|
Ecclesiasticus
(Sirach) 19:26-27: "A man is known by his look, and a wise man, when
thou meetest him, is known by his countenance. The attire of the body,
and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, shew what he
is."
I Timothy 2:9-10: "In like manner women also in decent apparel:
adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair,
or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women
professing godliness, with good works."
Modesty, like continence, humility, and meekness, is annexed
to the cardinal virtue Temperance
(Wisdom 8:7) and has the reining in
of human passions as its goal. Modesty aims to conform the exterior of
man -- his clothing, way of talking, his bearing -- to the interior
sense of humility that all Christians should have.
Now, because he lives in a fallen state, man is to be clothed. It is
more than a matter of our need of protection from the elements as the
very first book of the Bible reveals:
Genesis 3:6-7,
13-21
And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes,
and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did
eat, and gave to her husband, who did eat... And the eyes of them
both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they
sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons... And the
Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered:
The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the
serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all
cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and
earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will put enmities
between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush
thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. To the woman also He
said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt
thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power,
and he shall have dominion over thee. And to Adam He said: Because thou
hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree,
whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the
earth in thy work: with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the
days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and
thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt
thou eat bread till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast
taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. And Adam
called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the
living. And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of
skins, and clothed them.
God made Adam
and Eve perfect and perfectly harmonious -- with Himself and with each
other. Then they sinned and saw themselves as they had become --
fallen,
separated from God and from each other. Having lost the grace with
which they were created, they began to retreat into their own egos and
blame each other, even God, for their sins: "the serpent deceived me,"
"the woman You sent deceived me," etc. The original harmony of
the Garden broken, Adam and Eve no longer completed the other perfectly
per God's design, but were now in felt need of each other, a need they
tried to fill by grasping the other through their concupiscence and
brokenness. Their relationship was now tainted, and shame filled them
as their nakedness came to be a sign of their incompleteness and
vulnerability, and an inducement to lust. Sensing their isolation from
each other and from God, they covered themselves with quickly-fashioned
aprons. Then God Himself clothed them, replacing those fig
leaf aprons with tunics (tunicas in the Vulgate, ktnvt
in the Hebrew).
Our bodies are holy gifts to be revealed and given to
another person only in marriage
Given all the talk about the shame of immodesty, one might get the
impression that the Church sees the body as a "bad" thing, and that we
cover ourselves because we are ugly. But this is not the case! Adam and
Eve didn't cover themselves because they were created "bad" or "ugly";
they covered themselves because, through the Fall, they no longer
reflected what God made them to be: perfect complements of one another
and the perfect image of their Creator. In covering themselves,
they attempted to recover the dignity that they'd lost.
Pope Pius XII wrote in an address to those in the fashion industry:
The Church, on
the contrary, does not censure or condemn styles when they are meant
for the proper decorum and ornamentation of the body, but She never
fails to warn the faithful against being easily led astray by them.
This positive attitude of the Church derives from reasons far higher
than the mere aesthetic or hedonistic considerations which have been
assumed by a renewed paganism. The Church knows and teaches that the
human body, which is God's masterpiece in the visible world, and
which has been placed at the service of the soul, was elevated by
the Divine Redeemer to the rank of a temple and an instrument of the
Holy Spirit, and as such must be respected. The body's beauty
must therefore not be exalted as an end in itself, much less in such
guise as will defile the dignity it has been endowed with.
No, the body is
not an evil thing (though it is quite prone to evil and must be ruled
by the head); it is "God's masterpiece in the visible world," elevated
by the Christ -- Who Himself took on human flesh -- and made a
temple at Baptism. Further, Jesus raised marriage to the level of a
Sacrament, restoring it to what it was "in the beginning" (Matthew
19:8). In marriage, the man and woman can stand before each other
naked, with no shame at all, just as Adam and Eve did "in the
beginning." Outside of that marriage covenant and the "Eden" of holy
matrimony, however, revealing the body immodestly is shameful and leads
to a lust that doesn't honor the other in all ways as a person,
but degrades him or her as an object. Only in marriage, where the
spouse is a total gift -- body and soul -- to the
other, is there no shame in revealing the vulnerability of our
incompleteness.
