Attention everyone on CathInfo --

I declare this a VERY GOOD THREAD for anyone with children. That includes a great many of us.

If you haven't read this thread, I suggest you do so. Bookmark it and come back Sunday when you have time, etc.

This is a critical topic for parents today.

In being TOO rigorous, almost Jansenistic, there's always the risk of backlash, resentment (often projected against Traditional Catholicism), and "forbidden fruit" syndrome.  One has to know the children involved and get a feel for how they are going to react. (What specifically is rigorous and Jansenist in what anyone here has written?  No quotes provided.)

I have 4 girls.  I could stand my ground with an iron fist and ruthlessly impose in unbending Draconian fashion:  absolutely no makeup, requirement to wear nothing but glorified potato sacks for clothes, no jewelry whatsoever, absolutely no contact with any boys, and absolutely no contact with anyone who's not as perfect as we are.  (all of these exaggerated examples are the same as the "living in some off-grid bunker where your kids have no interaction whatsoever with the world". It is a strawman. I do not see that anyone here said "absolutely no makeup, requirement to wear nothing but glorified potato sacks for clothes, no jewelry whatsoever, absolutely no contact with any boys, and absolutely no contact with anyone who's not as perfect as we are) What do I imagine their reaction will be the SECOND they gain a bit of independence from me?  Especially since there's no requirement that's ever been taught by the Church along these lines.  

I allow my daughters to wear a very light amount of makeup (never to the point of looking like clowns or prostitutes) and allow them to wear nice clothes that may be somewhat elegant and even form-fitting (without violating the standards of modesty laid down by Pius XI), allow them to wear a modest amount of simple jewelry ... letting them feel pretty.  I allow them to mix with boys in very tightly-controlled situations ... but not to date one on one and certainly not in a "steady" fashion.   If they don't get somewhat familiar with boys, with their faults and failings, how are they to pick out a good husband from among all the bums out there? ( sounds good to me) By acquiring this familiarity, they will be less likely to be ensnared by the blandishments of the first good-looking dirtbag who comes along, gives them attention, and tells them that they're pretty.  Being more adept at sifting among the good and the bad, they will be in a better position to pick out someone who's more likely to be virtuous and otherwise compatible with their temperament and character.  Similarly with my boys.  If I never let them have some exposure to girls, then that merely increases the likelihood of their falling for the first pretty seductress who comes on to them.  But if they have some familiarity with women, they'll be more likely to see through this and realize how shallow and ugly these types of women really are.  There's a point where too LITTLE exposure can make someone more prone to fall into impurity ... obviously within limits. (all fine)

I let my kids drink a little wine and beer from time to time ... within strict limits.  I could be like a Puritanical Prot and prohibit even a whiff of alcohol.  Since I've let them try it, it's no longer some big enticing mysterious forbidden fruit. (OK) Lots of kids go to college and go from one drinking binge to another because they get their first taste of alcohol there.

And these limits depend on the kids and their temperaments and their characters.  With some you need to be more strict, whereas with others you need to give them a little more latitude.  So, for instance, I have one son who's an extreme choleric.  I could beat him to within an inch of his life, and he would just grit his teeth in defiance more sternly with each blow.  On the other hand, I have a couple of girls who break down into uncontrolled hysterical crying if I but raise my voice ever so slightly.

My comments in red. (P.S. - my wife takes care of what the girls wear, makeup, and such. I teach more the psychology of why we do what we do, so my children know "why people act the way they do". If there is anything that they disagree with, they will have to come up with a better reason than what mine is. I like my children to think for themselves, not to be robots. I could drop dead tomorrow (or live another 35 years, who know?), I am preparing my children for life without me.)  

I’ve found that teaching my children ‘custody of the eyes’ is critical to helping maintain purity in these days. We can’t choose what other people wear so we can only learn what to do when faced with an immodestly dressed person whether male or female.
So instead of being scandalized every time we see immodest dress my children know to say a quick prayer ‘Jesus my Lord and my God have mercy on us and on the whole whole world’. That way reparation can be done immediately and scandal is avoided. It’s a win/win I think.

Not only is custody of the eyes or guarding the eyes from seeing anything impure important, but also guarding all the senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching is extremely important for our salvation. If we guard our sense of smell and taste, then we will not be tempted to gluttony, which leads to lust. If we guard our sense of hearing by refusing to listen to certain news casts, commercials, TV shows, and movies, then we will be pure and not persuaded by the fashions and temptations of today. If we guard our ears and tongue, then we will not commit the sins of slander, gossip, and detraction. And touching -- we need to keep our hands folded in prayer.

