Modesty with Dr. P, part 2

Dr. Greg responds to my comments here, and they are worth a good long look.

Meanwhile, deep in his post he writes this:

So, am I saying that a woman, or man for that matter, should dress any damn way they want without regard for anyone around them?  Should we all parade around naked defying the world to look upon us with purity of mind and heart?  Of course not.  We are all fallen.  Even though we can’t cause feelings in another person, we know that acting in a certain manner tends to create a certain set of emotional choices for most people, given what is expected in a particular context. Modesty requires that we dress in a manner that we deem appropriate for the context we are in and in a way that is not intended to make it unduly difficult for any reasonable person to see anything other than our physical appearance.

And this is what I want to hear more about.

One thought on “Modesty with Dr. P, part 2

  1. I think I can bring you together on the same page with some careful vocabulary.

    “Modesty requires that we dress in a manner that we deem appropriate for the context we are in and in a way that is not intended to make it unduly difficult for any reasonable person to see anything other than our physical appearance.”

    Sounds to me like Dr Greg is (probably correctly) concerned with modesty as an internal disposition or virtue and a practice, and not as an exterior descriptor of appearances.

    “…that we dress…that we deem..that is not intended [i.e., that we do not intend]…”

    His quote leaves open the possibility that a person makes an error when dressing (e.g., leaves that top button undone by accident or chooses clothing of the wrong size). It leaves open the possibility that a person is mistaken about what is appropriate (e.g., naïvely wears a lower-cut, sleeveless blouse to a job interview or a thin summer dress to Easter Mass). It leaves open the possibility that a person unintentionally makes it difficult for a reasonable person to see anything other than our physical appearance (e.g., is not aware just how noticeable he is in those tight Speedos).

    None of these folks are objectively, according to Dr Greg’s definitions, “being immodest.” They are being careless, naïve, or clueless.

    And you could quite reasonably, and with more precision, refrain from using “immodest” to describe the “things” that are being worn. You could say, for example, “That thin dress is inappropriate for Mass because (it is sleeveless, it is too short for your frame, it is see-through, whatever).” You can say, “oops, that shirt is too small for you.” You could say, “dude, nobody wants to look at your junk all day, go put some board shorts on.”

    I guess you could warn a kid, “you can’t wear that because it looks as if you don’t care about modesty.”

    But I think what Dr. Greg is saying, maybe, is that immodesty is technically a failing in a virtue, and you really can’t tell that for sure from outside. Also, that objects can’t have that attribute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *