While I will not mock anyone here by any means, I'm gonna preempt my comment here by saying I'd probably be considered more "conservative" or "trad leaning" than fully trad by this forums standards. My questions here are purely my own, and I don't necessarily care how well I do or don't fit with any particular group besides, of course, the dogmas of the Church.
This thread raised several questions for me. Note that all of these questions are sincere. None of them are attempted to mock anyone's convictions.
Why exactly and by what standard are the people in these pictures dressed immodestly? What constitutes modesty vs immodesty, and how is that determined?
Going to a beach nude would be wrong, because a beach is a public place, and there always *could* be someone who showed up there. But isn't the whole point of modesty for the sake of other people? ie. I don't understand why modesty would even be a consideration in a situation where one is truly, genuinely, definitively alone. How is even sleeping nude a modesty issue?
But not being able to sleep could have serious repercussions on one's ability to fulfill their duties of state.
But also why? Like with the rest of it, my main question is where exactly we draw the line, and why exactly, how exactly to distinguish between "my personal convictions are stricter" and "You're wrong and sinning against the Lord" (perhaps there's explicit church teaching on this, but I'm unaware of it.) If all women wore burkas there'd be less lust, but only Muslims require that (to be clear, again, I'm not trying to compare people who have stricter convictions than I do to Muslims who wear burkas, I'm just wondering how exactly we draw these lines and based upon what standards.) But at least it makes sense to me. Being strict to not cause someone to stumble is noble even if we can't pin down with precision what exactly is and isn't OK.
But I don't get why modesty would matter why one is asleep. Like I really don't understand why that would be a consideration at all. What am I missing?