Amen!

(actually I just want to subscribe to the followup comment war)

This is coming from a usual skirt wearer who has no problem with anyone who wears pants - modesty comes from the inside first and foremost.  These amazing athletes get better times because, as you stated, they were focusing on the task at hand (running really, really fast) and not worrying about the wedgie they get from the other shorts! 

This story comes on the heels of the Muslim weight-lifter who is trying to get the int’l association to allow her to redesign her uniform that will both conform w/ necessary rules AND her desire to honor her faith.  The comboxes there are full of trash about how we can’t let that happen for we’ll fall to Muslim rule! 

I used to play volleyball back in the day when baggy shorts and t-shirts were the norm and you were impressive based on your crushing serve and your jump at the net - it had nothing to do with how you look.  Now, I cringe thinking of letting my children (daughters and sons) watch a competition (esp. beach).  Girls sports have come from not letting us play to only letting us play if they can catch some flesh!

Ok, totally off topic, but am I the only person who is still juvenile enough to cringe every time I read the phrase “Crimson Tide”?

On topic, running skirts are the best thing since lycra.  The shorts underneath help prevent thigh chaffing, and the skirt helps cover you.  They are a fantastic option for exercise.  They would be dreadfully inappropriate worn anywhere else.

Well reasoned! I myself wear *gasp* shorts. Bermuda shorts, but shorts none-the-less. What I can’t get past is how anyone could not see that modesty IS relative. On the beach, I wear a modest bathing suit in a sea of barely-there specks of cloths. I doubt any man is distracted by my attire. At the park, I wear my shorts and a loose modest top, I am positive I am not distracting anyone with my clothes. I live in a hot climate where many women take the opportunity to run in sports bras and tight short-shorts. I wear running shorts and a looser top, not causing scandal there. Where I to wear ‘approved attire’ from the skirt-fanatic, I would most certainly be more distracting than anything else.

I can’t pretend to get into the mind of men, and I don’t mean to. What I can do is ask my husband’s opinion, be a good example to my girls and I can and pray for the purification of our lustful society as a whole. More than that is scrupulosity, in my humble estimation.

In response/conjunction to/with Rachel W’s comment about the Muslim weightlifter: what annoys me most about the wider skirt/pants debate is the prevailing idea that “my version of modesty is better than your version of modesty.” Which, in and of itself, is an extremely immodest statement.

One thing that I don’t understand about the ‘super-modest’ crowd.  Modestly and humility are about not drawing attention to yourself, right?  So if you’re wearing Neo-Amish garb in a situation where the ‘modest norm’ is, say, a knee length khaki skirt and a button down blouse—- well, isn’t that a form of pride?  A way of saying “Yo! Look at me!!!  I am SO HOLY and SO MODEST and you should be more like me!!!”

The truly modest and humble people I’ve met (and I admit that I’m NOT one of them— the whole humility thing is a struggle with me….) always point elsewhere.  Like the Blessed Mother who doesn’t point to herself, but always at her son.

Mary’s not modest and humble because she wore veils and long skirts—that was the normal dress for her time.  She was humble and modest because she loved God above all else and her neighbor as herself.

The modest saints were JUST as pure, chaste and modest when thy were stripped naked and thrown into brothels.  It’s an internal, not an external state.

Ok… end of rant.  But GOOD GRIEF—when you dress your 16 year old in amish clothes, you put her on display just as much as if you let her dress like a streetwalker!

oops! forgot to ask for followup notices! I have tons of chores today—the modesty wars will be a nice diversion between patches of nasty scrubbing! ;)

Why didn’t the reporter go find those boys who were snickering at the girl mentioned in the article and ask them why they thought it was appropriate to be ogling and teasing the girl in the first place? Why is it always on the girls and women to cover up, not on the boys and men to behave themselves and act like gentlemen?

Good stuff Simcha!

I myself have trouble understanding why many, if not most, Catholics schools still allow girls to wear their Catholic school dress in mini-skirts (or rather really short skirts) that are about a foot or two above the knee.

THAT is my gripe.  What ever happened to skirts below the knee!?

Karen, you took the comment right out of my mouth.

Excellent and timely article, Simcha! I LOVE that phrase-Sola Skirtura! And yes, like many of my protestant friends/acquaintances, my younger sister & her family condemned me for not joining their “skirt-wearing ONLY” cult! I wouldn’t/just couldn’t buy into it (It’s simply way too cold up here in the hinterlands of North Dakota/MN). So, just as self-righteously as a protestant friend who “wrote me off as a devil-worshiper” ‘cause I was part of the “!@#$% of Babylon” (the Catholic Church), my younger, home-educating, home-birthing, nutrition-conscious, daily-communicant sister wrote me off as lost and immodest because I didn’t and wouldn’t buy into her Sola Skirtura cult.

I was, by the way, the one who wooed her and family—with love, it IS after all, the true Catholic way—back to the Church, daily Mass, home education, home birth and gardening/good nutrition for our families! Sadly, none of this counted for anything in the Skirt Wars. Such is the way of self-righteousness, of which I, too am guilty too often.

“Why didn’t the reporter go find those boys who were snickering at the girl mentioned in the article and ask them why they thought it was appropriate to be ogling and teasing the girl in the first place?” —Because ... that’s not the reporter’s job?

“Catholic Skirt Wars”—what a hoot!!!  I’m wondering how I managed to miss this whole running-in-skorts thing!  I concur that modesty has so much less to do with a particular type of clothing than with one’s intentions when putting it on.  And thank heavens for that—I may go on wearing my pants and shorts with a clear conscience.  ;)  I recently had a conversation with my husband’s niece about this very thing.  I was attempting to explain to her that a two-piece bathing suit is not inherently less modest than a one-piece (three cheers for the modest tankini—no more getting completely naked to use the public restrooms at the beach!!!).  Rather, it’s the cut, coverage, and style of the suit that matters.  I have a no-bikini rule for our backyard pool, but I would be just as opposed to a skimpy, low-cut-on-the-top-and-high-cut-on-the-bottom one piece.

Love this story.  Just posted a description and link to it on my blog, http://godisinthehouse.wordpress.com

If you really think about it, it’d make much more sense from a modesty perspective for men to wear skirts and women to wear pants. Pants (even non-tight ones) can really emphasize men’s genitals, quite frankly.

Plus, have you ever heard of a website with “up-pants photos?”  ;D

Well, I am a healthy, heterosexual man who stands up on the subway every day to and from Brooklyn and Manhattan.

If a teenaged girl standing in front of me was wearing that piece of apparel, I would think:

1) Stop pulling up your dress, what are you, five years old?

If she was not pulling up her dress, I would think:

1) Teenage girl in a short skirt. At least it’s not the pre-ripped acid-washed jeans fad that’s in among that crowd lately.
2) Doesn’t she know that the current fashion trend is long skirts? What is this, 1985?
3) (This thought would depend on the top she was wearing:)
  3a) (Modest scoopneck) Cute. Not strutting it. She needs a longer skirt, though, her look is dated.
  3b) (Revealing major cleavage) Oh please. If she’s trying to flaunt it, she can still dress like a !@#$% and at least be fashionable about it. Did her big-hair mommy who’s stuck in the Eighties dress her? She looks like she should be on the hood of Whitesnake’s car.

I know that might seem a bit far-fetched for a red-blooded American male to think, but the NYC subways are jam-packed with women in various stages of dress or undress. We get a little jaded. And women’s dress is often an indicator of their mindset, e.g., leather microskirt=owns boa constrictor named Milo=brass dance pole in rec room.

Steve T.,

“She looks like she should be on the hood of Whitesnake’s car”

Aahhhh, fond memories of the 80s.

Oddly, though, some of our popes in the last century have had occasion to observe the manner of dress required by some athletic activities. Is it reasonable, do you suppose, to accept their advice and to refrain entirely from some competitions, like track and field, because they oblige the female competitor to dress immodestly?

Did your roof cave in Simcha? :)

Steve T you are a hoot. And how up to date with fashions! lol. Its true long skirts are in.

LONG SKIRTS should always be “in” since they are so attractive, classy, feminine and usually easier to get a good fit. I haven’t worn (or want to see) another mini-skirt since my days in high school in the 1970s! (Oh, my poor dad, RIP—he had 8 girls and lots of changing, bewildering fashion ‘fights’ on his hands that spanned the early 70s to the late 80s-very tough fashion years for any dad).

