Modesty in the 21st Century

            In

1890, a young teacher named Fay Fuller scandalized Tacoma,

Washington society by climbing Mount Tacoma.  They didn't object to the climb itself so

much as to what she wore for the ascent -- a long skirt with ankle-length

bloomers underneath, which was apparently considered brazenly immodest at the

time.  In the early 20th

century, a young George Burns used to stand on a street corner with his

friends, hoping to catch a glimpse of women's ankles as they stepped onto the

streetcars.

            So

how do we judge things like this?  When

the norm was that women's skirts covered the ankles, were the women with

mid-shin hemlines dressed immodestly? 

What about the first woman who exposed an elbow in polite society?

            The

fundamental question is this: is there one standard for what exactly

constitutes modest dress, applicable to every woman in every generation?  Or is it possible that, while the need for

modesty remains eternally, the exact description of modest attire can vary

between cultures and between generations?

            I'm

voting for the latter.

            I

know there are plenty of people who disagree with me - people who believe that

since morality is not subjective, therefore the concrete description of modest

clothing couldn't possibly change either. 

I admire those people for their commitment to honoring Christ through

modest attire.  But I respectfully

disagree with them on this point.

            Here's

my problem: take the way a hyper-modest 21st century woman might

dress.  Her hemline would most certainly

fall below her knee.  But would it reach

the floor?  Her shoulders would be

covered.  But what about her elbows?  Her wrists? 

Very few people (outside the Muslim world) today would argue that a

woman's ankles must be covered in order to conform to the universal standards

of Christian modesty.  And yet, that

hyper-modest woman with her exposed ankles would have caused a major commotion

in the 19th century.  Would a

woman have been morally justified prancing around church in a shin-length skirt

- even though it was considered wildly scandalous - because it was within the

"unchanging standards of Christian modesty"? 

I doubt the clergy of the time would have thought so.

            Again,

JPII is my "go-to" guy on issues of modesty. 

And, in Love and Responsibility, he says about modesty, "The principle is simple and obvious, but its

application in specific cases depends upon the individual, the milieu, the

society."  JPII's "obvious" principle, as

we discussed last time, is this: "What is truly immodest in dress is that which

frankly contributes to the deliberate displacement of the true value of the

person by sexual values, that which is bound to elicit a reaction to the person

as to a ‘possible means of obtaining sexual enjoyment' and not ‘a possible

object of love by reason of his or her personal value.'"      

            But

yes, the application of the principle can vary. 

Men who were never exposed to female ankles were apparently more

inclined to react sexually to those ankles then are men who are frequently

exposed to a whole lot of other female parts. 

And thus it could conceivably have been construed as genuinely immodest

behavior to expose those ankles at the time for the purpose of scandalizing

those present.   In different societies,

different men are accustomed to seeing different levels of female exposure.  So the principle doesn't change, but the

concrete application does.

            Notice

that JPII also said that differentiation can exist between cultures and even

between individuals.  Let's face it -

flat chicks can look perfectly modest in clothing that would be wildly immodest

on our better-endowed sisters.

            The

standards of modesty can also vary by occasion. 

Don't believe me?  Picture a very

modest woman's bathing suit.  It's a one

piece with a little skirt and a high neckline. 

Not turning a single head at the beach. 

But now imagine wearing that same bathing suit to church.  Feeling a little out of place?  Of course you would.  Even JPII says " . . .there is nothing

immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it

in the street or when out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of

modesty."  (Note:  I'm not

saying that all bathing suits are modest. 

Only that even a modest bathing suit could be considered immodest in

another setting.) 

            So,

if there's no list of approved clothing we can refer to, how do we know when

we're dressed modestly?

            Well,

first of all there's your gut.  Not

whether it's hanging out or not (although we're all grateful when it

doesn't.)  What does your gut tell you

when you look in the mirror?  Where is

the attention drawn?  To your person or

your parts?  Is your true value "frankly

displaced" by the display of your sexual value?

            Second,

think about the setting you'll be in. 

How will everyone else be dressed? 

Does what you're wearing expose more than what is expected in that

situation?  (Think "bathing suit in

church.")

Third, when in

doubt, I've always been in favor of consulting good men.  They should preferably not be men you're dating (because of the greater likelihood of the

"frank displacement.")  They should be

men of high moral character.  Brothers

can be helpful, as can good guy friends.

Please be

reminded that, in saying that the specifics of modesty may change between

generations and between individuals, I'm not in any way dismissing or minimizing

the need for modesty.  At Fatima, Our Lady said "Certain fashions will be

introduced that will offend our Lord very much."  We don't have to look too far to see what she

was talking about.  Women "show off their

assets" because they like the attention, because they think it makes them more

attractive to men.

But, in my

experience, good men may be momentarily distracted by a blatant display of body

parts.  But the women who intrigue them,

the women they want to get to know, the women they want to love and marry and

protect - they're the women who aren't "letting it all hang out."  They're the women who are concealing the

blatant sexual values - in order to reveal the deeper, interpersonal values.

I'd rather be

one of those women.