to it. That which is skintight—whether pants for men or even a long dress for women—is to the eye, and hence to the imagination, a second skin.
Everything between the knees and the neck should be covered—on both men and women. This frees us from all niggling nit-picking about the exact status of every possible item of clothing. Plunging necklines, rising hemlines, bare midriffs and backs, short shorts, and so on are all taboo.
What do you all think?
January 21, 2010 - 23:17
#2
muahahhaa.. mr rich finally posted the bone of contention..
Hmm... I agree that modesty in dressing is important. But I feel that the term modesty should be viewed upon in the context of different occasion and purpose. And different people view modesty differently. To some people, a dress might be too short, to another its okie. Its really hard to please everyone at times.
I think this calls for a vote on the view of how short is short, how "little" is too little dressing. Hmm.. i have no time now to do this but if anyone is free, i think he/she should work with valent to have a site where we show girls in different attires (different length, plunging necklines etc) and have everyone vote if they think it is immodest? Any takers?
January 21, 2010 - 23:27
#3
About covering
Well, of course girls can be pretty, I am never against that =P. They can still be pretty while dressing modestly.
Here is a blog post that I think describes beautifully about covering the body:
http://www.bettybeguiles.com/2009/05/behind-your-veil.html
A very interesting quote in the post above:
Think of those things that we commonly see veiled. In Catholic churches you will find the Holy Eucharist housed in the tabernacle and hidden behind a veil. In a Jewish synagogue you will find the Torah behind a curtain and wrapped in a mantle. Why would these treasured, holy items be veiled? Certainly not because they are shameful. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are veiled so that they will be shown the reverence they deserve.
So it is similar to human body =)
For how short is short, I think the statement issued by Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII on Sept 24, 1956, can address the issue of how short is short =P
On Sept. 24, 1956, the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII standardized modesty in dress for women,
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”
January 22, 2010 - 01:12
#4
Proverb 30:30
I have the urge to drop by & share with you all one of my favourite verses; to me its a standard to become a daughter of the Father (that often myself experiencing the ups and downs!)
'Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (Proverbs 30:30)
What, then, the meaning of being charm ? also, the meaning of being beauty/pretty ? (seen and unseen). Each one of us am sure have our own answers regarding the questions (which am sure will be no ending when we discuss about this), but never forget that as Christian we have unity in the Word of God which have already stated that women who fears Him are to be praised.
Lets us, then. in answering (to ourselves) regarding beauties and charms by using this standard, standard that satisifes The Father, the standard that I believe to prevent us from vicious cycle sin of lust.. =D
January 22, 2010 - 02:09
#5
How much or how little?
And here's where this argument will never get solved. :p
I doubt any of us are against modesty. But we want to know what exactly is considered to be modest attire (and I'm being specific) in our modern times.
The quote by Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII was back in 1956 - and anything before the Sixties regarding clothing and the role of women no longer applies to modern society.
In all the sources I've read, it regards immodesty as women wearing really short and revealing and totally impractical clothing.
But what of the simple t-shirt. If we followed Pius XII's example then we couldn't walk around wearing t-shirts or sleeveless tops now could we?
January 22, 2010 - 11:02
#6
Oh hohoho
Oh Valent... in matters not regarding faith, it might not be good to quote an old dude who lived about 50 years ago. In his time perhaps it is commonplace that ladies have a veil covering their faces and have dresses that covers even from the elbows to hands. As times come and goes, material changes and dressing style changes. If he were to come to this time, most likely he would beseech those in the swimming pool or the beach without fail to go for confession for sins of immodesty.
In terms of dressing, I think (other than modesty) the arguement should be on practicality and aesthetics. I would presume most guys (esp in emmaus XD) would not understand the intricacies of fashion and aesthetics of female dressing. Therefore let's discuss practicality. In Singapore, it is hot and humid. It would be most unwise to be in long sleeves with clothing covering the neck to the knees. The material can not be too thick too for sweat to dry, but not too thin to be too flimsy to be washable. Are hot pants against modesty? Are spag stripes against modesty?
Therefore I think, it should go down to one thing and that would be the intention of the dresser. From the definition of an online dictionary, modest: having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions. Having modesty in clothing should go beyond the act of covering up. In the sense of the word, it should include a reflection of a humble estimate of oneself. However, I do not believe that one shouldn't take away the aesthetics function of clothing because in itself it is not bad. It would be downright depressing to see people in curtain cloth, tableclothes, sack cloth or foot rug cloth (but really I not stopping you if you wanna dress that way. Just saying.)