Long skirts are so much more flattering than those man-designed, mini-skirts and leave a bit of something to mystery (no fashion-forward woman should be left in the dark about the delights of leaving something to mystery!). They are classier, don’t go out of style in 3 months (as did those horrid ‘jeggings’) and are usually a good monetary investment. A longer wool skirt with a fun pair of tights and cute pair of boots is wonderfully warm and cuddly in the cold months (and no leg shaving involved!), and long skirts are a cool alternative to sticky pants or unbearable pantyhose with a shorter skirt in the hot months.

Maybe the post above is technically correct in calling for men to wear pants, but I am HAPPY to be a bi-wearing women—YES! I am free to, and do choose when and where I WANT to wear pants, shorts, skorts, skirts—the whole choice thing here is where CHOICE is fitting (pun intended).

To long skirts, I say, Yesss!

“Why is it always on the girls and women to cover up, not on the boys and men to behave themselves and act like gentlemen?”

Ideally, it’s on both to do both. But while a girl’s sports coach can’t go around knocking sense into every teenage athlete - there’s only so much time in the day - he can modify uniforms.

Simcha,

You’re perfectly right, of course. 

Modesty depends on attitude, intention, appropriateness, and comfort.  Shorts/skorts are very good for running, or any athletic activity.  I’ve seen Viet-Namese nuns wearing slacks and tunics, a modification of their native ao-dai dress, in perfect & elegant modest comfort.  And I’ve seen young women in skin-tight ripped, even “destroyed” jeans, breasts bulging bra-less in too-small stretch t-shirts, and the bulge of lard around the waistline exposing the navel.  Not to mention the tattoos.  :-)

Who’s comfortable??

I think of George “Beau” Brummell’s advice that one should never have to think about clothing after donning it in the morning.  The person who dresses for raw sexual exposure is never comfortable, never appropriate, and only achieves her intention when dirty old coots blearily stare at her in senile lust.

I would like to say that I am distressed at least a little by the way that these modesty discussions inevitably draw so much description of the female body, clothed or barely-clothed. 

Simcha, your rhetorical question of “What would YOU think of this outfit?” has already invited us to bear witness of one man’s internal monologue while checking out a young girl.  Not that it was necessarily sinful but it makes me squeamish to imagine the scene from inside the one who is consuming the other with his eyes.  I am totally with you on pants, and modesty being situational.  Is there, though, a limit to how to discuss modesty?  A point, or a manner, in which it becomes, itself, immodest?

Oh, Simcha, so kind of you to revive the controversy! It’s a wonderful distraction from the (thankfully) dying bed bugs in my daughter’s room.

Apparently, I dress too modestly for my husband. He enjoys seeing me in something other than boys’ tee-shirts and jeans. Poor guy.

(And my questions are mainly to ask further, Simcha, not to criticize you.)

Anthony, my point was, the reporter didn’t bother to question why the boys’ behavior wasn’t called into question. Instead the article placed all the onus on the girls to wear something different. I’m the mother of three (soon to be four) boys, and I hope to teach them that no matter WHAT a woman is wearing, it is rude and crass to make comments about her body and make her feel uncomfortable.

..

Personally, I’ve tried wearing long skirts for modesty, and found I simply called more attention to myself—even my elderly neighbor would constantly comment, whenever he saw me, “How nice I was looking,” and wouldn’t stop talking about how feminine I looked, et cetera. It felt like the opposite of modesty.  I know he was just pleased to see a woman wearing a skirt, but it felt uncomfortable.  I got more “looks” and attention when I was out in a long skirt. When I wear what everybody else on my block generally wears—jeans, a t shirt—I stand out much less and call less attention to myself. Honestly, until we raise the next generation of young men to be gentlement, it won’t matter whether the girls are wearing short shorts or skorts on the track field.

This is a fascinating article. While I still don’t think the skort you have posted is the most modest thing ever, it is 100x better than what most young women wear in H.S. atheletics.

As someone that has just entered my 30’s I dont think I am that old, but I am now double the age of High School girls. I don’t know how to say this with out sounding odd, but there is something beautiful/charming (vs. “Sexy” in a sinful way) about seeing younger girls dressed modestly. As a father of a toddler girl, I dread thinking about the clothing discussion as we get older. When MEN see young girls, there is a biological component to the visual situation. The way to curtail that from going bad is by the girls dressing properly.  I know my wife will be supportive but I think the key is what someone said above - modesty and beauty come from the inside out. I think stories like these go to show that if a girl is confident in who and what she is - she can out perform others lost in the trappings of the world.

Right now, it’s 88 outside and I am wearing a t-shirt and capri pants.  That’s my normal attire in the summer unless it gets really hot, then I switch to bermuda shorts.  In the winter, I wear pants all the time.  I have vivid memories of my Catholic school going days and freezing to death in the winter despite wearing knee socks. 

Modesty and practicality - that’s the ticket.

This has already been said, I’m sure. But as a school teacher and as a former wearer of very short Catholic School uniform skirts, the following occurs to me.

Boys are going to ogle girls and girls are going to want to be ogled. What needs to be emphasized is the way in which a girl’s attire influences a young man’s attitude toward her.

Boys like to look at girls. The question is how they think they needs to treat girls.
Girls like to be liked. The question is how are they going to direct the relationships. Women and girls do have a lot to do with directing the relationships between men and women. To lecture a boy on respect will only solve half the problem. If a girl (or woman) encourages lust in order to gain attention, it is only natural (as in biology) for men to lust after her.

The observations about clothing appropriate to the time and place support this. It is very tough for a girl, especially in a public school, to be modest. Her female friends are some of the people most likely to mock her attempts at virtue. As long as girls are convinced that they need to be sexy in order to gain a boyfriend, or even to be in fashion, the battle for modesty will be on a very steep hill.

“Modesty is 99% about context and attitude”

Amen.

Waiting for Simcha to address how nude beaches are probably more modest than what’s worn at regular beaches. Seriously.

Ellen—-I, too, had to wear the knee-length Catholic uniform skirts, and froze in the winter.  I quickly learned to wear boxer shorts underneath, instead of a slip, in order to preserve modesty when climbing bleachers in the gym or in case I tripped and fell in front of people!  By my senior year, our uniforms were changed and pants were a uniform option…surprisingly few girls chose those, though, come to think of it.

—> The reason I feel the need to clarify this is because the story has been passed around among the Sola Skirtura (oh how I wish I had invented that phrase!) crowd as definitive proof that any clothing that tends skirtward is demonstrably, indisputably, morally superior to anything that tends pantward, where females are concerned. <—

Do you have a link to any of those postings?

In these modesty debates I keep hearing about all these people who say that pants are objectively bad and/or women must wear skirts… but I have never seen anyone actually say that… other than some blog trolls and this one wacky article at Catholic City. I would honestly be interested to take a look at the case these ultramodesty people make for their position, but bloggers keep posting *about* them without actually providing links to specific people making a specific case for “Sola Skirtura.”

I have enjoyed reading your posts for some time now… And I must say that you are spot on (in prior posts) in ways that leave me thinking, “say it, girl, woot!”

Here, however, I believe you have gathered something from the article that I don’t believe is there - the girls run faster because of these skorts (and because they feel more comfortable in their own skin which thus leads to higher performance).

The central theme that I found from reading the article? These girls feel “different” and “proud” because they are the FIRST team to do such a thing. They are the pioneers and by their coaches, well, coaching feel they are breaking new ground and being trendy. Nowhere did I notice (nor believe in any way) that performances improved as a result if wearing the skorts. Not trying to be Negative Ned here, I’m just a 9-year high school track coach that doesn’t believe the hype (nor did I notice evidence from the article about improved performance).

Most teams allow girls to were either spandex or the loose, baggy running shorts. Distance girls often opt for the loose shorts while sprinters and field performers (nearly ALL from my observation) choose, yes choose, the spandex. Bottom line, they just feel FAST in the spandex/tights.