An analogy: the very word "modesty" comes from the Latin modus,
which means limit; clothing limits accessibility to that should only be
given in marriage. Now, think of fire: is fire "bad"? No, fire warms
us, cooks our food, enchants us with its beauty, and so on; but an uncontrolled
fire, a fire without limit, destroys. It is the
same with the body (and sex): modesty sets limits on the unveiling of
what is good so that it does not destroy. To be immodest is to
eradicate those limits and to give to the world that to which it has no
right but belongs to one's spouse alone. It is to profane what should
be treated as holy and to cheapen the gift of oneself.
The soul and body are one
In the article on veiling, I note that the
things that are considered holy are veiled, e.g., the ciborium, the
tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, etc. We must regain the Christian view
that our bodies are worthy of such veiling. Resist what our
post-"Enlightenment" culture tries to tell us, and don't believe that
our bodies are commodities to be displayed and bought and sold. That
view rests on the lie of dualism which sees our bodies as something
apart from who "we" are. But we are not "souls with bodies" or "bodies
with souls"; we are a unity of soul and body, a unity that must be
treated as a unity.
The soul is created at the moment of our conception, and even after
death this profound link between body and soul remains (which is why
Christians value relics of the Saints). At
the Last Judgement, our bodies will be resurrected and, if we die in a
state of grace, glorified. We cannot treat our bodies as "things" that
we "own"; they are a fundamental part of who we are. Accordingly, our
exterior should reflect the soul, and a Christian's soul calls for his
to be body adorned in a Christian manner, with modesty, dignity, and
holiness in mind.
For a woman, reflecting her human dignity entails understanding how
her humanity is uniquely feminine. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand speaks well
of this and recalls the fourth chapter of Solomon's Canticle of
Canticles when she wrote:
...there is
something extraordinarily great and mysterious about femininity. And
why do I say it is so great and so mysterious? Because you all know
that every little girl that is born, is born with a seal, so to speak,
protecting the mystery of her femininity, which is the womb. There is a
seal and if you understand, a seal always indicates something which is
sacred. The seal, which doesn’t exist in the male body, is profoundly
symbolic and says this belongs to God in a special way. This is a
sphere which is so beautiful and so profound that it cannot be touched
upon, except with God’s permission, in a Catholic marriage.
When a girl or young woman is permitted to give the keys of this
mysterious domain, this closed garden, to her husband-to-be, she says:
"Up until now I have kept this garden virginal, now God has given me
the keys and is allowing me to give them to you and I know that you
will penetrate into it, with trembling reverence and gratitude". The
moment that a woman is embraced by her husband and a few hours
afterwards she conceives, in this very moment, something absolutely
amazing happens which once again illuminates the greatness of
femininity. Neither husband nor wife can create a human soul. God alone
can.
Of course there is the male seed and there is the female egg. These are
material realities that God has put into the bodies and when they are
united, an amazing thing happens. God creates a new human soul, totally
new, which never existed before. Where? In the mystery of the female
body. This is where the soul is conceived. It has nothing to do with
the husband. The husband is out of the game at this point and the very
moment that God creates a soul he implies that there is a special
contact between God and the female body, so to speak, touching it in
creating it. Once again, what an extraordinary privilege.
We are not radically isolated individuals, but a
part of a community -- a community with which we communicate
We've all heard people who, when confronted with calls for modesty,
love to go on about their "rights." "I have a right to dress any way I
want, and only have to please myself! Don't judge! You think I dress
like a slut, but that doesn't make me one!"
Well, the exercising of one's political "rights" has consequences.
People have political "rights" to do a lot of things that are unwise.