January 27, 2010 - 13:58
#7
My response
Well, fashion changes, but men doesn't change. That is the saying by Jason Evert. And he didn't say that 50 years ago, if you are wondering.
I just recently found a blog post by Fr. Luke Fong related in this topic:
http://frlukefong.blogspot.com/2010/01/balancing-community-experience-wi...
He is one of the priests in IHM. He mentioned there:
In our Church, we have been putting up posters and notices, informing visitors that certain forms of attire are inappropriate for this house of worship, and amongst these are short shorts, tank tops, spaghetti straps and strapless tops for ladies, and slippers or thongs. Behind all this is the intention of giving the respect that this house of God deserves. This kind of stipulation, whilst not unheard of in places of worship, seems to be for many Catholics, rather strange and even unnecessary.
Please read the article in its entirety. He put a very good point of view:
What then is the most sublime definition of love? St Thomas Aquinas defined love so succinctly when he said that love is willing the good of the other. If our definitions of love are very different from that, where there is more “I” and “me”, instead of “you” and “others”, it has a trickle down effect to all the other areas of our lives, which include our work attitude, the way we relate with our friends and colleagues, and yes, even the way that we turn up at Mass, dress for Mass, respond at Mass and care for one another at Mass.
@Anne, Abby: I can see that you agree that modesty is important. If you are asking about the standards, I have given the guidelines in my posts above. So which points do you disagree with? Let me know how you want to come to agreements in the first place.
@Abby: As long as t-shirt is not transparent or so tight that it becomes second skin, I don't see that as immodest. Please refer to the guidelines I mentioned in the first post. There are only two rules there :)
@Ben: Oh Ben... Since yesterday you mentioned that you haven't even read the articles that I put in the first post above, please go and read first (and also watch the videos if you haven't done so) to gain better understanding on my stand.
Don't worry. I would be laughing hard also if I see girls in curtain cloth, tableclothes, sack cloth or foot rug cloth. That's not about modesty in the first place.
January 28, 2010 - 15:46
#8
My musing
For the sake of clarity and beverity, I will state in point form.
- From articles, yes for Mass, it is not only important to have modesty but must dress to reflect respect and reverence for God. Mass is commual worship, consideration must regard people around us especially in dressing and manner of conduct.
- But to apply guidelines for dressing for Mass to general dressing can be "excessive". Dressing for Mass should be different for normal wear. Dressing which is less than what Mass requires should not always be deemed as being not modest. Most obvious places where this would not imply inmodesty: Swimming pool, gym, running track.... (from Cardinal Vicar guidelines "At holy Mass, men should wear a coat and tie; or, at least, a collared shirt and nice slacks." I do not believe this guideline for normal wear can reflect modesty.)
- The guidelines also do not sufficiently help one to practise modest. What of woman that shows off with large shiny expensive jewellary and expensive branded goods? What of man who shows off with expensive watches and expensive branded wear? What of these guidelines then (value limitation of what one can wear)? Modesty must come from having a healthy interior life with our Lord. To practice humility, simplicity and self-control (as opposed to pride, vanity and lust) is to be modest. Dressing is only an outward expression of some of these values (but then again we shouldn't judege a book by its cover)
- Do not really agree that modesty in female dressing should consider the male psychology. Sometimes the psychology of male is deprived, should one be extra cautious against man who might be very lustful? What about man's dressing? Should man be wary of what homosexually inclined males would think of his dressing? Heaven forbid that the dressing induce homosexual lust!
I may still have points to add but then I am in a rush. If I remember I would add them (yes I am senile).
January 28, 2010 - 18:14
#9
"It would be downright
"It would be downright depressing to see people in curtain cloth, tableclothes, sack cloth or foot rug cloth..."
Hey, don't make fun! I think girls in curtain cloth are very attractive... mmm, velvet...
January 29, 2010 - 01:34
#10
Help us out.
Im hungry right now.. And hunger affects my judgement.. So tonight, I will side with Valent..(Maybe tomorrow after breakfast, I will change my mind..)
From the article Christian Men's Deepest Secrets Exposed, the one on top of the list is lust.