Long skirts, in?  Yes and no.  Long, to the ankle, maxi dresses in flowy fabrics with spaghetti straps are in.  That’s about it.  The rest of the skirts are shorter than mid thigh.  You might be seeing mostly commuters, dressed somewhat more appropriately for work, but take a walk in and around NYC late on Saturday nights (for some reason, no one goes out before 10 or 11 anymore…)  You couldn’t dress more like a hooker if you tried.  I have shirts that are longer than some of their skirts.  Tight and short, like up to the crease at the top of the leg.  I’m not exaggerating.  Sky-high heels, sometimes with giant platforms.  Longer, loose, drapey blouses, often sheer, worn with dark bras underneath.  If the straps hang out, or if the arm holes are cut way low so that the side of the bra is showing, even better. 
When they’re not dressed up, the uniform seems to be: very short cut off shorts, flip-flops, similar flimsy draping T-shirts with bra straps hanging out.  I.e., let everything show all the time, casual or for a night out.  Oh yeah, and tattoos.  Everyone and their mother has a tattoo.

Knowing nothing of any previous skirt debate, and without reading any of the above comments, I agree, Simcha.  There is no such thing as virtuous clothing, and even a virtuous woman dressed modestly can still be ogled by a (vituous?) man.  Women are attractive, and men are attracted.  Let’s add a lot of self control, and we’ll all be happy.

I guess I’m writing because that skort in the photo is the tennis skort I wear almost daily (not to Mass though). I should totally blow it off (and follow the St. Therese quote) and not care that perhaps everyone might agree with the statement: “By any standards other than those of a track team, this is an immodest, revealing piece of clothing.” But I thought maybe I’ll just put myself out there as a living example, neither to scandalize anyone nor to beg for mercy, but simply as an apology (in the classical sense), perhaps, for those of us who don’t *fit* the pants-skirts agenda.
Why a tennis skort? No, i don’t play, even though my parents and sister’s family, and brother’s family are all obsessed with the sport. The style is just cute and covers well and translates to so many activities -from gardening to school visits to cuddling on the ground with little ones. Plus I got mine (I have a cream one and a gray one) for only $10 each at Walmart several years ago.  My impression about skorts is the total opposite of “immodest and revealing”, but I know my view is skewed by my past cheerleading life. I have however always felt an awareness and call to be more modest, and so I must be so far gone if after so long my clothing of choice is on the obviously immodest and revealing list. (not being facetious or sarcastic) Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner!

On the other hand, haven’t you ever seen two people wear the same “immodest and revealing” outfit, and their vibes elicit two very different responses? Didn’t God just create some people to be sexy or attractive, even in the most obvious physical sense, like I think Esther might have been?  And surely can’t even this sexiness exist and *be* towards His greater glory? I have an aesthetic bent (is that how you say that?) and I love to see beauty, yes especially physical beauty, in women (not so much in men except my wonderful husband) and I don’t think it’s unhealthy to praise God and enjoy the company of beautiful friends, yes even just their physical beauty. I also praise God and feel such joy in the simple physical beauty of my 5 children. I know it is probably the shallowest of all inspirations, but I pray that God forgives this my too-shallow pleasure in his creation.
When I was a religion teacher and in seminary, I tried on for years, like Karen above, my long floor length dresses. My husband remembers that our first date at Mass and our first years together I wore those dresses. It turned out that those dresses made me also feel the opposite of modesty; I was very much aware of how it was calling attention to myself, not only because it was so different from what I wore for almost my whole life, but also because it didn’t seem to jive with how God created me, and in that dissonance, the long dresses ironically kind of emphasized a sexiness. I had a close friend, a Vietnamese nun, who wore one of those Vietnamese long dresses to my wedding. I had only known her in pants and simple skirts (we worked at the same school together), so when I saw her at my wedding (and also at another cultural festival) in the long traditional Vietnamese sheath, my theory about long dresses sometimes emphasizing sexiness was definitely supported. What does all this theorizing and apologizing mean? pants-skirts? skorts-sheaths?

God made me, a pacific islander by blood, surprised me (by steering my husband my way) with all the TOB truths that my sexiness was wonderful and good, gifted my loving husband and me 5 young children so far, and landed us at this time in our lives in zone 9, and even though I am nearing the 40 year old mark, I still wear skorts -so I guess it’s the same silhoutte as when I was young. My mom wears them, too, when she is not at work, and she is 65. If our husbands find us sexy for it, I feel: Happy us! If it scandalizes and tempts others, who is to say that “modest” clothing wouldn’t? My own experience has been the opposite. God shows such mercy to us, and hopefully we can show the same mercy to others, whatever obvious sinfulness we might perceive in their being tempting or tempted.

Virtuous men would guard their eyes.

“Oddly, though, some of our popes in the last century have had occasion to observe the manner of dress required by some athletic activities. Is it reasonable, do you suppose, to accept their advice and to refrain entirely from some competitions, like track and field, because they oblige the female competitor to dress immodestly?”

What about the men?  Is it reasonable to watch men swim in speedos?  Do wrestlers really need to wear a singlet?  And what about all those male ballet dancers?  My girls got quite an eyeful at the American Ballet Theatre in NYC.  Was it the ballerinas that were immodest?  No.  So what would these popes think about that?  Why is it always the girls who get singled out for being immodest?

I was a high-jumper in high school in the 80s and I can definitively say that the tiny little outfit our championship girls’ track team wore was humiliating.  We walked around with blankets over ourselves, ostensibly “to keep from getting sun-zapped” but really because we felt like we were in our underwear. thanks for the article.

“Why is it always on the girls and women to cover up, not on the boys and men to behave themselves and act like gentlemen?” As it has been said, the responsibility belongs to both. But those girls look young (I’m not from the US so assume it’s a highschool track team?) and my view, as the mother of girls, is this: boys are going to look, I cannot change this greatly, and cannot control them. As an adult, my responsibility is to protect my children in ways that I can, which includes protecting their modesty, even at times and during activities that they may not like this. That is why I am the mother and they are the children. I can’t stop boys looking, but I can stop my girls from flaunting it. Good for them, what a great idea.

Bob said that he didn’t see in the article what you did—that there was an increase in performance. But Simcha didn’t find something that wasn’t there—it’s stated in the article.

At the end of the article it says:

Confidence, like in every sport, is an important quality for success on the track. Phillips says it’s spiked for her and her teammates since they started wearing their new uniforms. Not only have they gotten a boost in performance, she says, but also in how they feel about themselves.

“You look good, you run good,” Phillips, a co-captain, said. “It makes you feel different when you’re out on the track, like no one can come get you.”

Modesty is not primarily about the person wearing the clothing. It is about paying our opposite gender friends (and these days our same sex attracted friends) the courtesy of not providing them a source of temptation they might not have the moral strength to resist. It is a form of Christian charity.

It is not that we should be embarrassed about our bodies. Bodies are a beautiful gift from God. However, we are living in a time after the fall. We do not want to be a near occasion of sin for someone else. Saint Paul told those who were eating meat from idols not to do it around those whose consciences were troubled by it so that they might not become a stumbling block to someone else. The same thing goes for the modesty argument. If what you are wearing is or might be a stumbling block to someone else, love your neighbor enough not to wear it.

Awesome!  It’s nice to be able to be an athlete and still look like a girl.  I used to run with giant hoop earrings to try to make that point.  Nice to have more practical ways of being feminine and athletic these days.

in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, “Pants beats no pants.”

I am not a regular skirt wearer, but recently bought a running skirt with compression shorts. It is fabulous! Looks cute and is actually more practical than shorts. (Better coverage, and helps prevent chafing.)

Good for this coach for taking into account the comfort and needs of his team. More high schools need to do this.

@ simcher

As a Young Catholic man, I have had it up to Here with regards to the way women dress in our time. As such, anything, no matter how stupid it might seem, that is done to promote modesty should be welcome, even if you don’t agree with it. Except you don’t realize its a major problem in our world today.

With regards to pants, It might interest you to know that I do not think that women wearing pants are altogether immodest, but the kind of designs the fashion people make today are aimed primarily at seduction (tight, lowrise, clingy meterial, jeans stuff). The problem would be where to draw the line, and I tell you it’s a thin line.

So i believe what a good christian lady, who hopes to promote modesty ought to do is to wear loose knee length skirts and dresses to avoid any controversy whatsoever.That’s what I’ll tell my wife and daughters to do, and i think you ought to do that too.

I can’t understand why its so difficult for many professing catholic women to put away thier pants once and for all (except when an activity demands it). What is the big deal. Will you die if you don’t wear it?