One has a "right" never to bathe, too, but has no "right" to expect
others to think one smells like roses. It would obviously be a logical
fallacy to state as a proof that one who dresses like a slut
necessarily sells her body for profit; but a woman who dresses that way
is just as obviously dressing as someone who does. Or as Dave
Chappelle said to women who pull the "Just because I'm dressed this way
doesn't mean I'm a whore" line:
That would be
like me, Dave Chappelle the comedian, walking around the streets with a
cop uniform. Somebody might run up on me: "Thank God, officer, help us!
Come on; they're over here! Help us!"
"Oh, just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a police
officer!" Understand what I'm saying? All right, ladies, fine! Fine!
You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform.
The fact is, we
are judged by our appearances -- sometimes too harshly
("her skirt is 1/2 inch too short!"), sometimes for evil reasons ("look
at her clothes; she obviously has no money!"), sometimes for
ridiculous standards that a person has no control over ("her nose is
too big!"), and sometimes by people who haven't removed the beam from
their
own eye. Appearance is often held to be the only thing of value, in a
woman especially -- an attitude that causes great suffering to women
who don't look like the models in magazines (no one looks like that, by
the way; PhotoShop, soft lights, surgery, and make-up lie). And some
women can be completely catty, turning "looking good" into a huge
competition, and dishing dirt on other women's looks in order to put
them down.
Nonetheless, the things we do have control over can rightfully be
deemed to be expressive of who we are. The Jerry Springer
people who admonish the audience with an upturned palm and a "don't
judge!" when the latter laughs at their circus freak attire really need
to ask themselves what they are trying to tell the world by dressing
like circus freaks in the first place. If you don't want the world to
think of you and treat you like a circus freak, or a slut, or what have
you, then don't dress in a way that invites it.
The way we dress is simply a part of how we communicate to the world.
Of all the people in the world, the Catholic should
know this intuitively. We worship using gesture
and posture and a
million things that are not based on word alone, such as bells and
incense and art. This strange "disconnect" between the verbal and
non-verbal on which our modern culture expects us to base our ways of
being and seeing is simply not human and not rooted in the Truth of the
body-soul unity mentioned above.
What many modern fashions tend to communicate
Fashions today
often tend to be about putting out the message, "I am sexy! Look at me!
Want me! Look how 'hot' I am!" Now, a person can look as "hot" as she
wants for her spouse (here's
what
St. Thomas Aquinas says about that), but for a person to want to
induce lust in
strangers is -- well, it's evil. Our Lord said that "whosoever shall
look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with
her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28) -- and adultery is a mortal sin. Why
would a person want to tempt a another to mortal sin?
James 1:14-15
But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and
allured. Then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth
sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.
Think about it.
Imagine, say, that you have a profound weakness for chocolate but are
giving it up for Lent. Then imagine that almost every person of the
opposite sex you see is carrying boxes of chocolate just to tease you
with, that every time you turn on the television you see luscious
chocolate presented in the most sensous way. On every other billboard
you pass and every magazine you see, there is that chocolate in
full-color glossy print, photographed precisely to tempt you. This is
life for many, especially men, in our sex-saturated culture. Don't add
to the problem;
keep the words of St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347 - 407) in mind:
You carry your
snare everywhere and spread your net in all places. You allege that you
never invite others to sin. You did not indeed, by your words, but you
have done so by your dress and deportment and much more effectively
than you could by your voice. When you have made another sin in his
heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me whom does this world condemn?
Whom do judges in court punish? Those who drink poison or those who
prepare it and administer the fatal portion? You have prepared the
abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink and you are more
criminal than those who poison the body; you murder not the body but
the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by
any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish
vanity and pride.
And, though she
writes humorously, consider the reality behind the words of Caitlin
Moran, who wrote in the U.K.'s Times:
On top of that,
being sexy is often counterproductive. As soon as a woman makes herself
sexy, she instantly makes all the men in the room more stupid and all
the women more tetchy. That sounds like the kind of curse a bad fairy
bestows on birth, rather than a task that makes upper-leg waxing
worthwhile.
