Chic, Stylish And Modest????

Discussion in 'Christian Fellowship' started by Lucia, Jun 12, 2015.

  1. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ladies
    I know I'm not the only one who struggles to find classy clothes in the mall some shops I just KIM seriously it's like shopping in a hookers closet as Joan Rivers (RIP) would say. Especially for church services people are either coming in sloppy or booty shorts just cause your 11-15 y/0 doesn't make it OK!
    Here's the dilemma trying to still look appealing and fashionable (read here no shlepping around or bum look or old fashioned grandma ) without showing errythang
    I think we should help each other out with outfit ideas to look chic, be a brick house without letting it all hang out. I do like some risqué fashion by Christian standards but I always have some rules I follow to keep it classy.
    So let's help each other out with inspirational pics links to online stores vloggers etc... Please post Sunday best ideas too from simple to luxurious and elegant.
    And let's keep it classy



    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
  2. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    image.jpg image.jpg

    Btw the limited is having a 60% off sale

    http://www.thelimited.com/slice-of-...ppid=c4&start=4&cgid=top-looks&prefv1=regular

    If your curvy switch out the skinny jeans for some straight leg or wide leg style pants
    Under sheer chiffon or silk blouses get some camisoles there are diff price pints economical cotton and lace trim or higher end and more expensive silk or satiny ones.
    To save money all you need are 3 basic colors white black and a flesh toned color that's close to your skin tone.

    http://www.thelimited.com/tan-lines...id=c15&start=15&cgid=top-looks&prefv1=regular
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
  4. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2011/08/modesty-should-not-mean-dowdy/


    Modesty is a big “buzz” word on Christian women’s blogs.

    We’re all supposed to want to be modest (which I agree with), but often the definition of modesty is something which I find completely unreasonable, and rather off-putting.

    A friend of mine, whom I would consider very modest but stylish, took her pre-teen daughter to a mother-daughter event recently. Originally the daughter had been asked to model, but at the last minute they found someone else to fill in in her size, so told her they didn’t need her.

    My 11-year-old friend was devastated, until she saw the actual fashion show. And then she was so appalled by the clothes that she whispered to her mother: “I’m so glad they didn’t ask me to model after all! I’d be so embarrassed if I were up there!”

    Now I wasn’t at that event, so I didn’t see first hand, but apparently the clothes were layered to the nth degree and so long and bulky that they looked like sacks.

    I’ve been on other women’s blogs that seem to be pushing the idea that if we’re not dressing modestly–and by that they have a very narrow definition of modest–then we’re not being Christian. And I do believe that sometimes the Christian modesty message can veer in a dangerous direction, causing women to be ashamed of their bodies.

    And so I’d like to spell out my philosophy on this, just to inspire debate, and to perhaps free some of you who aren’t comfortable with this line of thinking but aren’t sure where else to go.

    First, I do think modest should mean no cleavage, and no drawing attention to particular parts of the body deliberately. So no super-tight T-shirts, no low-cut shirts that look more like bikini tops, no super short skirts or shorts, and no tank tops (UPDATE: I meant to say tube tops. We here in Canada used to call tube tops tank tops, but I know tank tops are something different now. Sorry for the confusion!). I’d even be careful with sleeveless dresses. For swimming, I’d steer clear of bikinis, and even some one-pieces, and go with some flattering tankinis, which are often prettier and which often have bottoms that go down a little bit further. I find most people look better in these anyway.

    But to say modesty means much more than that, I think, puts women in a bind, sounds very legalistic, and can be dishonoring to men.
    For instance, I’ve seen some women say that we should only wear skirts. Really? Personally I wear skirts most of the time in the summer, because finding shorts that fit is difficult, and I love skirts. So I’m not against skirts in the least. But to say that all women should wear skirts because it’s more feminine is really strange. A nicely cut pair of jeans with a pretty blouse in my opinion is far more feminine than a shapeless denim skirt.

    Similarly, to say that one can’t wear any pants that fit well because they would draw attention to one’s *ahem* behind is thus saying that we should all wear sacks. Now I certainly don’t think that we should wear tight clothes. But there is a difference between tight and clothes that simply fit. My daughter told me about a blog post she read on a popular teenage girl blog that said that if you can’t pinch your pants and find a few inches, it’s too tight. How many girls are really going to follow that?

    But here’s another question: do we really want to give the impression that Christians are dowdy spoilsports, because our definition of modesty seems to say that.
    As a married Christian woman, I feel that my responsibility is to dress modestly but fashionably. I want my husband to be proud of me, and if I were only wearing denim skirts with button down blouses, he would not be proud to take me out in public. I would stand out like a sore thumb. And so I go out of my way to try to wear things that are pretty and flattering but that don’t cling too much, show cleavage, or come up too high on the thigh.

    I think sometimes that the Christian wives who advocate the long, shapeless skirt look with the baggy t-shirt forget something. The rationale for dressing modestly is that because men are visually stimulated, we shouldn’t dress to stimulate them. Okay so far.

    But if we admit that men are visually stimulated, then don’t we also owe it to our husbands to look our best?
    And how many husbands like walking around with wives who are dressed in shapeless clothes?

    Now, I know many of the people who advocate wearing skirts do not wear shapeless ones, and I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong. I think longer skirts can still be fashionable, if they’re cut correctly, and you can wear lovely shaped blouses to go with them that do flatter your figure.