You sound like you allow your daughter's to taste the forbidden fruit only a little bit.  How did that work out for Adam and eve?

My father reared 13 girls.  No makeup, no heels over 2 inches, no tight clothing, no hair dye, no hairspray or gels, no boyfriends until we were ready to marry.  

Know what happened?  Almost all, without exception are married with children, traditional Catholic, wear no makeup, no heels over 2 inches, no tight clothing, no hair dye, no hairspray or gels unless its a very special occasion.

So I obviously completely disagree with you.

13 girls!  All married with children, traditional Catholic. Real world results. Can't argue that.

Question? Were those girls reared during the 1960's?

P.S. - of course there is much more to raising the children than the list Fanny gave above, this only shows what the father did in the case of those items she brought up. 

You sound like you allow your daughter's to taste the forbidden fruit only a little bit.  How did that work out for Adam and eve?

My father reared 13 girls.  No makeup, no heels over 2 inches, no tight clothing, no hair dye, no hairspray or gels, no boyfriends until we were ready to marry.  

Know what happened?  Almost all, without exception are married with children, traditional Catholic, wear no makeup, no heels over 2 inches, no tight clothing, no hair dye, no hairspray or gels unless its a very special occasion.

So I obviously completely disagree with you.

That's great.  But I've seen more than a few cases where the opposite happened.  There's nothing to disagree with if you understand my point.  Most of the choices we make require PRUDENCE, a discernment of conditions, circuмstances, people's temperaments and characters and how these mix with others, etc.  There's no cookie-cutter formula that works for everyone.

Of course you qualified the list with "no heels over 2 inches" vs. no heels at all since they're all "prostitute shoes".  I wouldn't let my girls wear outrageous heels like that either (aka "above two inches"), but I also don't see any problem with a LITTLE/LIGHT makeup and hairspray ... unless a particular girl is prone to vanity (see, a judgment of prudence).  I've known some girls who have issues with acne and skin problems (eczema/psoriasis) who put on a little makeup just to hide this stuff.  Nothing wrong with that at all.

And I don't allow my girls to have "boyfriends" either.  I was talking about allowing them to be in MIXED company under very tightly-controlled circuмstances.

SO I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.  If you read my post as implying that I allow my girls to wear immodest/tight clothing, heels over 2 inches, have boyfriends, and cake on tons of makeup ... then you misunderstood my post.

Really the only difference in what I allow vs. your list, Fanny, is that I allow light makeup vs. your no makeup.  So is that what you "disagree" about, suggesting that my daughters are being subjected to temptation like "Adam and Eve"?  You need to think a little before posting stuff like that and making gratuitous accusations.

You said:
 " I allow my daughters to wear:
  - a very light amount of makeup unless a particular girl is prone to vanity
 - clothes that may be somewhat form-fitting"
 
 Having to exclude one daughter from wearing makeup because she is prone to vanity will make her feel singled out so it would be better to have across-the-board rules.
 
 Some-what form-fitting clothing is no good. I think there have been enough examples recently in other threads to see clothing can be nice without having to be either form-fitting or potato sacks.
 
 You also said:
 "There's a point where too LITTLE exposure can make someone more prone to fall into impurity ..."
 
 That would depend upon the other factors in rearing your girls.
 
 You use phrases like
 " there's always the risk "
 " I imagine their reaction will be"
 " they will be less likely"
 " merely increases the likelihood "
 "  I could be like a Puritanical Prot"
 " Lots of kids" do it
 
 You sound like you are justifying your actions because you label people who are more attentive to these things as "puritanical protestants".  You need to think a little before offending Catholics who try to teach their daughters to follow the example of Our Lady.
 
 Furthermore, I would rather follow the tried-and-true way of my father than your risks, imaginations, likelihoods, and kids-are-going-to-do-it-anyway logic.
 
 As a side note, acne and psoriasis are both due to heavy metal toxicity.  Easy to detox those, so there is no reason to wear makeup.

Some-what form-fitting clothing is no good. I think there have been enough examples recently in other threads to see clothing can be nice without having to be either form-fitting or potato sacks.

What the heck do you think I meant by SOMEWHAT form-fitting.  I was contrasting that with the "potato sack" ... in other words expressing your very own in-between of "without having to be either form-fitting or potato sacks."

For crying out loud.

Only difference between my post and your example is the light amount of makeup.

I was writing in reaction to the type that would have their family look like and act like the Amish all the time.

You need to think a little before offending Catholics who try to teach their daughters to follow the example of Our Lady.

You need to improve your reading comprehension before inserting your foot into your mouth and accusing me of raising harlots.  And learn to accept correction when you're wrong.  Those are both lessons that your father evidently FAILED to teach you.