The Sexual Marketplace
Yes, the woman
who's dressed to be sexy makes men stupid and women more tetchy. But
that's not all she does. She also imposes pressure on the women around
her to also dress that way in order to compete for male attention. You
can see the
downard spiraling of this phenomenon by looking at how women dress in
general these days as opposed to how they dressed seventy years ago.
When some women start dressing like whores, other women feel pressured
to not only do the same, but to "top" them, to be even "sexier," and
we've reached the point where there is not much lower we can go. Women
walk around with bellies hanging out, decolletage revealed, and skirts
"up to there." And no one but the players are "better off" (by wordly
standards) because of it.
Women who dress like whores are traitors to their sex in that they
create a social climate that does not benefit other women. The young,
"hot" chick reading this might think, "well, that's their problem! I look good, and men
want me!" Well, sister, what do they want you for? To marry you -- or something
else? You might be able to get away with this sort of
deportment for now, but when you start to age, put on a few
pounds, and get a wrinkle or two, it's all over - and that day comes a
lot more quickly that you realize. What will you have built for
yourself when your sexiness is gone? And if you ever do get married, do you want
other women to be visually treating your husband
by being dressed around him the way you are dressed now? Is this the sort of world you
want to live in -- a world in which growing
older is terrifying, in which you're always pressured to be "hot" no
matter your age lest your husband be vamped away by some chick in a
mini skirt?
We women are the gatekeepers (see The
Garbage Generation on this site), and we have a very serious
interest in
keeping the price of sex high -- if not for ourselves, which is reason
enough, then for our daughters who will come after us. Do you want your
daughters to be pressured into dressing like sluts? Then stop dressing
like one yourself. Cultural change has to start somewhere; let it start
with you. It is the right thing to do, and even a non-Christian can
think in terms of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "Act
only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will
that it should become a universal law." In other words, if God's
desires for us aren't enough for you to think seriously about morality,
such as modesty, then, before deciding to do something (or not), ask
yourself what the world would be like if everyone were to do (or refrain
from doing) that act. Would you rather live in a world where everyone
--
including your grandmothers, future daughters,
and your future older, less toned, more wrinkled self -- are pressured
to look "hot" or a world in which people dressed modestly? Dress
accordingly.
Catholics appreciate beauty (or should anyway)
Just because a
Catholic shouldn't dress "sexy" for strangers doesn't mean that we
should look ugly and boring! Clothing with brilliant color and texture,
wonderfully cut, accessorized and worn by a nicely groomed person --
this is a good thing!
How modesty and beauty are reflected in our clothing is a matter of
personal taste and ethnic identity. With regard to female fashions, you
can find perfectly modest women dressed in clothes with a modern
Western cut, all
in the latest colors and with the latest accessories. You can find
others in beautiful historical styles -- e.g., drop-waist and cloche
hat 1920s styles; sumptuously-colored fabrics shaped into long
skirts; or clothes that are considered fashionably "retro," such as
what Jacqueline Kennedy might have worn. Others prefer a more
"Bohemian," peasant, "Gypsy," "Goth," or ethnic look (think of some of
the beautiful outfits Stevie Nicks used to wear). And what is more
beautiful than those gorgeous saris worn by Indian women? Some modest
Christian women in the Middle East might look more like Muslims than
typical Western Christians. Still other modest women like a "preppy,"
"tweedy" look such as what the Princess of Wales would have worn when
she was still Lady Diana, an upper-crust English schoolteacher. Some
look really hard to find clothes from the latest designers that fit all
the right criteria for modesty, and talented women might make their own
patterns, with their own styles.