1. I've got a dirty mind: The Never-Ending Struggle of Sexual Sins
2. I'm a self- made man: The Surprising Pervasiveness of Pride
3. I want more stuff: The Hollow Promise of Materialism
4. I love booze: The Destructive Trap of Substance Abuse
5. I want to give up: The Weary Grind of Long-Term Discouragement
6. I'm so ticked off: The Harmful Reality of Anger and Abuse
Source: http://www.goodchristianguy.com/2008/02/christian-mens.html
Im a Christian guy and this is from my point of view..
Im staying away from clubbing, beach parties, and disco places coz I know what I will see there - women in skimpy outfits.. more like handkerchiefs than clothing, really..
To counter that, I (try my best to) frequent at adoration room, church, prayer meeting at bible study to increase sanctifying grace in my life..
And so when I meet my sisters in Christ in church, adoration room, prayer meeting and bible study, and you look pretty, I will tell you that you look pretty.. If you look stunning, I will tell you, wow you look stunning..
If you look glamorous, cute, beautiful or adorable, I will tell you so because I love you and respect you.. As if you are my true-blood sister..
But there are times when I get weak also.. I hope you understand..
So help me out a bit, please?
@Valent - I agree with you coz I am struggling with this also..
@ladies - I feel proud whenever I am around pretty ladies.. Please dress extra pretty during weddings and special occassions.. Then I can claim that I joined the right prayer group..
@Ben - I will not unbutton my shirt in front of you again.. =)
January 31, 2010 - 11:41
#11
Ben, I think we need to
Ben, I think we need to define what is the focus of this forum topic first. What I intend to cover is about immodest dress, and is defined as dressing in a manner likely to arouse sexual interest or with the intention of arousing sexual interest in a situation where this is inappropriate (generally speaking, where it will arouse sexual interest in individuals other than the person's spouse). I got the definition from a link shared by Christine (thanks a lot Christine!):
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8i.htm
My apology for not being so clear in the first place. With this defintion, we want to focus and we will not cover about pride etc as you mentioned in point 3. It can be made as another forum topic if you wish =).
Modesty itself is really wide as covered in this article shared by Christine (once again thanks Christine!):
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/standress.htm
But we will only cover the fourth point in the above article. The reasons why modest dressing is especially applicable to women over men is also mentioned in the above article.
With the definition of immodest dressing, we see that it involves two parties, the person with immodest dressing, and the other person that see the immodest dressing. This issue of modest dressing always involves two parties and it can't be regarded as personal matters, no matter where the venue is. So it doesn't matter whether it is at mass or any other places. This is to respond to point 1 and 2 you mentioned.
As I have put the guidelines about modest dressing in the first post:
Clothes should cover the body (which is their function) but not cling to it. That which is skintight—whether pants for men or even a long dress for women—is to the eye, and hence to the imagination, a second skin.
Everything between the knees and the neck should be covered—on both men and women. This frees us from all niggling nit-picking about the exact status of every possible item of clothing. Plunging necklines, rising hemlines, bare midriffs and backs, short shorts, and so on are all taboo.
These are the rules that I will emphasize and I would say you can ignore the one by Cardinal Vicar for the time being for the sake of clarity=)
With the two rules above, there is no need for the clothes to fulfill certain quality of formality, as long as: cover the body and not skintight, and between knees and neck is covered. Of course for the mass we can be more formal while for outside we can be less formal in our dressing. This is also to respond to point 2 you put above.
Modest dressing always involves two parties, so we need to consider both girls and guys psychology. Girls might dress a bit too revealing simply because they do not know that their way of dressing can affect the guys seeing them. Girls might dress provocatively because they think guys like it. And guys might think that the girls simply dress provocatively because they want to.
We won't cover about homosexuals for this forum topic, to address your point 4 too.
I remember a story by Jason Evert in which he interviews both male and female students. First he interviewed the female students, asking what kind of guys they want to attract. The girls answered that they want guys that respect them and holy. Then Jason Evert mentioned this answer to the boys. Shockingly, the answers from the boys are, "We don't believe that. The girls are expecting us to respect them while they are dressing like that?". This simple story shows that outward appearance is important, because it can send mixed messages too if girls are not dressing modestly. This is also to respond point 3 second part you mentioned.