    For instance, the True Femininity blog, written by a 21-year-old, has an “Outfit of the Day” recurring theme where she shows a modest but fashionable outfit. Here’s one from June:
    [​IMG]

    Lovely. But many of the “skirts only” blogs that I’ve read, and that my daughter has seen, really do advocate skirts resembling potato sacks, that look as if they were bought in thrift stores.

    I don’t think that’s the image that Christians should be presenting.
    Why not just look fashionable, attractive, and fun, without trying to attract attention as a sex object? Looking like you put some care into your appearance says that you respect yourself and you respect your husband.

    My friend Terry, over at Breathing Grace, wrote a post recently where she said that her standard of beauty is her husband. She wears what he likes, because he’s the one that really matters, and I like that conviction. Sometimes when we think about all this “modesty” stuff, I think we do it without male input. We say we’re trying to protect men by not being tempting, but I wonder how many of the wives have ever asked their husbands honestly if they like the “sack” look, or if they would prefer that their wives be a little more attractive? I think many women get caught up in this “modesty” movement online, and in their little cliques, and they barge right ahead without asking the guys.

    Finally, there’s one other thing that concerns me, and this is perhaps the largest issue. This world is in desperate need of help. All around us families are breaking up, debt is ruining people’s lives, addictions are taking over. And that’s only in the neighbourhood. On a worldwide scale, wars are being fought, persecution is rampant, and injustice abounds.

    This world needs Christians to become engaged, to be good role models, and to be outspoken (in a gentle way) for what is right.
    That means that we have to be people that others respect. We need to be people that others will look at and admire. And I don’t think that it’s flighty of me to say that part of that admiration will be tied in to how we look. If we show up looking like we have never cut our hair (let alone put conditioner in it) and as if we are wearing sacks, then why would people want to listen to us?

    When you dress that way and present yourself in a very dowdy, throwback way, you make your world smaller.
    You tend to retreat into your family or your church because that is safe, and that is where you fit in. You don’t fit into the wider world anymore.

    That’s not right. We need people who will speak up and who will be role models. We need to stop shrinking. Certainly retreating is easier and less messy, but it is not what we are called to be. We are called to be “in” the world. We don’t let its values dictate ours; we don’t follow after the world’s idols. But we must still be “in” it.

    We must not shrink our own world, and that is what we do when we adopt too narrow a definition of modesty–of what is acceptable clothing.
    So what would I recommend? If you’re married, talk to your husband about what sort of dress he considers modest and fashionable. Take a friend with you who is fashionable and go shopping and get some clothes that actually fit. Get a nice haircut (you can go to a haircutting school if you can’t afford a salon). Treat your body as if you respect it, not as if you’re ashamed of it. And let’s stop using Christianity as an excuse to look dowdy.

    Fashionable and feminine while still being modest. That, I think, is what we should be doing. And, by the way, there’s really nothing wrong with a good pair of jeans!
     
    VelvetRose, ToyToy and Shimmie like this.
  5. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2014/05/christian-purity-culture/


    Four Duggar girls–teens from the homeschooling reality show family 19 Kids and Counting–have just released their first book. Garnering the most press attention is the little tidbit that they will save not just sex, but also their first kiss, for their marriage.

    I have several friends who have saved the smooching for the ceremony, and they’re very glad they did. I certainly don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, though the thought of hundreds of people watching me kiss for the first time is more intimidating than romantic. But I still find the whole Christian purity culture a little perplexing.

    My mother grew up in a very conservative rural Manitoba community. They kept the Sabbath sacred; they didn’t wear makeup; they certainly didn’t dance. But kissing, at least when you were engaged, was fine. Today, though, large swaths of Christianity are more conservative than our parents’ and grandparents’ generations were.

    What’s going on?

    I think it all started with Joshua Harris’ I Kissed Dating Good-Bye. That book spread like wildfire through the church, and all of a sudden dating, which had been one of the main attractions of youth groups for decades, became an anathema.

    Yet while I agree there’s little benefit to high school relationships (an opinion I am so glad my teenage daughters shared), Boy Meets Girl, Harris’ follow-up book about courtship, still left me a little uneasy. He and his now-wife didn’t kiss until they were married. They really only did that famous “Christian side hug” that every evangelical teen has perfected. And Harris has a list of strict guidelines they followed so as to not feed lust.

    Are Christian teenage girls growing up ashamed of their sexuality?
    Lust is a real battle, yet this movement to grab lust by the throat and throttle it until it’s dead seems a little like overkill. We have purity ceremonies where we ask girls to stand with their dads and pledge not to have sex until marriage. We give endless talks on modesty, discussing hemlines and cleavage and how high T-shirts should be (two finger widths below the clavicle, apparently). I do believe in modesty; the world would be a much better place if everyone agreed that leggings are not pants. But in our eagerness combat the sexual revolution are we doing more harm than good?

    That’s the question Amanda Barbee asked recently in her viral article “Naked and Ashamed.” She says that the evangelical church has made teenage girls ashamed of their sexuality, and this causes much sexual dysfunction later. As a sex and marriage author, I certainly see where she’s coming from. We spend so much time telling girls, “Don’t do it! Don’t even think about it!” And then they get married and suddenly some switch is supposed to go off that lets them see sex as a positive thing.