The point is that there is no need to believe that we all
have to look like cookie-cutter, calico-laden "Little House on the
Prairie refugees" with "Peter Pan collars" and tent-like skirts
(Christ, spare us!). No! It is good to dress attractively! Proverbs
31:22 speaks of the "valiant woman" as being attired in "tapestry, fine
linen, and purple." Psalm 45 speaks of the "the Queen" in "gilded
clothing." Apocalypse 21:2 speaks of the Church as a bride "adorned for
her husband." Queen Esther, a type of Our Lady, is described as an
"exceeding fair" woman whose "incredible beauty made her appear
agreeable and amiable in the eyes of all" (Esther 2:15). Pope Pius XII
wrote in an address to the Latin Union of High Fashion that the
"penchant for the adornment of one's own person clearly derives from
nature, and is therefore legitimate."
No, there is nothing wrong with adorning oneself and being attractive!
As we Italians would say, it is good to "fare una bella figura!" -- to
"make a good showing" by making things beautiful! Why allow something
to be unattractive when it could just as easily or with little effort
be lovely? (this Italian attitude goes to everything -- one's home,
clothes, dinner table, etc.)
For women: reclaim the feminine if that reflects
who you are
Indeed, clothing
should not only be comfortable, suitable to the task, and modest, but
there is also nothing wrong with a girly-type woman wanting to look
feminine relative to the culture in which she finds herself (assuming
the culture in question has reasonable views of feminity). Know,
though, that this is not a call to unreasonably exaggerate the
differences between the sexes, to do the fashion equivalent of bringing
back fainting couches, or for women to feign stupidity and an unnatural
fragility; rather, it's a call for girly-type women to be more genuine
and to dress in a manner more consistent with their inner beings -- and
more likely to help them fulfill their deepest desires, which
aren't one-night-stands, but respect and a beautiful family life. When
women go about consciously acting "like men," dressing "like men,"
training their emotions to be more "cool like a man's," quashing their
fertility so they can be promiscuous "like men," and so on, they
are being male impersonators and untrue to themselves.
The "masculine" has for too long been seen as the standard of
desired behavior; in the name of radical "feminism," all that is feminine
has been treated as unimportant. The typical natural, womanly desires
-- to be respected, and, for most, to be mothers, to stay home and
raise our children, to care for a home and a husband -- have been
scoffed at as evidence of "Cinderella complexes" or simple weakness.
Catholic women and the naturally virtuous, traditional women of false
religions (may they come to Jesus) must not accept such a state of
affairs!
We are not all the same, of course, and there are great overlaps in
masculine and feminine behaviors. Some women are called to marriage,
others to the religious life, and others to virginity, with or without
a secular career, like the brilliant Maria Gaetana Agnesi (A.D.
1718-1799), whom Pope Benedict XIV appointed as the Chairwoman of
higher mathematics at the University of Bologna in A.D. 1750. Some
women are natural so-called "tomboys" and others are the frilly sort.
We have role models as diverse as the perfectly maternal Blessed
Virgin; the fiery St. Joan of Arc; the lyrical St. Hildegaard von
Bingen; the philosophical St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross; the
artistic St. Catherine of Bologna; the mystical St. Teresa of Avila;
the feisty St. Catherine of Siena; the industrious St. Frances Cabrini;
the bookish St. Catherine of Alexandria; the domestic St. Martha; the
been-around, penitent St. Mary Magdalen; and the child-like St. Th�r�se
of Lisieux -- among many others! We can model ourselves after any or
all of these types of women, but we are, thank God, not men and never
will be. The denigration of the feminine must end.
Which brings us to the controversy of controversies: women
and pants
Because pants had been, historically, in the West, a
male article of clothing, you will find that some traditional
Catholic women in the West never wear pants, or only wear them when
working in the yard, riding horses, skiing, or some such. Given the
History of Western dress and the desire on the part of some
traditionalists for a more apparent distinction in the sexes' visual
styles, some tradition-minded men tend to treat women with more
appreciation when those women
dress in a way considered by them to be feminine.
