Author Topic: Trad Women Who Wear Short Shorts Bikinis (Read 17800 times)

Cheryl · « **Reply #60 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:13:58 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek

I usually wear dresses that are mid-calf length rather than reaching my ankles. In the summer, I sometimes wear tops that expose my elbows. Am I understanding correctly that some here are saying that I am going to hell for this?

Jaynek,

I think you're supposed to wear 3/4 length sleeves on blouses. Good luck finding them. I've come across a few in second hand stores, but I don't believe I've ever seen any in a department store. I guess your only other option is to roll up a long sleeve shirt until the sleeves are just below the the elbows. But IMHO, I don't think that God will sent you to hell for having you're elbows showing on a 90 degree day.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #61 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:29:47 AM »

I think the solution is to leave the line between venial and mortal sin to the moral theologians and to recognize that venially sinful dress should be unacceptable. And the virtue of decorum, without scrupulosity or ostentatious frumpiness, should be the goal.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #62 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:32:37 AM »

It would be mortally sinful to dress in a way calculated to inflame venereal passions.

Those who design the clothes are the ones doing the calculating, and the way they have the clothes modeled says it all about the intentions.

Jaynek · « **Reply #63 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:36:18 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Sede often speaks of Victorian style of modesty, Victoria reigned for a long time, but he speaks of covering to the neck, ankles and wrists. What inspired that dress? Did she convert to Catholicism? I do cover to my wrists when outside the home, except while swimming, I'm just curious how the styles then = Catholic modesty. I'm ignorant of that period of dress except for movies (and we know how accurate Hollywood is ) and it seems like at least the formal dresses were tight in the upper body.

Yes, formal dresses were low-cut and short-sleeved. There is a picture of young Queen Victoria wearing a dress with a neckline that shows her shoulders and goes well below her collarbone.

bowler · « **Reply #64 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:40:46 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

It would be mortally sinful to dress in a way calculated to inflame venereal passions.

That's what I was saying.

Wouldn't it be more striking to say that to a girl, than to say that they shouldn't dress a certain way because it is immodest?

As an aside, a priest once told a mother that her daughters should not dress to attract men, unless they are of age to get married.

Jaynek · « **Reply #65 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:42:41 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I think the solution is to leave the line between venial and mortal sin to the moral theologians and to recognize that venially sinful dress should be unacceptable. And the virtue of decorum, without scrupulosity or ostentatious frumpiness, should be the goal.

I agree. Getting into a debate over mortal or venial sin just serves as a distraction from the importance of modesty.

I think that example is far more influential than what we say, anyhow. When some women dress modestly and attractively, it helps other women to see a model of how things should be. Catholic women (and their husbands or fathers) should be thinking about women's clothing in terms of demonstrating godly standards.

bowler · « **Reply #66 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:43:54 AM »

Quote from: Faber

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Faber
Quote from: bowler
I said that wearing those clothes is a mortal sin. I said that if someone dies by accident, and has one mortal sin on their soul, that they will not be saved.

One of the conditions which make a sin mortal: it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.

That simple quote has been used for over 50 years to excuse everybody from practically every sin (except Adolph Hitler of course).

bowler, I did not excuse anybody.

What you said, is simply not true, and I told you so.

Merely wearing tight jeans may not even be a grave sin.

You have been corrected by some users, now get yourself a good, traditional Catechism, study the classifications of sin, and stop spreading false ideas about sin.

It's a good idea to talk about the importance of modest clothing, but without distorting the teaching of the Church, please.

You are saying, if they don't know it's a mortal sin, it is not a mortal sin. Your point is moot, it is irrelevent. Read the saints quotes I gave you. That's the Church speaking, and they all knew what you wrote.

If they don't know it is a sin, then they will know when they are told, which is what we (parents, priests, respected elders) are going to be doing, right? End of excuse.

End of story.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #67 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:46:56 AM »

Quote from: bowler

As an aside, a priest once told a mother that her daughters should not dress to attract men, unless they are of age to get married.

