Author Topic: Modesty and how to dress (Read 33174 times)

clare · « **Reply #160 on:** October 01, 2010, 03:18:14 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
And to find the idea of men and women wearing similar clothes as subversive and un-Catholic, even though Our Lady and St Joseph wore similar clothes!

The distinction then was the fact that women were VEILED all the time, that was feminine dress.

Yes, I think I have already actually mentioned that.

Quote

The veil of those days would be akin to what the dress signifies today. Thus, your appeal to relativism is without foundation.

I haven't been appealing to relativism. I've been appealing to objectivity.

Quote

The point is that there has always been some kind of distinction. We wish to maintain that distinction as it is a particular customary determination of the natural law.

I don't disagree. I just disagree that it is written in natural or divine law that trousers are objectively men's dress, and can never be worn by women.

Caminus · « **Reply #161 on:** October 03, 2010, 10:00:01 PM »

Quote

I haven't been appealing to relativism. I've been appealing to objectivity.

On the contrary, you appealed to subjective similarities in dress in order to justify the confusion that exists today. There has always been an objective distinction between male and female dress. That's the key point.

Quote

I don't disagree. I just disagree that it is written in natural or divine law that trousers are objectively men's dress, and can never be worn by women.

That's not what I said. Rather I said that concrete differences are a particular determination of a precept of the natural law. Just like Sunday is a particular determination of the universal natural law that men owe worship to God. Today and for a long time extending in history, dresses distinguished women from men. That's not to say that women can absolutely never wear pants, for exigent circuмstances apply the principle of equity. The fact that priests have retained the cassock while women have abandoned the veil (even the sheer veil of the traditional chapels is but a very weak testament to this ancient tradition) is an accident of history upon which no argument can rest. But even in this case, the particular quality of the garb is even further distinguished so there is really no parity except that the pants structure is lacking.

So there are two things to consider: the distinction of the sexes and the preservation of modesty.

clare · « **Reply #162 on:** October 04, 2010, 03:56:38 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
I haven't been appealing to relativism. I've been appealing to objectivity.

On the contrary, you appealed to subjective similarities in dress in order to justify the confusion that exists today. There has always been an objective distinction between male and female dress. That's the key point.

I haven't denied that.

I said similar does not mean the same. They dressed similarly before (the main difference being the veil). Therefore, similar dress is not objectively wrong! Similar and the same are not the same! As it were.

Quote

Today and for a long time extending in history, dresses distinguished women from men. That's not to say that women can absolutely never wear pants, for exigent circuмstances apply the principle of equity. The fact that priests have retained the cassock while women have abandoned the veil (even the sheer veil of the traditional chapels is but a very weak testament to this ancient tradition) is an accident of history upon which no argument can rest. But even in this case, the particular quality of the garb is even further distinguished so there is really no parity except that the pants structure is lacking.

So there are two things to consider: the distinction of the sexes and the preservation of modesty.

Yes, I agree. I think.

Now, is it ok for, say, Muslim women to wear trousers, because they wear veils as well? And they usually do wear both those items, in my experience. If trousers are immodest, then I don't see how a veil over the head makes them modest!

Thing is, as I keep saying, a long top over the trousers, reaching, at least mid-thigh, removes the problem of immodesty, and distinguishes women from men.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #163 on:** October 04, 2010, 04:44:55 PM »

Quote from: OurEternalFaith

Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: OurEternalFaith
On a more practical note, is it so difficult for a lady to button a blouse to the top, instead of leaving the upper button open?... That would be so much more proper!

:really-mad2:
You've reminded me of my #1 frustration in shopping for tops. I do tend to prefer button-up things to a solid shirt -- not sure why. But, they intend so much for you not to button that top button that either (a) the button simply isn't there, (b) the blouse is actually cut in a V shape so that buttoning the top (decor) button is impossible, or (c) there is too much space between the 1st and 2nd button so that even when closing it, the blouse hangs open between the two.
:really-mad2:
I could manage to sew on a button if that was the only problem, but they simply don't even consider that you'd like to have a neckline rather than a low-cut shirt.

I understand your situation! I may have a few suggestions for you (online vendors); however I don't know if mentioning brand names or web sites is acceptable here. Please let me know.

Go for it!
I try as much as possible not to buy my clothing new, but will check out the sites nonetheless.

clare · « **Reply #164 on:** October 05, 2010, 06:53:12 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

It's a question of mortification and orienting one's soul toward a main goal (being with God forever). Every choice you make either helps you or hurts you.

Surely some choices make no difference. Whether to wear the red striped shirt or the plain blue one, for example.

You're not more likely to be saved or damned whichever you choose in such cases.