You mustn’t always be convinced that you are wrong to drop an action. Sometimes you might feel you are correct but for the sake of some people who feel it’s wrong, you just drop it. That’s charity. That’s the approach the appostle Paul used when talking about food offered to Idols. He did not believe it was wrong eating food offered to idols, but for the sake of people who felt otherwise, he said he was willing not only to stop eating such food but also to stop eating meat alltoghether. Does Paul have 2 heads? isn’t it the same faith we proclaim?

if i were a lady, i would have dropped my pants long ago, and anything else that is considered immodest, weather i agree with it or not. But self love wouldn’t let us, so we make excuses - let the guys control themselves, the weather is cold etc. The last time i checked, Nuns had not changed thier Habits to pants, and i don’t hear a lot of news of them dying of Cold, or do you?

Let’s do what we have to do as christians “flee every appearance(every thing that looks like, percieved as) evil” and then we can truly say that we children of light.

For the lady that said Mary dressed like the women of her time, let her know that people dressed immodestly then but mary chose to dress modestly. I tell you if Our Lady lived in this generation, She certainly would not have giving anybody the reason to accuse her of immodesty no matter what it would take. Finally, she warned the children at fatima that fashions that displease the Lord would be introduced in the near future. At that time, women had not started wearing pants, and all these things we see today.

Think about it.

Yes, because loose knee length skirts are so incredibly modest when you’re
1. riding bikes
2. At the playground on the monkey bars and slides
3. Hiking and rock climbing.
4. Gardening
5. dealing with a grabby toddler
6. at the gym
7. climbing in and out of pickup trucks.
8. Down on the floor at storytime
9. Out on a blustery day

I like knee length loose skirts.  I think they’re more comfortable than pants (heck, almost like being naked!)...but unless you’re spending all day sitting and typing, they’re not exactly MODEST.  In fact, if you don’t want to flash your underwear, a pencil skirt is often a better choice…...  or….. depending on the activity… Pants!

Like St. Gianna Molla, I believe a modern laywoman should dress appropriately for the activity! ;)

Wait! That was parody, wasn’t it!  I just realized with the “dropped my pants….”  Teehee….. sorry! I totally thought you were serious!

@Corita:  this question “Is there, though, a limit to how to discuss modesty?  A point, or a manner, in which it becomes, itself, immodest?” is excellent, and deserves its own post!  Stay tuned.

.

@Deirdre, I’m honestly not sure if it was parody or not - either way “if i were a lady, i would have dropped my pants long ago” is now my favorite comment ever.

.

@Joel
You said:
Do you have a link to any of those postings?
In these modesty debates I keep hearing about all these people who say that pants are objectively bad and/or women must wear skirts… but I have never seen anyone actually say that… other than some blog trolls and this one wacky article at Catholic City. I would honestly be interested to take a look at the case these ultramodesty people make for their position, but bloggers keep posting *about* them without actually providing links to specific people making a specific case for “Sola Skirtura.”

.

You can find their arguments in the comments section of the following blog posts that I wrote:

.

http://simchafisher.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/pants-a-manifesto-2/

.

http://simchafisher.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/pants-pass/

.

Also in the comments of this post by Mark Shea:  http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/09/go-simcha.html

.

Also in the comments of this post in Crisis.
http://www.insidecatholic.com/the-great-pants-debate.html?index_php?view=article&print=1&tmpl=component

.

For stand-alone posts and articles (not just comments), you can also do a Google search for phrases like “sin for women to wear pants” or “modesty” plus of the following: “Cardinal Siri,”  “Padre Pio,” “Fatima certain fashions,” or “the Bible says.”

Simcha—I think that brings us to the most important, though frequently unaddressed, question in the whole modesty debate.

If you are a chaste Catholic woman involved in an internet argument and wish to virtually moon some neantherthal, is it better to
:droppants

or

:liftskirt

?

Which is the truly modest mooning technique? ;)

(Yes, I do have the mind of a ten year old this morning? Why do you ask?  I seem to have misplaced my ‘adult mind’ around the time I misplaced my coffee cup….......)

To @ simcher,

You sound like you might be struggling with: 1. Judgmental-ism (I know since this is a sin I confess regularly!)  2. Over-scrupulosity 3. Both 4. Control issues 5. I don’t know/have a clue/want to hurt you but…

But, you sure sound just like my younger sister Barb who told me I was now no longer an orthodox Catholic because I would not wear “only long skirts all the time.” Of course, simcher, you might just live in the south. I challenge YOU (a man) to wear a skirt comfortably and WARMLY in North Dakota when our actual real temperature is -44° F (and remember that is WITHOUT the windchill factor!).

OR, come visit us in a MN blizzard-especially a “thunder blizzard” when we are outside in the raw elements for more than 2 days and 2 nights in the snow/wind/cold/ice/wet trying to keep up with shoveling the snow/ice/slush/ick!

Simcher, haven’t you hear the phrase, “If you live in a glass house, you should stop throwing rocks?!?

@okey

DROP ‘EM! DROP ‘EM! DROP ‘EM!

@Tito Edwards: Good times, good times.

@jeni: thanks for the compliments on my distorted sense of humor, and on my knowledge of women’s fashion (which I am about to defend in the next comment).

@NYa: “Long skirts, in?  Yes and no.” OK, I’m willing to listen.

“Long, to the ankle, maxi dresses in flowy fabrics with spaghetti straps are in.” Absolutely agree. I have a photo of one such dress in the window of the Pay/half on Broad Street.

“That’s about it.  The rest of the skirts are shorter than mid thigh.” I strenuously disagree. The empirical evidence of my eyes denies that statement.

“You might be seeing mostly commuters, dressed somewhat more appropriately for work” That is correct (with a caveat). During the week, I see skirts that range from just above to just below the knee. Consequently, when we go out after work, that’s also what I see. And I tend to crash at various friends’ places about the City (New Yorkese for Manhattan for the non-initiated). Upper East Side, Soho, Financial District, Lower East Side (the so-called realtor-named “West Village”): I see ankle-length dresses, skirts from just above to just below the knee, and the occasional (but ramping in frequency) ankle-length billowy skirt. (This commentary disregards the Orthodox+ Jewish girls and women I live among; they always wear ankle-length skirts, always have, and always will.)  Same on the subway, coming and going. In other words, the actual residents of New York City, the women who live there, at this point in time dress in longer skirts.

“but take a walk in and around NYC late on Saturday nights (for some reason, no one goes out before 10 or 11 anymore…)” Aha, here we begin to close in on the crux of our disagreement. You’re talking Saturday night. There the dynamic changes, because the women change.

“You couldn’t dress more like a hooker if you tried.  I have shirts that are longer than some of their skirts.  Tight and short, like up to the crease at the top of the leg.  I’m not exaggerating.  Sky-high heels, sometimes with giant platforms.  Longer, loose, drapey blouses, often sheer, worn with dark bras underneath.  If the straps hang out, or if the arm holes are cut way low so that the side of the bra is showing, even better.” 
“When they’re not dressed up, the uniform seems to be: very short cut off shorts, flip-flops, similar flimsy draping T-shirts with bra straps hanging out.  I.e., let everything show all the time, casual or for a night out.  Oh yeah, and tattoos.  Everyone and their mother has a tattoo.”

Absolutely, dead-on correct. Excellent powers of observation. But please note the key sentence in your description: “You couldn’t dress more like a hooker if you tried.” That’s the point. They ARE trying. That’s the pick-up slut contingent. They are here on Saturday night, usually from Jersey, looking for play. I know, because:

a) certain male friends of mine go into a feeding frenzy when such women appear (not me; I’m usually adult supervision—the “moral guy”)
b) I’ve been hit on numerous times by such women, and have actually conversed with them
c) I’ve gone to various Jersey friends’ places after a night of conviviality, and both the PATH and NJT are packed with the women you’re describing
d) The exception that proves (tests) the rule: go out in the Upper East Side, which is not as immediately accessible as Midtown or lower to that contingent, and generally is too expensive for their tastes. The women there, who are largely resident in or near the neighborhood, tend to dress much more expensively and with greater class than that crew. What do you see? Long dresses, longer skirts. Tattooing is either eschewed, or so discrete as to be invisible. 

Please note the casual uniform, and remember my previous comment “leather microskirt=owns boa constrictor named Milo=brass dance pole in rec room.” These are Jersey Shore aspirees, out for a night on the town in the Big City.

However, your statement “Sky-high heels, sometimes with giant platforms” runs true weekend and weekday. They’re inspired by Lady Gaga’s Alexander McQueen “Armadillo” heels. My cousin Norma and I often watch with great amusement as some poor soul, endeavoring to be a sultry femme fatale,  totters along on 4-inch heels. Girl from Ipanema they’re not.