Now, there are cases that the guys might have lustful thoughts even though the girls have dressed modestly. I would say that for this case, then the sin falls completely on the guys' side. The girls have been doing their best not to be stumbling blocks for the guys.
But if the girls dress immodestly and the guys fall into lustful thoughts because of that, I would say that the girls partially are responsible for the sin. This is not saying that the way girls dress will justify any action the guys will take on the girls because of immodest dressing.
That's why we propose these guidelines, for the girls to be on the safe side and not to take part in making the guys fall into sin. Of course the guys always decide to sin or not when the temptation comes. But it will be easier for us guys when the girls dress modestly =)
For the rest, do not hesitate to voice out if you have comments or please add if I have missed anything =)
February 1, 2010 - 00:06
#12
Dignity of the sexes
Dear brothers and sisters, after a long observation of this thread (and not to mention the endless talk and discussion on modesty with few of you), I think I might have something to add to the forum. I'll try to remember the important parts, will add in the future if I've realized I've forgotten things. First things first...
1. Objective of the discussion
I very much am grateful that Valent brought up this topic. I believe what we are trying to do right now is to
====> Promote modesty
And having that in mind, this is not something where the guys point at the girls for tempting them, nor the girls point at the guys for not being objective. What we want to do here is to help each other to live a life of holiness. And we can only do that when we listen first, talk second and challenge third.
Note that I did not say educate nor instruct, but challenge. Yes I believe as Christians, one of the things that we need to do is to spread the good news to those who have not known Jesus, and challenge those who have known Jesus further to holiness.
2. Address to my sisters
Ladies, when I first had a discussion on modesty, one thing that I realize is that the temptation of pride is unbearable. Why? Because it is as if I'm being told by Valent on what I can or can not wear. Don' t know if this is true for you all. But I really had to force myself to listen to what the guys had to share with me. Out of all the things spoken, there's one thing I know for sure that is true; we ladies want holy men to be our spouses.
But the shocking yet real fact is, when we dress openly, it pushes men who are drawn to holiness away from us. Because if they approach us when we dress openly (or provocatively according to Google keyword) they are putting themselves into temptation. And holy men would not do that. So let's listen to their thoughts and challenges, explain our understanding, and challenge ourselves to be loving to them. We are asked to respect them as we want them to respect us.
I believe none of us wear what we wear to tempt our brothers, or even just to make our brothers notice us. No I don't think so. But it is a fact that our brothers have shared that for them it is disturbing. Thus we should ask ourselves, do we want to do something knowing that it will be a stumbling block for our brothers?
So I beleive the real question that is being asked to us as girls is not merely about our dresscode, but more to are we fighting the temptation of these sins >> pride and selfishness?
3. Address to my brothers
I believe modesty is an issue where it is the responsibility of both men and women. In a world where lots of things are distorted, men has also given the wrong perception on their preference of women's dress code. Thus we will need to spend a lot of effort mending this brokenness. The effort can be started by you voicing out your preference of holy woman. And also challenge your fellow brothers to not 'enjoy' the scenic view at the beach or those certain 'type' of magazines.
And also I believe the part you need to play is more to bringing your sisters to holiness than to getting rid of the temptation. Temptation will always be there. We strive for holiness not by avoiding temptation but to face it head up and still choose God over sin.
Thus as what I have written in my address to my sisters, the underlying question that is being asked to guys is not on how to make the girls live a life of modesty, but more to are you fighting the temptation of these sins >> lust and pride?
4. What's next?
I believe for us to promote modesty, we need to promote holiness. So when we talk about modesty and we start a discussion on guidelines, standards, practicality, occasional relevancy, culture, fashion, etc.... in every events, do ask ourselves, are we being loving to one another, are we drawing one another to holiness.
God bless....
February 1, 2010 - 13:25
#13
Clearing up
After speaking to people who reads this thread, I understand that I might have given the wrong impression. I want to clear up that I am not against modesty in dressing in Church or outside Church (modesty is a basic teaching of morality and the Church bears infailability on modesty). What I am against is some of the guidelines given by articles/Valent.
As Valent has stated for his guidelines for modest dressing:
1) Clothes should cover the body (which is their function) but not cling to it. That which is skintight—whether pants for men or even a long dress for women—is to the eye, and hence to the imagination, a second skin.