Age 16 is old enough to start accepting suitors.

Jaynek · « **Reply #68 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:48:49 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Telesphorus
It would be mortally sinful to dress in a way calculated to inflame venereal passions.

That's what I was saying.

Wouldn't it be more striking to say that to a girl, than to say that they shouldn't dress a certain way because it is immodest?

No, because some girls just wear clothes that are in fashion in order to fit in and aren't thinking about men's passion. These girls still need to dress modestly and it is not good to teach them to think very much about men's passion.

bowler · « **Reply #69 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:51:59 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: bowler
As an aside, a priest once told a mother that her daughters should not dress to attract men, unless they are of age to get married.

Age 16 is old enough to start accepting suitors.

As you know, the law says differently. And, well, if the parents don't want that, they better not let them dress to attract, or else teach them what is going to happen when they "attract".

Telesphorus · « **Reply #70 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:54:49 AM »

Quote from: bowler

As you know, the law says differently.

Lol, really? You have quite an imagination as to what the moral and civil laws happen to be.

Quote

And, well, if the parents don't want that, they better not let them dress to attract, or else teach them what is going to happen when they "attract".

Parents need to stop deluding themselves about their daughters. That's one of the main problems traditionalism is having.

bowler · « **Reply #71 on:** October 20, 2012, 10:55:15 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Telesphorus
It would be mortally sinful to dress in a way calculated to inflame venereal passions.

That's what I was saying.

Wouldn't it be more striking to say that to a girl, than to say that they shouldn't dress a certain way because it is immodest?

No, because some girls just wear clothes that are in fashion in order to fit in and aren't thinking about men's passion. These girls still need to dress modestly and it is not good to teach them to think very much about men's passion.

Good point. However, once they do "know", I think the modesty argument is weak.

bowler · « **Reply #72 on:** October 20, 2012, 11:19:02 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
And, well, if the parents don't want that, they better not let them dress to attract, or else teach them what is going to happen when they "attract".

Parents need to stop deluding themselves about their daughters. That's one of the main problems traditionalism is having.

You are saying that Jaynek is deluding herself to think that "some girls just wear clothes that are in fashion in order to fit in", and you think that they are knowingly thinking about men's passion when they wear those clothes?

Quote from: Jaynek

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Telesphorus
It would be mortally sinful to dress in a way calculated to inflame venereal passions.

That's what I was saying.

Wouldn't it be more striking to say that to a girl, than to say that they shouldn't dress a certain way because it is immodest?

No, because some girls just wear clothes that are in fashion in order to fit in and aren't thinking about men's passion. These girls still need to dress modestly and it is not good to teach them to think very much about men's passion.

Jaynek · « **Reply #73 on:** October 20, 2012, 11:22:48 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: bowler
As an aside, a priest once told a mother that her daughters should not dress to attract men, unless they are of age to get married.

Age 16 is old enough to start accepting suitors.

As you know, the law says differently. And, well, if the parents don't want that, they better not let them dress to attract, or else teach them what is going to happen when they "attract".

I am not sure where you live, but girls can marry at sixteen in most jurisdictions in Western countries. One of my daughters married at 18 (to a man in his 30s) and I do not think there was anything wrong with this.

Jaynek · « **Reply #74 on:** October 20, 2012, 11:31:00 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Jaynek
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Telesphorus
It would be mortally sinful to dress in a way calculated to inflame venereal passions.

That's what I was saying.

Wouldn't it be more striking to say that to a girl, than to say that they shouldn't dress a certain way because it is immodest?

No, because some girls just wear clothes that are in fashion in order to fit in and aren't thinking about men's passion. These girls still need to dress modestly and it is not good to teach them to think very much about men's passion.

Good point. However, once they do "know", I think the modesty argument is weak.

Girls do not understand what boys and men experience and teaching girls to dwell on this is just asking for trouble. It is possible to teach modesty without a focus on passion and this is much more suitable for girls.