“Oh yeah, and tattoos.  Everyone and their mother has a tattoo.” Again, dead-on accurate. I predict tattoo removal will be one of the growth industries of the Two-Twenties.

PS: *sigh* I am not gay. I am Italian. We Italian males (those that were raised with an ounce of respect) appreciate the beauty of women, and look to see which women adorn their charms, or detract from them through their command of fashion. I myself would be embarrassed to have a Daisy-Duke-Wearin’-Lulu Mae on my arm. That would reflect badly on me and my tastes.

Also, my cousin is a minor television personage, so I get marinated in women’s fashion as well from that angle.

All right, Okey, I’ll play!

.

As a medium-young Catholic woman, your comment offends me and leads me into the sin of irritation and uncharitable mockery.  Sure, I could learn to control myself, but I can’t understand why it’s so difficult for you to delete your comment.  Will you die if you don’t delete it?  You mustn’t always be convinced that you are wrong, to drop an action. Sometimes you might feel you are correct but for the sake of some people who feel it’s wrong, you just drop it. That’s charity.  Think about it.  Unless, of course, you’re under the impression that only women sin, and men are always victims.

@jann,

1) It’s “Simcha,” not “Simcher.” “Simcha” means “blessing” in Hebrew. I have no idea what a “Simcher” is, or what one would do.

2) You wrote to Simcha<i> “I challenge YOU (a man)....” Simcha is a woman. A woman who is pregnant with her ninth child.

@jann, you and Simcha are on <i>the same side. Simcha has written extensively about how impractical, needlessly restrictive, and downright uncharitable is the obsession of extremist-fringe über-Catholics (my words, not hers; everybody, call off the dogs) with women wearing skirts under all situations. She’s also been made to pay for that view, in the ranting from the combox.

4) You also wrote to Simcha “Of course, simcher, you might just live in the south.” That was a charitable thought, but Simcha lives in New Hampshire with her husband, eight children, and one on deck.

@jann, please treat yourself to Simcha’s articles on the wearing of pants by women. You will be heartened by her opinions, because she agrees with you. Completely.

@Steve T:  I believe Jann was addressing her comments to “Okey” and referring to him as “@ Simcher” and “Simcher”—I don’t think she was speaking to me in any of her remarks!  But thanks!  I wish we could had a “reply to” feature in the comment box here.

@Simcha

I think Jann was responding to Okey…who started His post with @Simcher. Since Simcher isn’t your name it’s easy to see why someone might think it’s the name of the commenter. I did as well since I was reading them as they came into my email.

LOL - and I make the same mistake! Only I just saw the S on Steve and thought it was Simcha.

@Christina:  I believe you meant to say “@Steve T,” not “@Simcha.”  Ha ha!

1) I hope my inherent snarky humor doesn’t hurt your feelings, @jann. If it has, my sincerest apologies. I didn’t read my post until after I posted it, and now I see that it may come off as nasty.

2) Simcha, I apologize for disfiguring your blog with that missing close-italics tag. I only intended to highlight your name.

3) @jann: here are Simcha’s articles (and related pieces in support of her):

http://simchafisher.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/pants-a-manifesto-2/

http://simchafisher.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/pants-pass/

http://markshea.blogspot.com/ 2010/09/go-simcha.html

http://www.insidecatholic.com/the-great-pants-debate.html?index_php?view=article&print=1&tmpl=component

“@Steve T:  I believe Jann was addressing her comments to “Okey” and referring to him as “@ Simcher” and “Simcher”—I don’t think she was speaking to me in any of her remarks!  But thanks!  I wish we could had a “reply to” feature in the comment box here.”

@jann: WHOOPS! My apologies for goofing that one up! I strenuously disagree with “Okey” myself.

@Simcha: a) You are very welcome. I thoroughly enjoy your writing. Has just the right drop of acid to give it flavor. b) Agreed on the “reply to” feature, like you have on “I have to sit down.”

Dear, dear Simcha,

I AGREE with you, your article, your premise, thesis, conclusion and all of YOUR comments! You are one of my top three (3) writers! I wrote the wrong (yep, goofed up yet again!) to @___, as in I ADDRESSED MY COMMENTS TO THE WRONG PERSON!

There is (was) a man who made a comment somewhere here asking (actually telling all truly Catholic Women/Ladies to WEAR SKIRTS! My comments were to be addressed to HIM, specifically THAT PARTICULAR MAN!

So please accept my apologies! Simcha! Go for that 9th baby and (I’m from a family of 11) KEEP going if that is what God indicates for your family!

Blessings for a fine/healthy pregnancy and child birthing! Again, my comments are/were NOT meant for you but the male (whom I am refraining from calling a gentleman at this time).

Oh, and to the Decent Italian-ancestry NYC-ish male:

I sure appreciate that YOU know how to tell the “take-home-to-mom-type women from the “eewww-I-don’t-want-to-go-near-that-skuzzy-thing type of female! It helps me, a mother of three lovely, accomplished, educated, BUT STILL SINGLE daughters, have hope that my opera singing, East Coaster “good-girl-and-still-waiting-for-the-right-guy-who-is-also-a-committed-Christian daughter (who is now in at the end of her 20s) may just find Mr. Right For Her yet.

You made my day (after Simcha’s article itself, that is!)

I’d wager you have an Italian grandma/aunt/other-close-female-relative that gets to daily Mass and Communion whenever she can!

To the guy who wonders why women can’t just buy one kind of skirt (knee length, loose fitting)...  Did God make people so one-dimensional? No… and neither should fashion be.

I used the think that men’s trousers were all the same, until I got married.  I now realize that men have pleats, darts, linen, wool, stripes, solids, rolled cuffs, shorts, bermudas, jeans, tapered leg, straight leg, button fly, zipped fly and everything in between. And I thought that women’s fashions were complicated!!  Until I realize that men have just as many variations - you just can’t tell!

Also, I’ve realized that men don’t generally have an idea of what women *should* wear, but they just know what they like when they see it.  So, my advice to men is - don’t give suggestions, just give compliments.

Does “modesty” really mean anything? I wonder if there is any objectivity to it at all. Maybe in 50 years bikinis will be remembered the way we today think of those striped, full-body bathing suits from the ‘20s and the people in that future will laugh at their backward, foolish contemporaries who think that anything more revealing than a bikini is immodest.

It seems like a lot of the men’s side of the modesty debate tends to devolve into “women shouldn’t wear clothes that arouse lust in the men they meet”

So, does that mean that I, as a 34 year old, apple-shaped, multi-parta with screaming kids in tow can walk down the street in a micromini and bikini top and be perfectly modest?  I can assure you that such an outfit, on me, would NOT inspire Lust in anyone.  Nausea yes, lust no.

On the other hand, by that standard, no 18 year old girl who is reasonably well-groomed could appear in public in anything less than a full burkha.  I mean, Okey’s daughters in their knee length skirts would certainly pose a temptation to many men at 18-21! 

Obviously, modesty cannot be based on how OTHERS perceive you, or we’d just be saying “pretty girls should stay in the harem and off the streets.”  And if modesty came from the outside, the various stripped-naked-Roman-teen-girl-martyrs would have gone to their grave sinfully immodest.

I’m not sure why there is so much vitriol about this.  If some Catholics are of the opinion that they feel more covered and comfortable in skirts, then why not let them?  Why should they be ridiculed?  Men should use custody of the eyes, but it’s pretty clear that tight jeans and shorts are a near occasion of sin for them as seen by these tv ads:
(Caution: although these clips are from tv, they may be considered immodest)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqbOPX3wBs—first 45 sec.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK2VZgJ4AoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiRXbK5UBCk&feature=related

While nobody has been appointed the “pants police” or “modesty gestapo”, why not just let people have their own opinion about what they feel is right for them and not criticize them for trying to cover up a little more?

@okey, will men die if they stop checking out teenage girls? Women AND men should dress modestly, and men AND women should practice custody of the eyes. When lots of people get together and make sacrifices for everyone’s benefit, it’s called SOCIETY. Exactly what garments are modest depends on the person wearing them and on the context, so please don’t issue blanket directives to people you’ve never met. It makes you sound like a crank, and people take you less seriously.
@B Frame (from way back when), I’m saying this as a teenage girl (who runs): don’t assume we want to be ogled. Maybe we’re just too charitable to flip the oglers off.

