Modesty does not mean having to look frumpy. The neoSSPX direction on appropriate clothing I perceive as a perhaps subconscious reaction against what I may call Amish-like Puritanism that existed amongst some parents during my brief stint as a live-in teacher/house father/anything computer related graphic designer et al. And yet the inconsistency/hypocrisy of these same parents (girls wearing kilts????

To speak yet again of hypocrisy.....said mission chapel where bears truly attends on occasion - at least to obtain the Sacraments of Confession and The Holy Eucharist - sees the priest railing against immodest dress by men and women (specifically a case of an adult server wearing jeans to a Mass where he was to serve - wherein the young gentleman was publicly admonished and refused Holy Communion. The entire episode should have been handled discretely and with I pray, greater humility. The hypocrisy layeth in the fact that the said priest does not wear his cassock, but black pants and black sports vest.
I sense the time will come soon that I shall be advised by the Resistance priest I know and am beholden towards,alas that we are separated by a goodly distance.

Soon comes summer to these northerly parts, and the shedding of the garments and thus exposing way way way too much epidermis, but sporting articles that hardly veil what Monty Python oft referred to as "the naughty bits."

I guess we most continue to teach about the beauty of modesty (ladies) and the masculine chivalric ethos as expressed in apparel.

For the women..........



And for what truly TradCat men should aspire towards....(I REALLY want to wear this to Mass one day! I even have chainmail coif! :) :) :) :) :) :)

Where can outfits like these be purchased??
The woman’s dress is BEAUTIFUL!!
I can imagine many women being excited about having new, similar options!

I agree, this is a sentimental description.  But I did hear a story about a saint who said that our guardian angels were sad when people were immodest, not because they were affected by the human body, but because the sinful activity offended God.

 I don't see how modesty isn't ultimately for the benefit of other people.

The Guardian Angel line doesn't really make sense and sounds vaguely Gnostic to me. The Apostles are often depicted as having fished topless, due to the heat and the sweat from the intensity of the work. Were their Guardian Angels scandalised? This assertion being thrown around here that modesty has nothing to do with the audience is a little strange. Yes it's uncivilised and shameless if you're just strolling around your house completely naked or just in your boxers, even if no one's around. And you could call that an issue of modesty I guess. But after the most basic level of covering up it's completely dependent on the audience. Taking your shirt off while you're overheating from hard work in the sun, your only company being other men, - there's nothing wrong with that. Doing so for no practical reason around women is obviously immodest. I personally wouldn't go around in front of women in just my boxer-shorts and a t-shirt, but why exactly would that be a problem while sleeping in my own bed? My Guardian Angel will already have to see me when I'm getting changed or in the shower. Some people even go to the ridiculous extreme of saying Guardian Angels are scandalised by babies being left naked for a moment while being changed. Ridiculous!

No, just people who value the virtue of modesty because God values it.

God never demanded Adam and Eve cover up.