    What makes it especially problematic, though, is the way we frame the whole issue. “Boys are walking hormones who will lust all over anyone in a tight sweater. It’s your job to keep him from lusting!” Girls’ sex drives are barely mentioned, while boys are presented as testosterone-induced drones, rendered helpless by cleavage. Girls become responsible not just for their own purity, but for boys’ purity, too, and sex becomes something boys want but girls have to fight against. No wonder so many girls grow up ambivalent about sex!

    Unfortunately, Barbee didn’t offer an alternate approach. Yes, we’re shaming girls too much, but purity is important, and sex before marriage damages you both spiritually and emotionally. We do need to teach our kids to wait.

    Or do we? Maybe that’s the fundamental problem with our current approach. My teenage girls’ biggest complaint about youth events is that they always centre around three messages: don’t have sex; don’t drink; and don’t cut yourself or starve yourself. But if we really want kids to make good choices, maybe we should stop teaching them to do the right thing and start introducing them to Jesus.

    I was recently talking with a 19-year-old young woman who didn’t date in high school, but is now in quite a serious relationship at university. When she and her boyfriend were first discussing boundaries, they decided not to define “how far they should go” because as soon as you draw a line, you immediately rush to that line and start flirting with it. Instead, they decided that they would start every time that they’re together by focusing on Jesus. Make Jesus the centre, and the rest will follow.

    We have become so scared that teens will have sex that we have created a purity culture that is centred around rules and shame rather than centred around Jesus. Yes, we should be modest, and yes, we should be pure. But we’ll achieve that much faster by having a relationship with Christ than by memorizing a bunch of rules.

    I’m convinced that Christian kids often rebel because we put too much energy into teaching rules and not enough into showing them how to love Jesus. Rules don’t win people to God; Jesus does. And He’s the only one who can help us create a purity culture anyway.

    For more on the Purity Culture debate:
    Jessica at The Beggar’s Daughter linked up a great post this week on exactly this subject that I wanted to show you! She’s a young, single woman who writes a lot about purity. And in her post “Kissing is not Sex“, she says this:

    If you listen to some teachings today it would seem as if letting a man wrap his arm around you is just as bad as letting him sleep with you. It would seem that being alone with a man will automatically lead to fogged windows out on Lover’s Lane.

    What happens when we take young women from this sex-obsessed approach to purity (because that is exactly what this is), and we brush them up against a guy and nothing happens? When holding his hand does not lead to petting or when having coffee does not lead to a slumber party? If a girl has grown up believing these are boundaries and that all roads lead to sex, the temptation is going to be to throw all of her ‘boundaries’ out the window.

    Nothing happened when she held his hand, so why should anything happen when they snuggle? Nothing happened when they were alone for coffee, so what’s the big deal if she rides in his car? She starts thinking, “What’s the big deal?” and that is the last thing you want her thinking! What we need to be doing, instead, is encouraging young women to establish their boundaries and to come up with guidelines that help them.

    Great point! Read the whole thing.

    Now tell me: how do we set boundaries and maintain purity WITHOUT shaming girls or becoming legalistic? I’ve been exploring this on the blog all week, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Christian purity culture.
     
  6. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    image.jpg Zara Phillips


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
    VelvetRose, LadyPBC and Shimmie like this.
  7. Divine.

    Divine. Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,552
    Media:
    6
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So happy you started this thread! I was just studying in my bible this morning and something told to me post a very poignant scripture regarding the legalistic approach modesty. Be back soon!

    ETA: People often use Timothy 2:9 as a basis for modesty. Modesty and Christianity naturally go hand in hand, however the gray area seems to be "adornments." As I was reading Ezekiel 16, what stood out to me was the way in which God "adorned" his bride :

    I think it's important to note that God cloaked his bride (Jerusalem) with the very best. He spared no expense on her. Her beauty was not covered but enhanced by her adornments. I know that scripture is figurative but to me it shows that these things are not inherently bad. It's the context in which you wear them that makes the difference.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2015
  8. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Divine.
    ITA and it's not just figurative its literal as well
    Some people go to a job interview or work or the club or dinner dressed way better than they do coming to church service. I have a problem with that because it's saying I respect the club my job etc more than inrespect God.
    I visit different churches and I see them roll up in very expensive cars Benz Lexus porshes Tesla range rovers etc and come all indecent uncovered to service. It's not like they don't have the money so I don't give them a pass. Even if you're tight on money covering up a little to visit Gods house can be done on a budget there's always vintage or thrift stores. It just saddens me to see that people don't get it.
     
    VelvetRose, Makenzie, levette and 4 others like this.
  9. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    image: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/files/2011/10/dress-code.jpg

    [​IMG]

    Posted dress code at San Isidro Labrador Church in Lazi, the Philippine Islands

    Schools

    nationwide are imposing dress codes — believing that it prompts students to take themselves and their studies more seriously. So, why not the same for church?

    “The way many people dress to mass is completely offensive,” writes Ashley E. McGuire, the editor-in-chief for altcatholicah.org, an alternative Catholic website. “Strapless tops, cleavage, skirts that hardly cover the derriere, shorts, tracksuits, cut-offs. Tank tops. Midriffs. Minis. How this became acceptable is a mystery. How to change it, is not.”