On the other hand with regard to pants, it is a fact that pants-wearing
for women has been an accepted practice for some decades in the West,
and
pants are now made and sold for women and are, therefore "women's
clothing" (to those men who disagree, I challenge them to go buy a pair
of pants for themselves from the women's department of the nearest
store). In the end, it is to each woman to prayerfully discern
how to
dress, and when and where, considering and respecting the feelings of
her husband, if she has one. And it is to others to refrain from harsh
judgments against those who might have come to different conclusions
(or who simply can't find or afford a wardrobe they themselves think
would be more fitting); it's very unwise to make the shunning of pants
the sine qua non of orthodoxy. In fact, Pope St. Nicholas I,
way back in A.D. 866, wrote to the newly Christianized Bulgarians, the
females of whom wore pants, and said, "For whether you or your women
wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation
nor leads to any increase of your virtue." 1
The temporal benefits of dressing modestly
There are everyday benefits to dressing modestly, too, especially for
women. Consider this: who is free and who is in bondage -- the woman
who sees herself as part of a "chosen generation, a kingly priesthood"
(I Peter 2:9) and dresses modestly to reflect that fact, or a woman
who:
-
starves herself
to a size 4 so she can fit into those midriff-bearing tops;
-
stuffs her
breasts into Wonder bras so they'll look good in those plunging
necklines;
-
has to worry
about what's "hanging out" every time she bends over or sits down or
stands up or reaches for something;
-
is totally
uncomfortable, a-l-l d-a-y l-o-n-g, who feels stuffed after eating a
cup of yogurt, because her clothes are just too tight;
-
feels compelled
to work out 2 hours a day so she can wear bikinis;
-
has liposuction
because she feels "too fat" to wear whatever the pop star-du-jour is
wearing;
-
has a
"butt-lift" or implants so her backside can better fill a pair of
"low-rider"
jeans;
-
has to buy a new
wardrobe every new "fashion season";
-
gets breast
implants so the boys will look at her;
-
has surgery on
her toes so she can fit into those pointy-toed
stilletos -- and then suffers with every step she takes when wearing
them?
For all the
supposed "liberation" and sense of "empowerment" dressing like hookers
is supposed to give us, in truth it turns us into a nation of
obsessive, shallow, suffering anorexics who attract men who like
hookers!
Will dressing sexy get you attention? Sure it
will. And walking around an A.A. meeting with a case of beer will get
you attention, too; there's no great trick in appealing to the weakness
of others. But the attention gotten is that of those who are either
not Christian at all, or who are weak and prone to sins of the flesh.
Is that the kind of attention you truly want? Is
someone who wants you because you look "hot" the kind of person you
want to marry? Is he the kind of person you'd trust in a marriage
-- to not commit adultery, to not leave you when you get a wrinkle or
gain a few pounds? Is he the kind of person you want to even be
the parent of your children? Is he the kind of person you want to grow
old with?
On all levels -- the theological, the sociological, the psychological,
even in terms of simple comfort -- dressing modestly is the smart thing
to do. If you are called to the religious life or virginal singlehood,
your path is easy to see. If you are called to marriage, dress now for
the kind of person you want to marry; dress as the kind of person your
ideal spouse would want for a mate, and keep the gift of yourself holy
for that person alone. If you are already married, dress as you and
your spouse want behind closed doors, but keep that gift for him or her
alone.
A mental checklist for
girls and women
to consider when trying on clothes
Men have it easy
when trying to find modest clothes, but here is a general rule of thumb
for women:
-
Stand
straight and ask yourself: Does the outfit cover my upper legs? Is the
neckline decent? Are there any gaps or puckers over the breast area to
indicate the top is too tight? If the top has buttons, is there any
puckering so that my breasts might be visible from the side? Is the
outfit too sheer so that one can see too much through the fabric?
-
Walk a
few steps and ask yourself: If there is any kind of slit, does walking
reveal too much? Is the outfit loose enough to walk comfortably in?
-
Sit down
and ask yourself: Are my legs still covered? Am I still decent when I
cross and uncross my legs? Am I able to sit comfortably?