The problem comes when someone who dresses a certain way because they LIKE it better (for instance, I really, really like retro 50’s style dresses!!!) starts treating her fashion choice as evidence of her virtue, and other peoples as evidence of their lack of virtue (You shameless hussy with your 1940’s style suit!!!!) That’s what kicks up these modesty wars. 

Not “I feel more appropriately dressed when I where my medieval gown with the gold trim” but “YOU are inappropriately dressed because you are wearing jeans, a turtleneck, and a cardigan, you !@#$%! St. Margaret would NEVER have worn that ensemble!!!!”

Or, alternatively, “I am a man who likes greek-style tunics and chitons, and all women in my household must wear them to counteract this modernist trend toward skirts and blouses.”

I think another danger for all of us is if we start thinking that looking and feeling virtuous is the same thing as BEING virtuous.  There’s a big temptation to seek holiness through fashion because it’s faster and easier than holiness through being patient and loving with that cranky lady next door who keeps pruning your rose bushes without permission, or (in my own case) much easier than living in accord with my state in life which means tracking down that mystery smell emanating from under the microwave even though I know what I find is going to be unspeakably nasty and make me gag.

However, Catholics, like everyone else, are influenced by the culture. And all of us have a tendency to place too much emphasis on externals.  I look holy, and other people percieve me to be holy, so therefore I AM Holy.

But Christ was pretty clear on that one—God doesn’t care about the length of our tassels but about the state of our hearts.

Exactly, Deirdre. 

.

@confusedcatholic:  I reread all the comments, and didn’t see anyone criticizing or ridiculing people who hold the OPINION that THEY prefer skirts.  What the heck do I care what other people wear?  As I’ve stated before, I actually admire women who wear skirts all the time - it’s just not for me. 

.

The “vitriol” comes in when Catholics claim that it’s SINFUL to wear anything but skirts —and I believe that vitriol is an appropriate response to that suggestion. People generally get upset when they’re accused of committing imaginary sins.

Praise God!!!

My daughter played on a soccer team a few years back; I made skorts for the entire team (a whopping $2 ea), similar to what’s shown in the picture. They looked great and everyone loved the feminine look!  I’m considering coaching next season so I can choose the uniforms again (yep, skorts!)

Thanks for the post.

Simcha,

It’s because I am convalescing at home after a long and arduous hospital stay that I keep reading the comments here (on these wonderful days of summer that I would RATHER spend outside!)

Nonetheless, I don’t remember any of your other topics drawing such an extended rash of comments. Good, juicy, “shake-em-all-up” topic!

@jann - Oh, Simcha knew she was trolling for comments when she posted that!  Mentioning skirts versus pants on a conservative Catholic blog is like mentioning Sarah Palin on a political blog—-  guaranteed fun in the comment box.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqbOPX3wBs—first 45 sec.

I understand people not wanting others to dictate what they wear, but I can also imagine why the wife in this movie’s scenario might prefer that the woman who walked by wore a dress like hers instead of jeans.  It wouldn’t have caused the problem in their marriage while they were out on a date. (Of course before jeans, men checked out legs…but they aren’t quite as personal as a woman’s rear.)

“When women collude to restrict men’s sexual access to women, all women tend to benefit,” [sociologist Mark Regnerus]
Simcha included this quote in her “Should I Marry Him?” article recently.  Perhaps women would benefit if this sexual access were visual as well?

I love these single guys espousing what their wives will and will not do. It’s like begging God to beat them with the Real Life stick. One day your little flower may just up and refuse to wear a skirt, and off he drags her to the overworked parish priest. I would love to know the priests response!

@Babs—More likely they’re the same guys who, in a few years, will be complaining because they’re 35 and can’t find a nice, Catholic girl to marry them because:

1. They branded that Blue-jeans wearing daily Mass attendant a shameless hussy.

2. The girls who had relatively normal, trauma free upbringings will look at their controlling mindset and not even consider them “dating material.” I mean, who wants to go out with a guy who is either haranguing you about what you wear or constantly disapproving?

3. Meanwhile, the guys who WEREN’T like this will be married, have 6 kids, and will show up at Church with their skirt-wearing wife. (Note—she’ll wear other things at other times, but if she wears a skirt to church and the girls wear dresses and that’s the only time this crazy-pants SEES them, he’ll assume that they’re a virtuous, skirt-wearing family and it will reinforce his delusion.

4. At the same time, he’ll assume that young couple where the wife wears slacks and there are NO children are contracepting hell-bound SINNERS.  Because if they were VIRTUOUS she’d be wearing a T-shirt that says “I had a hysterectomy and I’m heartbroken about it.” to prevent others from engaging in the sin of detraction.  I mean, really, who has a right to keep medical issues private?

5.  As he checks out the 18 year olds at Mass, wondering which will be pliant enough to mold into the wife he has formed in his head, he’ll gain the reputation as “That creepy middle-aged-guy…”

Dear Simcha, ( and other commentators).

I want to advice that when someone takes a position that you don’t agree with, and would like to respond to it, especially in public domain, it is best you highlight the issues the person raised and respond in line with it. I think you would achieve more that way.

If you have the time, read my lengthy comment. If you think it is stupid, please disregard it and pray for me.

Why resort to attacking me (so to speak) for taking such a “stupid” position, using statements like “your comment offends me and leads me into the sin of irritation and uncharitable mockery”,  and even demanded   that I delete my comment; I am ashamed (not of myself). I could quickly delete my comment if you tell me how to do it – I don’t mind really.  Until then however, I ask What Is My Crime? What have I written that irritates a Christian sister and some other commentators so much? My position:

1)  Anything, no matter how” stupid” it might seem, that is done to promote modesty should be welcome – in the Gospel of Mathew 5:28 – 29 Christ, the one we say is our master says “ anyone who looks at a woman lustfully is guilty of committing adultery of the heart. So if your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away..” How sensible does that sound? That is ridiculous at the least, but Christ said it all the same. While we believe that Christ does not actually mean that we pluck out our eyes, he certainly means that we go to any length necessary to avoid lust as men/women.

Is someone’s dressing capable of promoting lust? You answer that. If your answer is “No”, you need not go on reading. If your answer is “yes”, have you ever heard of any clothing items that are more likely to cause lust? A good number of guys include Pants in the list. This make up of guys includes Sadists, Legalists, etc. They also include some very weak Christian guys who are trying very hard to live a chaste life to the glory of God, but every now and then they fall due to some factors that surround them (the way ladies, including Christian sister, dress inclusive). Christ is very much interested in these weak (little in spiritual strength) ones.

In Luke 17:1-3 Christ says “..Things that make people fall into sin are bound to happen, but how terrible for the one who makes they happen. It would be better for him if a large millstone were tied round his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones (weak ones) to sin. So watch what you do” Here again Christ recommends that we do something more ridiculous than cause another person to sin. Except I have a problem with understanding scripture, Christ is saying that there are things that cause people to sin, and we all should do the best we can not to be the causative agent.

Now tell me, how do you draw the line between modest and immodest pants? I am sure it is very possible but I can assure you it would be very difficult (remember I did mention in my comment that I do not think that wearing pants are altogether immodest, except for the designs and materials used in our time); every now and then, the line would be crossed.  Again, maybe you or some other commentator does not have a body that can stimulate lust in anybody if wearing pants, but some other lady does. She thinks you, a good catholic lady, look good, comfortable and free in pants, as such she’s all about pants both the good, the bad and the ugly ones. As such by extension, you could be a source of sin. That’s what my ignorant mind tells me. If you or anyone else are still willing to take a chance with the Last Judgment on such small issue, I and my future family would not be willing to do that. If I am not able to find a wife that respects my opinion on something as inconsequential as dressing, what’s the guarantee that she would respect my opinion on anything else? I would rather remain unmarried, but I know God will give me My Wife when the time comes.

2)  Except when an activity demands it – for those that didn’t read properly before they “descended” on me, I did indicate that some activities could demand that we wear pants. I have a “Sola Skirtura” executive at work. The day I saw her in the gym, my position on modest dressing got firmer – knee length shorts and a T-shirt. Anybody who lusted after her would have lusted by simply hearing a woman’s voice. But again, mentioning this could make some people get irritated.

3)  What’s the Big Deal, would you die if you don’t wear it? Yes! Is it too difficult to drop a clothing item because you don’t want to take the chance of being an occasion of sin to any weak child of God? Maybe some of us are asking for too much, but remember that Christ the master gave up his life in great pains so that we would be free of sin and its consequence; lest we forget, he asked us to follow in his footsteps (Luke 9:23).