2) Everything between the knees and the neck should be covered—on both men and women. This frees us from all niggling nit-picking about the exact status of every possible item of clothing. Plunging necklines, rising hemlines, bare midriffs and backs, short shorts, and so on are all taboo.
As he also states "This issue of modest dressing always involves two parties and it can't be regarded as personal matters, no matter where the venue is. So it doesn't matter whether it is at mass or any other places. " Valent are you apply these guidelines to every possible venue? It would be problematic if you would try to apple your recommended guidelines in the swimming pool no?
On guideline 1, this would mean no more jeans for us? Jeans generally do show the contours of the legs no (unless they are baggy)? For fat guys like me, I guess I need to get bigger pants =/ Would this mean the end of T-shirt which shows the contours of the body? Fat guys: damn ( is it my fault that my T-shirt clings to my tummy? *sob*)
On guideline 2. From neck to knee, may I ask which part of neck? Tropical countries certainly is quite hot, can you excuse one who wears a V-neck T-shirt (5 finger widths down from pit of throat!). How much of the arm should be covered? Sleeveless? To elbow? To wrist?
These guidelines I feel has a narrow feel to it. One can follow these guidelines but still be inmodest. I have seen some wearing loose clothings that covers from neck to knees. But when they bend down, they can still induce a great due of sin (due to not being vigiliant in covering themselves up). These guidelines are not sufficient because they can be easily cicumvented by one who is not modest in heart.
Therefore, promoting modesty shouldn't be about just what to wear or wear not to wear, but, as Christine say, should be about holiness. Clothing is just a sign of one's inner spiritual state. To promote modesty in dressing to say the least, we shouldn't be just dealing with the symptoms of inmodest dressing but how we can improve upon the interior life with our Lord (as I previously state). And I say again, to practice humility, simplicity and self-control (as opposed to pride, vanity and lust) is to be modest (or to have the correct concept of modest dressing). I am doing the emphasis on the "spirit of the law rather than the literal stating of the law" thingee.
By the way, I have found a contentious statment in one of the article that Valent used:http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/standress.htm (since this claims to be an article from Catholic apologetics, it needs to be seriously discussed). I quote:
There is a second reason why modesty of dress is especially applicable to women over men. It is that there is a special form of immodesty that is characteristic of our modern times, and it is the immodesty of women wearing men's clothes, most notably pants and shorts. This undermines a woman's psychological perception of herself, and of her difference from a man, which in turn de-feminizes her, erodes natural respect between men and women, removes the defense to over-familiarity, and eventually degrades the relationships between men and women to the level of sensuality. It is this form of immodesty which is ultimately by far the most destructive of human relationships and of the virtue of purity.
[/end quote] As this thread dicusses inmodest dressing that will invoke lust, I would like to add this to discussion for completion sake.
((ps I must stop posting during lunch, this is sapping me too much.. arghh ))
February 1, 2010 - 13:55
#14
Guidelines according to Ben
Hi Ben. May I know what you think the guideline should be? Do you think we should have a guideline? Maybe you can share your personal experience on modest and immodest dressing.
February 2, 2010 - 01:19
#15
Only my thoughts
Hi Christine. I thought of doing a second draft for my previous comments but looks like I got no chance =S
Though, I understand modesty is important, I do not believe there should be strict guidelines on dressing. Why? Those who are close to the Lord understands there is a need for modesty. Therefoe strives towards modesty that respect his/her body. Guidelines which are meant to help for those who are further from the Lord or remind those who are laspsed. Using guidelines which seems narrow do not sufficiently help them, but would repulse them of their seemingly rigid or repressive. Hence, I humbly (though it is clear I have no humility =D) suggest the following guidelines:
1) From my understanding of 1 Timothy 2, 9 "In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair or gold, or pearls or costly attire." Dress in a way that your dressing attracts, no one to you. Dress in a way leaves are adorning a flower. It is manner you portray Christ that should attract others to you. Therefore "humility, humility, humility" in dressing lead to no lust induced, no pride on the dresser and gives more stress on being Christ like.
2) From the understanding of 1
Corinthians 3:16,17 "Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and
that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the
temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy,
which you are." You are temple of God dress in a way that does not defile the temple. Just a church would not be mistaken for a whorehouse, do not dress like one who works there. If you want an acid test, walk down Geylang at night and if no one ask you for work you pass (I am kidding on the last 2 points!!!)