    She says a simple solution could restore churches everywhere to basic dignity: a dress code. Think this is radical? It’s not. The Vatican has one. The Vatican prohibits anyone from entering who is wearing:

    · Shorts/skirts above the knee
    · Sleeveless shirts
    · Shirts exposing the navel
    · Shirts for women that expose cleavage

    “Why don’t all Catholic churches have the same standards?” she asks. “A Catholic dress code could be instituted with a relatively simple, three-step action plan:”

    Stage 1—Recruit code enforcement. The priests and deacons would recruit lay women of charitable but forceful demeanor, approximately two per Mass depending on the size of the parish, to enforce the dress code. These women would be trained to stand outside Mass and gently but firmly request those in violation of dress code to change. This stage would likely take eight weeks. I assure you, there would be no shortage of eager volunteers.
    Stage 2—Announce the coming change. Just as the Church has been doing with the coming liturgy changes, parishes would include a weekly insert into the bulletin explaining the simple, four-pronged dress code. Priests would alert parishioners at every Mass. (The media would help with its usual hit pieces.) This would be done for four weeks consecutively before dress code beings.
    Stage 3—Grace Period. For two weeks there would be a grace period, where the newly trained women would give warnings to those not dressed appropriately that in the future, such attire will not be accepted, but still allow them into the House of God. This allows them to practice confronting those dressed inappropriately and allows the stubborn, skimpy dressers to avoid the humiliation of actually being sent home.


    “Once the dress-code period becomes official,” writes McGuire, “there will no doubt still be much angst. People will wail and gnash their teeth in their desire to attend Mass dressed in PJs or two-inch skirts. People will claim the church is so draconian and unwelcoming and that Jesus would never send people away! Sure, Jesus spent time with residents of the red-light district. But let’s not forget, Jesus also flipped tables in a rage when he saw his Father’s house disrespected. He also reminded us in a parable that the man who showed up to a royal wedding not wearing the proper attire met a dreadful fate. Jesus was clear throughout the gospels: What you wear matters. He went to his own death in a garment so fine that men gambled for it.”


    And the idea isn’t new, she says:

    When I was in Egypt, I visited a mosque dressed in what I thought was modest attire. The women at the entrance still took my pashmina from my bag and swaddled my arms so no skin above my elbows was exposed. I was swaddled so tightly I couldn’t move. Women and men whose attire was beyond salvageable were asked to wear a giant, floor-length green sheet with a hole through the top for their head.

    After all, Mormon temples have dress codes, she notes. Furthermore, she writes:

    A Vatican insider told me that when a United States Supreme Court Justice showed up for a visit in shorts, he was turned away. On another occasion, a high-ranking woman showed up for an event with the pope in a low-cut top and Vatican officials sewed up her shirt in the car on the ride over. If St. Peter’s can turn away a Supreme Court justice and make a famous woman sew up her blouse for the Pope, then surely our local parishes can ask women to grab a shawl on their way out the door. Heck, put a basket of them inside the door and hand them out. Just like Jewish synagogues often have flimsy yarmulkes for men who show up with bare heads.


    People would freak out about the dress code. And then, suddenly, it would stop. People would move on. Girls would begrudgingly grab that shawl on the way out the door. Parents everywhere would breathe easily again knowing they won’t have to fight their children to dress appropriately for Sunday Mass. And then the House of God would actually start to look like the House of God again.



    Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...e-a-church-goers-dress-code.php#ixzz3d4XiIJQP

    Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...urch-goers-dress-code.php#QLbDuAYZtICyw3o1.99
     
    Shimmie and Belle Du Jour like this.
  10. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,994
    Likes Received:
    9,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    Very interesting read, and some great points were made!

    I'm a bit of a student of Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" teachings. The below is an explanation from Crossroads Initiatives website:


    According to John Paul II, God created the body as a “sign” of his own divine mystery. This is why he speaks of the body as a “theology,” a study of God.

    We can’t see God. As pure Spirit, he’s invisible. Yet Christianity is the religion of God’s self-disclosure. In Christ, “God has revealed his innermost secret: God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange” (CCC, n. 221). Somehow the human body makes this eternal mystery of love visible.

    How? Specifically through the beauty of sexual difference and our call to union. God designed the union of the sexes as a “created version” of his own “eternal exchange of love.” And right from the beginning, the union of man and woman foreshadows our eternal destiny of union with Christ. As St. Paul says, the “one flesh” union is “a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32).

    The Bible uses spousal love more than any other image to help us understand God’s eternal plan for humanity. God’s wants to “marry” us (see Hos 2:19) to live with us in an “eternal exchange of love.” And he wanted this great “marital plan” to be so plain to us, so obvious to us that he impressed an image of it in our very being by creating us male and female and calling us to communion in “one flesh.”

    Thus, in a dramatic development of Catholic thought, John Paul concludes that we image God not only as individuals, “but also through the communion ...which man and woman form right from the beginning.” And, the Pope adds, “On all of this, right from ‘the beginning,’ there descended the blessing of fertility” (Nov 14, 1979). The original vocation to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28), then, is nothing but a call live in the image in which we’re made to love as God loves.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean God is “sexual.” We use spousal love only as an analogy to help us understand something of the divine mystery (see CCC, n. 370). God’s “mystery remains transcendent in regard to this analogy as in regard to any other analogy” (Sep. 29, 1982). At the same time, however, the Pope says that there “is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly speaking, to that divine mystery” (Dec. 30, 1988).