4)  You mustn’t always be convinced that you are wrong to drop an action: Because of the controversy surrounding the act of smoking, I chose not to smoke. I do not think God would judge anyone for smoking, but why get caught up in the controversy so I drop it. If my salvation and temporal well being does not depend on an action and some school of thought think I shouldn’t do such, I’ll drop it. Read Phil 1:9-10.

5)  Someone said I am judgmental, over- scrupulous, that’s your perception. I have found out that when you tell a Christian that this act of His/hers is bad, they term you judgmental. It really doesn’t bother me for I know my boundaries as a Christian. I am permitted to judge actions, not people. If you do something I consider bad based on God’s word, I tell you it’s bad, that doesn’t mean that I have said that the person is bad or evil. Nevertheless, If my eyesight is not failing me, I can’t see a single phrase where I wrote that wearing pants by a woman is a sin. You can check.

6)  If the cold is the reason, and you are sure that there is no alternative, then not wearing pants would actually be a sin; but one must ensure that it is modest pants (whatever that means). But are there really situations like that? Pardon my lack of knowledge.

7)  God does not care about externals – Read 1Timothy2:9 ”I also want the women to be modest and sensible about their clothes and to dress properly……as is proper for women who claim to be righteous”  If You still think God doesn’t care about externals after reading this, perhaps he doesn’t.

We ought to be more charitable than we are. One of the commentators said she doesn’t care what another person wears. I hope she meant it in a different context if not, that’s an embarrassing statement , because caring about the things that happen around us, things that people do, is a fundamental aspect of the commandment “love your neighbor”. (Maybe it was said out of provocation or irritation)

You see, if you have not realized that being a Christian demands making sacrifices, being an example, a role model, in every aspect of your life (not just dressing), you might not have started your Christian journey. The Lord says that the road to eternal life is very narrow, and few find it. It appears its difficult being a christian.

Jesus says that we should be perfect like our heavenly father is. Nobody can say that he/she is perfect, but a good way to start the journey in pursuit of perfection is assessing all our actions and bring it to light (Christ) and see if He gives it a pass mark. Let’s aim for the best we are enabled by the spirit of God to be in our walk with Christ.

If I have offended anyone, please forgive me. I would really like to be wrong about my opinions because it is always stressful being in the distant minority on many issues. But someone would have to convince me stating facts not just by telling me that I am wrong.

REMAIN BLESSED.

“Oh, and to the Decent Italian-ancestry NYC-ish male:”

Here, ma’am! Oh, I’m not –ish; you can’t get more NYC than Brooklyn!

“I sure appreciate that YOU know how to tell the “take-home-to-mom-type women from the “eewww-I-don’t-want-to-go-near-that-skuzzy-thing type of female! “

The skuzzy type make me profoundly sad. Almost always, under the 40 pounds of make-up (and not much else), I find a good girl who would’ve been gold had she been raised as an actual Christian, and who grew up in a real Christian social environment where modesty and virtue were encouraged, and were sluttiness was vehemently discouraged. Instead, they were usually benignly neglected by permissive two-career parents or harried single mothers who disposed of their daddies “Eat, Pray, Love” style. They were actually raised by catty teenage-girl culture, television, and People magazine—-all their lives, sold the lie that the keys to happiness lie behind a man’s fly and on boutique shelves—-so it’s no surprise they are the way they are. Unfortunately, many recognize me as marriage material, and some have pursued me way too aggressively. It sucks to have to hurt them.

“It helps me… have hope that my opera singing, East Coaster “good-girl-and-still-waiting-for-the-right-guy-who-is-also-a-committed-Christian daughter (who is now in at the end of her 20s) may just find Mr. Right For Her yet.”

Opera singer? Soprano, mezzo-soprano, or contralto? I dated one for years! And opera’s my ancestral music! If I weren’t in the early stages of an annulment, I’d wangle an introduction.

“You made my day (after Simcha’s article itself, that is!)”

Thank you! (deep, humble bow, from the waist)

“I’d wager you have an Italian grandma/aunt/other-close-female-relative that gets to daily Mass and Communion whenever she can!”

Well, my beloved Auntie Theresa died last summer, but she certainly fit your description: for 63 years, she was a nun (F.D.C.) She also was probably the most influential person who led me to Christ (which is why I do not tolerate nun jokes in my presence). My aunts Grace and Rose-Marie almost fit, but don’t make it every day to Mass.

Thank you so much for your kind comments!!!

@Okey - Here was my point:  you were saying that women should do everything they possibly can to avoid tempting men to sin.  I’m saying that it cuts both ways:  if we are to do everything we possibly can to avoid tempting people to sin, then you should not leave comments on blogs, because they might tempt people to sin.  You see?  It’s very easy for YOU to say, “Well, just be more careful, just in case!”  But you don’t like it when I say the same thing to you.  I wasn’t actually asking you to delete your comment—I was just trying the point out that there is only so much that a person can do to avoid tempting others.

.

Look, it’s obvious to YOU that skirts are more modest than even modest pants, and the simple solution to your problem would be for women to just wear skirts all the time.  But my husband doesn’t look twice at a woman in pants, unless they’re super tight.  He does, however, have a thing for skirts.  And I know there are plenty of men just like him.  So now what?  Should women avoid wearing skirts AND pants, so as to protect ALL their weak brothers in Christ?  Or should they just say, “I’m doing the best I can, and I expect men to do the same.” 

.

I’m trying to be patient with you, and I’m sorry I got snippy the other day.  But really, you’re expecting the world to conform to your TASTES, and calling it a MORAL issue.  I hope I’ve made my point more clearly this time.  You sound like a nice guy, but you may very well find yourself falling in love with someone who disagrees with you about all kinds of things.  That’s why a marriage has two people in it:  to make one entire decent human being between them.

My husband ALSO has a thing for skirts. Which is why I don’t wear them when we are trying to postpone babies. And no, floorlength skirts are not practical in southern California.

Okey- Some guys have foot fetishes. Shall we then always encase our feet completely to avoid lust in weirdos?

One of the courses I took in college was logic.  They taught you about fallacies and generalities.  When one makes a generality (i.e. All of something), it is generally a fallacy.

Your statement “The only thing that this article proves is that women tend to be more relaxed when they are not nearly naked—something that virtuous, pants-tolerant women have been saying all along” is just chock-full of fallacies.  “Women tend”, means all women; can you state for a fact that “all women” feel this way?  “Virtuous pants-tolerant women”; why is a “pants-tolerant woman” virtuous?  Some (note that word, as it denotes a generality) woman in pants, are not modest nor virtuous.  And, what if that woman in pants is wearing a stomach bearing shirt?  Still virtuous?

While I find your article interesting, I note that it is full of fallacies.  Would you like some titles of books that might help you in utilizing logical statements correctly?

John exemplifies “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” All that philosophy, and no critical reading skills. Call your college and ask for your money back.

@John L:  Well, I done bin to college too.  You may have taken logic, but I think you need a refresher in basic vocabulary and syntax. 

.

When I say “women tend” to do feel a certain way, it means the OPPOSITE of “all women”—it means that, in general, most women have a tendency (not an absolute guarantee) that they will feel that way. 

.

When I say “virtuous, pants-tolerant women” I am referring to women who are both virtuous and pants-tolerant.  That was suggested by the fact that I used two adjectives right next to each other before the noun they were modifying.  English is a super tricky language, though, so be patient with yourself—it will come with time.

Me thinks Okey is either a rad-trad or SSPX (oops, almost the same thing.)

Whoever gave the description about the middle-aged guy at mass who fantasizes about his future skirt-wearing wife (but will never marry because he’s creepy) is hilarious.

Anyway, I was just at a really conservative mass this weekend that is populated with homeschoolers, and there again was this large group of women and teens and little girls all wearing super-long skirts. It drove me C-R-A-Z-Y, mostly because it signals that in order to belong and be accepted into this Catholic homeschooling circle, it’s obvious that one need subscribe to their “dress code.” I refuse to do it. In fact, if I desired to be a part of that crowd, I would purposely dress against the grain to prove a point.