3) On the last guideline for female modest dressing, just ask yourself.... would Mother Mary approve if I wear this? If you don't really know the answer, pray the rosary. If there still no answer, pray again and again and again.... etc. Or maybe the answer is just no. This is for people who actually is persistent to find out if their dressing is ok. For example, is this wedding gown to be worn in church ok even if it bears the shoulders? (argh can of worms.... *throw can and run away*)
On those I have seen dress modestly. Verbum Dei sisters. They do not wear habits but secular wear. But the clothes they wear always modest and very dignifed. Simple short sleeve shirt/polo tees and skirt/pants. I don't even think the colors match but something about that simplicity transcends mere beauty. To me, the simplicity and modesty have become a very effective tool for coveying Jesus and Mary to others. Just as Jesus and Mary is simple and humble so are they.
Another example of modesty I have seen only last week at the Cathedral. A lady without makeup was wearing a sleeveless shirt (dull colored + checkered) and dull colored pants. She was holding her two children by her side, being prayful. The simplicity and modesty of the woman (though in sleeveless shirt) was there to see. Nothing loud about her dressing that shouts out for attention or offensive to God.
Of one incredibly inmodest person I have seen was someone I saw working in a church (not in SMOTA) many years ago. She was dressed in a loose blouse that was covering part of her neck. She was there distributing stuff. But she was choosen bend down low most of the time, showing her "God given assets" to all present there. There was quite a commotion around her and you could almost see her enjoying the attention (her face only visible when she raised her head up again). It was very disturbing to say the least esp it happening in church. More disturbing since she looked decently modest with her top and jeans (until she bent down).
Well, I got other disturbing experience but I shall spare myself from remembering them again and spare others from the imagination. Others come come please share!!
February 2, 2010 - 03:10
#16
Good principles but not really good guidelines
Hey Ben, you are saying things that people on any side of this discussion will surely agree with, but are not much use in terms of a 'guideline'.
1) "humility, humility, humility" in dressing lead to no lust induced" AGREED, BUT:
- The question Valent & Christine are posing here is what is the guideline for humility humility humility in dressing? What is the guideline for clothing that doesn't induce lust?
2) "You are temple of God, dress in a way that does not defile the temple" AGREED, BUT:
- What is the guideline for that way that does not defile the temple?
3) "would Mother Mary approve if I wear this? If you don't really know the answer, pray the rosary. If there still no answer, pray again and again and again.... etc." AGREED, BUT:
- What is that guideline that Mother Mary approves? I know that Our Lady probably wore a female robe that was appropriate for Jewish women at the time, and according to most images probably a veil as well. Is that the guideline she would approve? I know that Anne prays the rosary every week and so does Valent, so does that mean they know the guidelines better than someone who doesn't pray it as much? I suspect Valent may pray it more often than Anne (I only suspect) so maybe Valent's guidelines might be more trustworthy? I also suspect the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII possibly prayed the rosary a lot too, so does that mean we should go back to his prescribed standards, based on your own guideline (3)?
"Verbum Dei sisters... the clothes they wear always modest and very dignified. Simple short sleeve shirt/polo tees and skirt/pants." AGREED, AND:
Do you notice that from what you just said about your opinion of their modest dressing and from your description of it, it sounds like it's because they actually fulfill the guidelines that Valent suggested?
Oh if this is how it is explained then I cannot agree more..
I love the quote..
Historically, men have been the initiators of relationships because it honors women. It takes the burden of rejection off of you (women) and it places it on me (man). So basically, girls today unfortunately, they don’t have enough confidence to think that a guy would want them so they start to journey towards the guy. And they (girls) start making excuses for them (guys). "Well maybe he hasn’t asked me out coz he's shy. And so I need to make up for that." You know but what ends up happening is you (girls) end up with less of a man. Do you really want to date a guy who is too shy to ask you out?
But yes, there is a balance to everything. Balance, like walking on a tight rope. As I was telling Valent, girls love to be pretty, so let them. However, the girls must be very careful to maintain the "balance". If you cover too much, too often, you may be labeled "nun".. If you reveal too much, too often, you may be labeled "cheap"..
Balance..
I see you, Brother... thank you. [kills prey] Your spirit will now be with Eywa, but your body will remain for The People. - Jake Sully