    The Original Experience of the Body & Sex

    [​IMG]
    We tend to think the “war” between the sexes is normal. In his discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus points out that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Before sin, man and woman experienced their union as a participation in God’s eternal love. This is the model for us all, and although we’ve fallen from this, Christ gives us real power to reclaim it.

    The biblical creation stories use symbolic language to help us understand deep truths about ourselves. For example, the Pope observes that their original unity flows from the human being’s experience of solitude. At first the man was “alone” (see Gen 2:18). Among the animals there was no “helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20). It’s on the basis of this “solitude” an experience common to male and female that we experience our longing for union.

    The point is that human sexual union differs radically from the mating of animals. If they were the same, Adam would have found plenty of “helpers” among the animals. But in naming the animals he realized he was different; he alone was a person called to love with his body in God’s image. Upon sight of the woman the man immediately declares: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). That’s to say, “Finally, a person I can love.”

    How did he know that she too was a person called to love? Her naked body revealed the mystery! For the pure of heart, nakedness reveals what John Paul calls “the nuptial meaning of the body.” This is the body’s “capacity of expressing love: that love precisely in which the person becomes a gift and by means of this gift, fulfills the very meaning of his being and existence” (Jan 16, 1980).

    Yes, the Pope says if we live according to the truth of our sexuality, we fulfill the very meaning of life. What is it? Jesus reveals it when he says, “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). How did Jesus love us? “This is my body which is given for you” (Lk 22:19). God created sexual desire as the power to love as he loves. And this is how the first couple experienced it. Hence, they “were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25).

    There’s no shame in love; “perfect love casts out fear” (1 Jn 4:18). Living in complete accord with the nuptial meaning of their bodies, they saw and knew each other “with all the peace of the interior gaze, which createsB the fullness of the intimacy of persons” (Jan 2, 1980).



    The Historical Experience of the Body & Sex

    [​IMG]

    Original sin caused the “death” of divine love in the human heart. The entrance of shame indicates the dawn of lust, of erotic desire void of God’s love. Men and women of history now tend to seek “the sensation of sexuality” apart from the true gift of themselves, apart from authentic love.

    We cover our bodies not because they’re bad, but to protect their inherent goodness from the degradation of lust. Since we know we’re made for love, we feel instinctively “threatened” not only by overt lustful behavior, but even by a “lustful look.”

    Christ’s words are severe in this regard. He insists that if we look lustfully at others, we’ve already committed adultery in our hearts (see Mt 5:28). John Paul poses the question: “Are we to fear the severity of these words, or rather have confidence in their salvific ...power?” (Oct 8, 1980). These words have power to save us because the man who utters them is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29).

    Christ didn’t die and rise from the dead merely to give us coping mechanisms for sin. “Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins” (CCC, n. 2336). As we open ourselves to the work of redemption, Christ’s death and resurrection effectively “liberate our liberty from the domination of lust” as John Paul expresses it (March 1, 1984).

    On this side of heaven, we’ll always be able to recognize a battle in our hearts between love and lust. Even so, John Paul insists that “the redemption of the body” (see Ro 8:23) is already at work in men and women of history. This means as we allow our lusts to be “crucified with Christ” (see Gal 5:24) we can progressively rediscover in what is erotic that original “nuptial meaning of the body” and live it. This “liberation from lust” and the freedom it affords is, in fact, “the condition of all life together in truth” (Oct 8, 1980).



    The Ultimate Experience of the Body & Sex

    [​IMG]
    What about our experience of the body in the resurrection? Didn’t Christ say we’ll no longer be given in marriage when we rise from the dead (see Mt 22:30)? Yes, but this doesn’t mean our longing for union will be done away with. It means it will be fulfilled. As a sacrament, marriage is only on earthly sign of the heavenly reality. We no longer need signs to point us to heaven, when we’re in heaven. The “marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7) the union of love we all desire will be eternally consummated.

    “For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation. ...Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, ‘the holy city’ of God, ‘the Bride, the wife of the Lamb’” (CCC, n. 1045). This eternal reality is what the “one flesh” union foreshadows from the beginning (see Eph 5:31-32).

    Hence, in the resurrection of the body we rediscover in an eternal dimension the same nuptial meaning of the body in the meeting with the mystery of the living God face to face (see Dec 9, 1981). “This will be a completely new experience,” the Pope says + beyond anything we can imagine. Yet “it will not be alienated in any way from what man took part in from ‘the beginning,’ nor from [what concerns] the procreative meaning of the body and of sex” (Jan 13, 1982).
     
    Shimmie, Belle Du Jour and Lucia like this.
  11. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Galadriel
    Thanks for this post I've been meaning to read some of St John Paul's writings
     
    Shimmie and Galadriel like this.
  12. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,994
    Likes Received:
    9,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    As a follow-up to what I quoted above, I'd add that I have the same concerns as you, @Lucia. I hope to one day explain this well to my kids, and NOT give them a simple, "Don't do it! Be pure!"

    I think we can't teach sexual morality well without understanding first that the body is good, sacred--and we should start treating it that way. Just think, Our Lord Himself became Man, had a full human body. By the very act of the Incarnation, He redeemed and uplifted the human body. Paul says that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. God created male and female, and our bodies and souls are complementary, and a sign of God's expression of love. When a man and woman unite in marriage, it's a sign of God's divine Love, and the unity of the Trinity.