Furthermore, if these long-skirt wearing women think that wearing frumpy, ugly, hasn’t-seen-a-store-rack-since-1989 skirts and tops is a way to make sure men don’t look at them, well, they’re right! Bravo! They’ve done it! Meanwhile, they’re teaching their daughters that femininity is akin to frumpiness - wearing Teva sandals with long skirts and Wal-Mart t-shirts. How is that feminine?????!!!!????!!

We must be modest AND relevant, people! The anecdotal evidence about some of these women sticking out like a sore thumb in their dingy, depressive but oh-so-modest clothing is spot-on! Like other people said, why would anyone take those women seriously? And feel judged in the process?

As for me, I’m FAT and long skirts make me look like a huge, rotund keg. Why on earth would I dress in a manner that makes me look like total crap? To assuage the ego of some uber-conservative man who isn’t going to look at me anyway? No way.

NEWSFLASH FOR EVERYONE: If a man wants to undress you with his eyes, he’s gonna do it. It doesn’t matter if you’re wearing a chapel veil and an ankle-length skirt or a bikini. Because if the habit is there or the desire or of they’re just bored - they can do it and they will. Sure, we shouldn’t unjustly tempt men. But this “If Mary were here today she would wear ankle-length skirts and blouses up to the neckline” garbage is really irritating and complete bogus.

Dear Okey,
I agree with what you wrote, “The Lord says that the road to eternal life is very narrow, and few find it. It appears its difficult being a christian” But I think your omission of the most essential thing might be the crux of the problems here: That no matter how straight a path we walk, we all certainly fall short, no matter how purely and perfectly we live our lives. Even so, our failed attempts (skirts! skorts! pants!) are sanctified in the Blood of our Savior. This is the Good News that cannot be ommitted for me: that even I, a sinner quite conscious of the impossibility of me remaining on that narrow path, still dare to hope for redemption not in any ability of mine, but in Christ. If I only thought of that narrow path, I would be quite lost…

You also wrote “If I have offended anyone, please forgive me. I would really like to be wrong about my opinions because it is always stressful being in the distant minority on many issues. But someone would have to convince me stating facts not just by telling me that I am wrong.” So I am responding to that question of offense too:

In spite of all your good scriptural base and surely good intentions, you seem to offend. I know the feeling (e.g., I used to try to evangelize my family about prolife issues), and I have learned to accept that sometimes the offense was indeed mine (I shouldn’t have demanded everyone else’s conversion because of my hang-up). I am certainly not saying you have a hang-up; I would leave room for the possibility of a prophetic charism -that is, that you could be just voicing out your calling to remind us all to try to be more modest. I can imagine that maybe some of the prophets offended their hearers.
    Nevertheless, maybe it is best to look at any offensiveness most clearly, as you said, through the lens/light of Jesus. When I reflect upon our Savior’s life, I see that He himself was offended not so much by sinners, by the impure, by the imperfect, immodest, -indeed he embraced them, stayed with them, said he came specifically for them. He took great offense with Pharisees, hypocrites who could identify the sin, impure, imperfect in others, but not in themselves. I do not mean to point at you as if you were the only one at fault. In fact I think we, all of us, are called to undergo constant conversion away from our pharisaical tendencies.
      While we all may be stuck with our religious hang-ups on what should be the pure and perfect Christian life (yes, even scripturally sound convictions can turn into hang-ups, even the best pro-life intentions can turn into hang-ups [my own experience] ), God all the while is calling us to the mystery of relationship with Him, calling us to Family -where there is feasting, fun, and certainly room for imperfections, and (anyone who has borne children and witnessed their antics will attest to this) acceptance of even the impure.
  Where, then, do our religious/scriptural sensibilities fit into this Kingdom of God where all is forgiven and all are welcome? Formation. Form and formation are similarly rooted, but Christian formation, I think, must insist on recognizing the mystery behind the reality, must be cautious of too much pragmatism, must be willing to be constantly evangelized even as we focus on the Forms -the liturgies, the appropriate dress, the ministries, etc.
  However we must certainly reject any Pharisaical stances and even, I think, are allowed to relax on the forms of holiness lest we, in the pursuit of the form as an end-all, reject our communion with others, neglect our relationship with what falls short of pure/perfect, and ultimately forget our absolute need for redemption. That is, we are all sinners. And even our most holy forms fall short and are in need of sanctification. 
  Formation is easy to identify: When my children are to receive their sacraments, when they are to forgive each other’s wrongs, when they are to go to sleep, eat, appreciate God’s creation, we parents must pray with them, teach them, discover the Word with them, enjoy the world with them, remember the stories, wrestle it out with them, and reprimand them when they are just plain nasty. 
  Form is trickier to identify: it is fulfilling the outward motions and imagining that from these superficial things comes our salvation. One example of form is wearing a skirt as a profession of modesty, and especially being judgmental about how others may/may not be wearing skirts also.
  Very often form looks holier than formation. Formation will always embrace the uglies and somehow, through Christ, that embrace is transformative. Formation is exciting and fun -it leaves room for the Holy Spirit; it hopes against all odds for miracles. Form as an end to itself, is dead and fruitless, something like an idol. Proponents of form are very often offensive, in my personal experience (being the offensive party once upon a time).
  You wrote, “If my salvation and temporal well being does not depend on an action and some school of thought think I shouldn’t do such, I’ll drop it. Read Phil 1:9-10.”  Our salvation certainly does not depend on an action or any school of thought of ours, but on that of our Savior Jesus Christ!  The full excerpt written out: “And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full discernment to help you to determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God.” I like Paul’s starting with love, proceeding with discernment, and ending with every good thing coming through Jesus Christ. I like even better vs 15-18: “Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. These proclaim Christ out of love, knowing that I have been put here for the defense of the gospel; the others proclim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but intending to increase my suffering in my imprisonment. What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice.” 
  Lastly, you wrote, “Let’s aim for the best we are enabled by the spirit of God to be in our walk with Christ.” Yes! God bless you.

I just cited this article today. Thought the post might be of interest:

http://vox-nova.com/2011/06/30/perverts-love-modesty-a-memoir/

Pax,

Sam

My only comment is that I get a lot more stares from men when I wear a feminine long, modest skirt… than when I wear pants on ANY modesty scale. Men’s eyes linger more on women who like being women than sporty, androgynous attire.

This is a really great sports skirt. Does anyone know where to buy them?

I’ve seen similar skorts at Target and Kohl’s. They’re really not that uncommon.

@BB - www.runningskirts.com.  You can also get them with capri or full length leggings attached.

@BB   I saw them at Costco this morning!

Sometimes I think people are convinced that everyone who wears skirts is a nut.  The comments here sound like it.

Since when is choosing skirts over trousers for oneself a criticism of people who wear jeans?

I’ve never in my life told anyone else they had to wear anything in particular—except for my kids who were told how certain styles were perceived and then I let them dress themselves.  Most of the time I approved.

Many skirt lovers are NOT sola skirtura and that is a fact I would like to see reflected in more posts.

@Simcha - I just discovered your blog and am loving it!  I don’t know too many “skirts only” Catholics here in St. Louis.  I love to wear skirts in the summer for a couple of reasons:  a) I just turned 40 and shorts and I are no longer good friends and b) St. Louis in the summer (and this summer in particular) is HOT!  However, I wear pants and even jeans to work (I’m a college English teacher).  I think as long as everything is covered fairly well by not too tight clothing you should be good to go.  However, I think allowances have to be made for different body types as well.  Some women with great figures are going to look sexy no matter what they’re wearing.  The best example of this I can think of is Susan Sarandon as Sr. Helen Prejean in “Dead Man Walking”.  I noted to my dad that I thought they did a great job with Sarandon’s nun wardrobe (lots of polyester and sensible shoes) and he replied that there’s nothing you could dress Susan Sarandon in that would detract from her sexiness.  My point here is, if you have a great figure you should enjoy it, without necessarily flaunting it.  After all, we’re all God’s creation, so sitting around giving each other complexes about our bodies and clothing seems pretty counterproductive.

I saw reference to the name on another post.  It really is a terribly poor choice of name.  Much as women of the developed world did a collective facepalm at the “iPad,” which sounds more like it was produced by Always than by Apple.

I’m not Catholic, but I found this while searching for blogs on modesty. Very interesting points of view on modesty. I stopped wearing jeans ( and wore skirts ) because I felt looked at by men and naked. But I have been smiled at and stared at ESPECIALLY by men since my conversion.. I’m wondering what I should do, if I should wear skorts over jeans? Should I ditch the part-time head covering thing is public and only cover during church?