-
Bend over
at the waist as if you're picking a flower. Ask yourself: does the
neckline of the outfit droop to expose too much of my chest? If I wear
such an outfit anyway, would I remember to hold the fabric close to my
chest when I bend over? Am I decent from behind? Am I able to bend over
comfortably?
-
Stretch
your hands up over your head as if you're reaching for something on a
tall shelf. Ask yourself: Are my belly or legs exposed? Can I reach
comfortably?
-
Look at
the overall picture in the mirror. Ask yourself: If I saw a woman
walking toward me dressed as I am, what would I say her clothes are
saying about her? Is she immodest? Unappreciative of beauty?
For Men
Men,
no matter what a woman around you wears, you are ultimately responsible
for your
own lust. Attraction and simply recognizing the beauty or
even the "sexiness" of a woman are one thing, but lust is something you
consent to, indulge in. It is an act of the will. While the women
around you can make purity more or less difficult for you, and while
provocation is one of the nine ways we are
responsible for others's sins, it is
still your responsibility to, first, not think of women as mere visual
objects or stumblingblocks put in your way. Women are human beings who
deserve human respect and need to be brought to Jesus if they don't
already know Him; they are your sisters or potential sisters in Lord
Christ. Do not blame them for your failures, for your lack of purity of
mind and heart. Don't think that wrapping women in burqas will save
you, for it is "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but
what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Don't put the onus
of your chastity on them. I implore you to read "The
Story of Two Monks" and ponder what I am saying.
Secondly, reassess the kind of women you give your attention to and
whom you allow to shape -- even if pre-consciously but powerfully --
your idea of "the feminine ideal." For the love of all that's holy, put
away the porn, and never, ever reward a woman for doing the wrong
things. Don't give attention or "likes" or money to women dressing or
behaving immodestly.
And don't think that the idea of dressing modestly doesn't apply to
you, too. Women are attracted to and lust after men just as men are
attracted to and lust
after women.
If you think women aren't noticing your strong arms and gorgeous
thighs,
you're wrong and have an idea of women as "visually sexless" which
isn't true in the least. This section has mostly been devoted to women
because of crazy state of women's fashions, the incredible social pressure on women
to look "hot," and the fact that men, as a group, tend to be more visual and more sexually
"immediate"; it
isn't aimed at female modesty because only men are capable of lust.
Finally, it is hoped that you try to have some pity for women and
an understanding of the tightrope they walk while simultaneously
wanting
to attract and please you, wanting to be modest and Godly, feeling intensely pressured to
compete with women who don't dress modestly and who seem to get
all the male attention -- and enduring all this while struggling to
find non-frumpy, modest clothing in the first
place, something that is hard to do these days and which is much more
difficult for women who are
large-busted and need special sizes. And speaking of women who are just
naturally curvy, don't talk about their very bodies as something they
should be ashamed of. Women have breasts and hips, some more than
others; that's how God made them. Women shouldn't be made to feel
ashamed of being women just because you find them attractive. There's
not much one can do to hide the fact that one has large breasts.
In the end, women need to play their part in all this by loving and
respecting men, being accepting of the natural general differences
between the sexes, reminding
themselves that we are our
brother's keeper, and then dressing accordingly, within reason and
while
considering comfort, beauty, and the demands of their duties; men need
to play their part by owning their own sins, mastering their own
temptations, eliminating any "porn mentality" they might have, minding
their own modesty, never rewarding female immodesty, and developing a
basic respect for women that cuts
through much of the problem of lust.
Footnotes:
1 Excerpt from "The
Responses of Pope St. Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars"
(Letter 99), Chapter LVIIII, A.D. 866:
"We consider
what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not
wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the
behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you
are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized
in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are
progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these
matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be
held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the
custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from
your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are
ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men
may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new
man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to
ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or
your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your
salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue.
"Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it
should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the
lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained
by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the
first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after
sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for
themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you
still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not
yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a
few things on this matter, although, with God's gift, we could say many
more."
|
|