    Love is a total gift of one's self, and it brings forth life.

    On a spiritual level, when you give yourself to someone in this way, you are saying something with your actions. If you were in the same room with me and I gave you nasty stares, or even flipped you off, you'd pretty much get the hint that I was antagonistic toward you, right? We communicate things with our bodies and our body language. When you give yourself to someone (in sexual union), you are SAYING to that person on SOME level, "I am completely yours, and I give myself to you, and I am opening myself up to the possibility of our union bringing forth new life." It's a HUGE responsibility, even when our culture doesn't treat it as such. If you are not doing this with your spouse and just fornicating, what you are doing is LYING with your body.

    Also, think of this in terms of moral justice. We jump on the cases of deadbeat dads for leaving women alone to raise children because we recognize the injustice. A father has an obligation to take care of his children. A man OUGHT to commit to (marry) the woman he sees good enough to bed. Justice is owed. It is also owed to God, our Creator, who tells us that we shall not commit sexual immorality.

    Even on the biological level, just think of how the hormones released that biologically/physically bonds a man and woman through the sexual experience. This is not a mistake. Our bodies are designed to respond to the sexual experience by bonding with that person. And if you do it over and over again with several people, it has got to do something to you on some level.

    So, without getting long-winded, I think I would start off in this territory, rather than using the "purity culture" to shame my kids :)
     
    Shimmie, Belle Du Jour and Lucia like this.
  13. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    I would love to know where to get some of these knee length top coats like the orange one?
    Any leads?
     
  14. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Galadriel

    Great post if you can recommend some books for us to get educated quoting scriptures alone is not always enough
    Starting with "theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul now St. John Paul
    At Bolded it is so irresponsible and detrimental when men do this and women allow it.
    ITA 100% if a woman is good enough to bed she's good enough to wed FIRST.

    Guys and gals just fall into bed with whoever without vetting that person out seeing if they're compatible praying to God about it and then a surprise happens then they're tied together for life and most times they have nothing in common like views on kids religion education etc. they try to base their relationship on sex alone so if the sex is good then everything else is supposed to fall into place.
    If they actually marry they have higher chance of divorce look at our divorce rates going up since the sexual revolution even if you adjust for inflated numbers it's a good amount.
    I guess that shows how good the "test drive theory" worked.

    This is why we have baby mamma and baby daddy drama running rampant. Nothing sacred nothing spiritual it's all about "getting mine" in the flesh and trashing another person.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2015
    Divine., Galadriel and Shimmie like this.
  15. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Shimmie

    Shimmie "God is the Only Truth -- Period" Staff Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    31,632
    Likes Received:
    50,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    "Deep in His Heart"
    @Lucia,

    Thank you for this thread. You've put your heart and a lot of time into this and I wanted you to know that I see and appreciate it.

    As soon as I can, I'll share some comments. In the meantime, don't give up on this; the information is amazing.

    Love,
    Shimmie
     
    Lucia and Galadriel like this.
  17. Galadriel

    Galadriel Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,994
    Likes Received:
    9,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Where The Busy People Are
    I'll be back soon with some book recommendations! And I am loving a lot of these outfits being posted :)
     
    Shimmie and Lucia like this.
  18. kanozas

    kanozas se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón

    Blog Posts:
    2
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,209
    Likes Received:
    37,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm pretty easy on it depending upon the culture. In Italy, don't wear shorts...but in the States...please, just don't make them booty shorts. Please! But a lot of this is enforcement of dress code for women, why not the men? Personally, if we could just get Yinzers to change it up from this every Sunday game day 5 pm mass, I'd be ok with that haha


    [​IMG]

    or this:

    [​IMG]
     
    LadyPBC likes this.
  19. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your right good point @kanozas the men are slacking off too, I've seen it but I haven't found any articles addressing that in the church. They shouldn't be wearing super tight pants or sagging either.
    I'll keep looking in the meantime some men could stand to up their game. Since this forum is almost all women I didn't think about it.

    [​IMG]


    The Appropriate Men's Attire For Every Occasion
    ANTONIO CENTENO, REAL MEN REAL STYLE

    SEP. 12, 2014, 2:47 PM

    A lot of jobs still have written guidelines for employee attire, at varying degrees of strictnessMuch rarer are dress codes for social events.These written requests for attendee attire are usually only one or two words long, meant to be printed on an invitation and understood by all the potential guests.
    Unfortunately, universal understanding of social dress codes is going the way of cursive handwriting: it has an old-fashioned appeal to some people, but most of us don’t bother with it anymore.

    So if you’ve been invited to an event with a dress code — or you’re planning an event and you want to request a specific sort of attire from your guests — look no further!

    Formal Dress Code – White Tie
    [​IMG]Wikimedia Commons



    The phrase “formal attire” is badly misunderstood in modern society.


    Formal attire does not mean suits and ties! It is a substantially higher dress code, requiring clothes that most men don’t own.

    If you request formal attire on an invitation (and you don’t belong to an extremely wealthy and upper class set), understand that you’re probably asking the majority of your guests to go through the rental process.

    Formal wear for men changes depending on the time of day: in daylight hours, it means morning dress with a tailcoat and vest, while at night it means white tie.

    Both of these are extremely strict dress codes.

