I think part of the reason for scrupulosity...

[Elizabeth.2]

I sense your dislike of Mr. Coulombe but at the time there was NO OTHER Catholic who had an ounce of joy that I could listen to. I was at the end of my rope and hearing just this one happy Catholic helped me stay Traditional. He already explained his reasoning and I believe him. If it weren't for Greg inserting a bit of humor on here I probably wouldn't be here as well. I need happiness in my life not constant stress

TandJ, you're all good here. Absolutely NO BLAME or guilt on you!  I had no idea about him, except a lot of Catholic Monarchists respect him, and he was not my cup of tea. I have taken many wrong detours in the struggle to practice the Faith. 
I know I went to at least two rosary/ evangelizing events back in the day featuring "Fr." Ken Roberts, author of From Playboy to Priest.  He was hilarious!  Of course he was defrocked for "misconduct" which had been covered up by the gay mafia from the 1960s on, and etc.   

[Daniel]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.

I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)

I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.

This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).

Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)

[Jayne]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal.

I was raised thinking that there was no such thing as objective aesthetics.  I think this is part of the relativism that infects secular society.  I learned much later that objective aesthetics was the traditional/classical view. It took me a long time to understand this and incorporate it into my thinking.

I too took Curt Jester's comments that way and agree with him.  There was a time, however, I would not have been able to do this.

[TandJ]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.

I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)

I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.

This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).

Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)

Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.

[Melkor]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.

I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)

I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.

This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).

Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)

Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.

Tight pants are never acceptable in public though. Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.

[TandJ]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.

I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)

I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.

This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).

Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)

Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.

Tight pants are never acceptable in public though. Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.

Obviously!! Lol

[Melkor]

Lol. 😂

[coffeeandcigarette]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.

I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)

I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.

This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).

Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)

Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.

Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.

and you're talking about aesthetics...lol

[Melkor]

I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.

I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)

I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.

This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).

Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)

Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.

Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.

and you're talking about aesthetics...lol

Never said they looked good. They have no aesthetic appeal, but that doesn't make them sinful.

[lauermar]

Just my 2 cents...I don't see a problem with skinny pants or leggings if long tunic, duster coat or sweater is worn over them. My employer has a rule against them but not traditional pants. There are some Catholics who believe all women in pants are going to hell. My late mom was in the Legion of Mary. She had advanced arthritis. She wore pull on stretchy loose pants and a tunic because that was the only way she could dress herself.

[james03]

There are 2 things to avoid:

Wearing clothing suitable for a man.  Pant suits come to mind.

Wearing clothing that is sexually arousing.  Women can't understand how strong the male sex drive is, especially in younger lads.

So taking this into consideration, leggings with a long sweater/tunic that covers up the butt is not a problem for me.  I actually like that look on women.  Has a cozy feminine vibe. 

You aren't trying to be masculine with this mode of dress, and since the arse is covered up, there's no extra temptation.

[TandJ]

I wear loose pants 99 percent of the time then long skirts to mass. I never have a problem telling a man from a women who is in jeans. I suppose about every 1/5000 people you cannot tell their sex by appearance but that has nothing to do with their pants and has to do with their look and voice as a whole. I do have a problem with men wearing skinny jeans or mid-thigh shorts sitting directly in front of me at mass though. It doesn't affect me sensually but I am disgusted and distracted the entire time.

[lauermar]

There is such a thing as pantsuits for women with feminine detail and colors. They also button on the other side. There's no mistaking a woman for a man. In the 1940s, skirted suits were the norm.

[Tennessean]

Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.

[Insanis]

Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.

Modesty is a virtue, not a style.

Form fitting fashions or fashions associated with specific signaling associated with them are usually immodest.

However, as PPE, such things might be acceptable when being used as such. I don't know much about leather clothing besides boots.