    It would be unusual (and a bit presumptuous) to request full formal attire for a personal event. Most white-tie affairs are diplomatic events, or high-formality award ceremonies and the occasional British sporting event.

    Unless you’re a high society heir or heiress throwing a bash at a New York hotel, it’s probably too strict for your wedding or birthday party.

    Semi-Formal Dress Code – Black Tie
    [​IMG]Samir Hussein / Stringer / Getty Images



    Don’t let the diminutive phrasing fool you — semi-formal attire is still the strictest dress code most of us will wear in our lives.


    Like formal wear, semi-formal attire changes based on time of day. In the evening it is the familiar black tie (tuxedo) ensemble, while in the daytime the stroller (a relaxed alternative to morning dress) is appropriate.

    Most modern guests will not be aware of the distinction. Tuxedos at daytime events are a depressingly common occurrence nowadays. If you, as the host or hostess, wish men to come attired in strollers, it may be worth your while to print out a phrase such as “Daytime Semi-formal (Strollers for Men)” in the “Attire” or “Dress Code” section of your invitation. It’s a bit clunky, but it prevents confusion.

    Some men own their own tuxedos, but for the most part this is another dress code that will force attendees to rent attire. Use it sparingly, and only for events of great significance like weddings. It would be very unusual for anyone outside of the jet set to throw more than one or two semi-formal events in his or her lifetime!

    If you receive a semi-formal invitation, give yourself plenty of time for the rental process. Expect it to take several weeks from your first fitting and outfit selection for the clothes to arrive and be adjusted.

    Be firm with the sales staff, and make it clear that you are only interested in true black tie (or daytime semi-formal) attire — these days, most of the offerings at rental outlets are cartoon-colored costumes for high school proms and novelty weddings, not real formal and semi-formal wear.

    Business Dress Code
    [​IMG]Flickr/ Avi and Elina Flax



    A “business” or “business dress” code means one thing for men: matched suits.


    If an invitation has specifically requested business attire, it’s best to err on the side of formality and wear a dark, solid colored or pinstriped suit.

    Pair it with a white dress shirt, a conservative tie, and black leather oxfords, and you’re — no pun intended — in business.

    There is a certain amount of leeway at social events, particularly daytime ones, so if you prefer a lighter gray suit or a dark brown one, those are acceptable. For the most part, though, “business dress” means the more formal end of men’s suits.

    If, on the other hand, the invitation simply says “suits and ties for men” or something along those lines, “social suits” with lighter colors or more vivid patterns are acceptable.

    This isn’t strictly speaking a dress code, but it is a request you will see from time to time on invitations, particularly to dressed-up but light-hearted affairs like brunches and church outings.

    Business Casual or Dress Casual
    [​IMG]Flickr, LeWeb 13



    There are a number of variations on this phrase, all of which mean basically the same thing. For men, jackets are still preferred, but not required, and not as part of a matched suit.


    The most conventional dress casual outfit for a man is a navy blue blazer with light to medium gray slacks or khakis. (This is such a common dressed-down alternative to full business attire that it’s sometimes called “the California suit.”)

    Once the word “casual” is on the invitation, however, a fair amount of flexibility is permitted. Blazers or sports jackets are the dressiest look within the code, while sweaters or dress shirts without a top layer are more dressed-down.

    In general, you’re better off showing up with a jacket and tie, and then stripping one or both off if you find yourself too overdressed. It’s easy to dress a blazer or sports jacket and slacks down, but hard to dress a plain shirt up.

    At the bare minimum, a “business casual” invitation still requires slacks or khakis (not jeans) and a collared shirt, as well as leather dress shoes and socks to match the trousers.

    Casual Dress
    [​IMG]Shutterstock.com



    A “casual attire” invitation is mostly open ended, but there is still the expectation of dressing up for a social event.


    Neckties are definitely not needed, but a casual jacket could still be worn.

    Similarly, jeans are acceptable if the invitation says “casual,” but they should be dark, fitted jeans, not plain work jeans or anything with rips and tears.

    Leather shoes and collared shirts are still preferable.

    The “casual” code tells you that the hosts aren’t putting any stock in formality.

    They want it to be a relaxed events where guests can be themselves. All well and good — but you should still look like you made an effort! It’s just polite.

    Understanding “Optional” Dress Codes
    Occasionally dress codes will come with the word “optional” attached. This is mostly done at the higher levels of formality, i.e. “black tie optional.”

    What that means is that the hosts are planning on wearing the listed code, and encourage guests to do likewise if they wish. It’s a way of dressing the event up without requiring that every single attendee meet a high standard that might require rental clothing or expensive purchases.

    With an optional dress code, it is of course always appropriate to meet the listed code (but not exceed it — you wouldn’t wear white tie to a “black tie optional” event).

    Alternatively, you can wear a close approximation at a slightly lower level of formality. For example, if the event is “black tie optional” and you don’t want to rent a tuxedo, you can instead wear a dark business suit with a plain white shirt and a very reserved necktie. That gives the same general impression of severe formality as a tuxedo, but without the need for exotic attire.

    A slight variation is the “preferred” dress code: like “optional,” this leaves it up to the guests, but with the indication that the hosts would like guests to dress to the maximum standard if at all possible. “Preferred” leaves a graceful out for guests who absolutely can’t meet the dress code, while “optional” leaves it up to their tastes and preferences entirely.

    These are good codes for hosts to use when they’re indulging in a very dressed-up appearance, but want to make the event more accessible to friends and relatives.

    Invitations without Dress Codes
    So what do you do if you receive an invitation that doesn’t list a dress code?

    The simplest suggestion is always to ask the hosts. Don’t be embarrassed, especially in this modern world of e-mails and text messages, to shoot the host with whom you are most familiar a short note saying “how dressed up do you want people at the event?”

    If you don’t feel comfortable doing that, ask around among other attendees. And if you truly have no one you can ask, consider the time and setting: evening attire should generally be darker and simpler than daytime, outdoor settings are more casual than indoor, and so on.

    Always err on the side of being a bit overdressed. As we’ve said before, it’s very easy to take off a necktie or shed a jacket and become less formal, but if you only showed up with a shirt and slacks there’s no way for you to become dressier.

    Finally, in rare cases you may run into an invitation where the listed dress code doesn’t seem accurate — for example, I was once invited to a wedding that requested a “formal” dress code, but I knew from speaking with the groom that he was only wearing a business suit. Since the hosts will always be wearing the most formal interpretation of the event’s dress code, I knew that meant they only wanted nice- looking suits, not true formal wear.

    It’s a bit of an awkward situation, but in a case like that you should dress to match your hosts, rather than adhering to the written instructions and drawing attention to their error. Don’t even mention it to them — once the invitations are sent, there’s nothing they can do about it anyway!

    And there you have it. That’s all you need to know about dressing to meet social dress codes as a man. Easy, wasn’t it?



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-appropriate-mens-attire-for-every-occasion-2014-9#ixzz3dMzlos
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2017
  20. kanozas

    kanozas se ven las caras pero nunca el corazón

    Blog Posts:
    2
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,209
    Likes Received:
    37,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have had pastors ask us not to wear tee-shirts with inappropriate messages on them. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the far-right saggy look unless your underwear are showing. I'm not going with the legalism. I was kinda being tongue-in-cheek about the sports Jerseys. LOL. This is Pittsburgh...they are SSOOOO into sports here, it's sickening ha! But people do wear their jerseys to mass all the time. Steel-town nuts. It looks like Heinz Stadium around her half the time.
     
    Lucia likes this.
  21. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,647
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People look like slobs coming to mass, especially in the summer. I think the church needs to institute a dress code like the high churches in Europe: no bare shoulders/arms, no shorts, no short skirts/dresses. At mass yesterday, the cantor's dress was inappropriately short. If the cantor doesn't have a clue, how can we expect the faithful to? I wanted to say something but these days, you can't say anything to anybody without getting cursed out. :look:
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2015
    Lucia likes this.
  22. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Belle Du Jour

    I sent that article about implementing a dress code to the youth educator of our church. Seriously enough is enough booty shorts and midriffs should not be allowed.
    I'm not saying everyone can afford to dress to the nines but you can cover up
     
    Choclatcotton and Belle Du Jour like this.
  23. YaniraNaturally

    YaniraNaturally WL-HL???

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,803
    Media:
    1
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    7,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northeast
    Ooh I already love this thread!

    I really appreciate that my church teaches modesty for men and women. We have standards, but we still keep it chic. You don't have to be frumpy to be modest.
     
  24. Enyo

    Enyo Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    5,898
    Likes Received:
    21,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Motunui
    I'm surprised modcloth.com hasn't already been mentioned. Because most of the fashion for women during the 40's and 50's was pretty modest, the retro theme of the site suits your purposes quite well. They can be expensive, but they have a lot of sales. There are a lot of sleeveless things, but that can be fixed with a nice cardigan. My suggestion would be to go to the "work dresses" area or the "fit and flare".
     
  25. Blackpearl1993

    Blackpearl1993 Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    1,779
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Northern Cali
    Thank you for this thread
     
    Lucia likes this.
  26. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,647
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I ordered a couple dresses from Modcloth. I later learned (on a modesty group that I belong to online) that they were promoting this man who likes to dress/identify as a woman: http://blog.modcloth.com/2015/04/05/fashiontruth-rye/

    I'm not saying that I wouldn't buy from Modcloth again but it's something to be aware of. I realize (especially after all the businesses showed their true colors after SCOTUS' decision by putting rainbows in their logos) that you would have no place to shop or do business if you were trying to avoid companies that support the LGBT agenda.
     
    Lucia likes this.
  27. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,647
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think royalty is great to emulate for modest chic dressing :D
    Princess Mary of Denmark

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  28. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,647
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Princess Marie of Denmark
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    crlsweetie912, Bibliophile and Lucia like this.
  29. Belle Du Jour

    Belle Du Jour Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Messages:
    13,647
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Queen Letizia of Spain

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  30. Lucia

    Lucia Well-Known Member

    Blog Posts:
    3
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,279
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Belle Du Jour

    Sadly I think that's what will be needed to show that not everyone is ok with gay and "not going to bow down at the altar of gay "
    FB quote
    If Christians Hindus Muslims Buhdists and other relgiosos that don't agree with lgbt or their religions have a heterosexual only doctrine then if we all refused to patronize businesses that openly support and promote lgbt then they WILL get the message. It would be hard to do at first but it's possible.
    I don't think everyone is getting on the gay train to Soddom.
     
    Royalty8790 and Belle Du Jour like this.

Share This Page