No image of today’s fashions is appropriate for this website — here’s a butcher instead.

THE clothing women wear today is often just as bad or worse than nudity. In fact, it may draw more attention to the flesh than not wearing any clothes at all. Nothing is left to the imagination. We live in an open air meat store. I am truly tempted to envy the blind. Think of the many things they do not see.

Isn’t it endlessly ironic? Feminism, which so objected to the “objectification” of women, brought on stunning objectification. All women are free — oh, what exhilarating freedom — to look like whores or slabs of beef. It’s okay to degrade women as long as women do the degrading, right? Even little girls are dressed as streetwalkers, conformist slaves to indecent “fashions.” Any one who complains of this abuse of the young, promoted by Marxist corporations, is considered an outrageous prude or a public enemy of human freedom. There are few things more appalling than the mothers and fathers who have no problem with their daughters being sold on the butcher blocks of fashion. There is one thing almost as appalling — and devastating to the eye — and that is, the grandma who dresses the same way.

What’s next? Grass skirts and bare breasts? Whatever it is, we know it will be worse and will further lower the dignity of women and the entire tone of what’s left of society. Ugliness — it’s not the human body that is necessarily ugly, but its promiscuous display, violating all the civilized terms of intimacy — surrounds us. It is so pervasive most people can’t see it. We are drowning. We are suffocating. We are choking. Ugliness and immodesty this bad must be fatal. Immodesty tears out the very heart of civilization, which is founded on the sacredness of even human flesh and the maintenance of intimacy in a whirlwind of commerce and depersonalizing lust. Feminist, thy name is traitor. Handcuff thyself.

In closing, here are some relevant thoughts from the late Dolores Rose Morris, writing in 1990 when things were better than today:

Most girls today wear some of the most hideous clothing in public and even in church. They paint on blue jeans which are so tight, it appears that they have blue skin instead of any clothing on at all. Their mothers defend these fashions by saying, “Well, they are covered up, aren’t they?” Then these mothers wear the same styles to “keep up” with their daughters, compounding the insanity by giving bad example, and by degrading themselves. Girls wear shorts and leotards which reveal everything and leave nothing to the imagination. They wear the latest beach styles which make lingerie appear modest. Nearly naked is now accepted as “modest”, or even “cute”. Then these mothers wonder why their daughters, or even they, are raped. Both fathers and mothers condone these immodest fashions by allowing their continued use, sometimes because they do not care, and in all instances because they have lost the grace which would give them the fortitude to prevent such pagan practices from occurring in their very own families. The Middle East has for centuries adhered to the custom of covering even the female face. Only the woman’s husband is privileged to view the beauty of his wife. The West, of course, follows no such custom except to encourage the revealing of not only the woman’s cheeks on her face, but everything else, for public exposure. The fashion industry is controlled by pagans, who produce the uniform of pagans for pagans. If we do not believe that we belong to the pagan army, then we should not be caught wearing their uniform. We could die in their uniform, being caught behind enemy lines and be proclaimed as pagan heroes.

Mrs. Morris also condemned pants:

Who was it who first decided that women would wear pants? It was not someone interested in obeying scripture and the laws of the Church. It was the pagan fashion trend setters. They now have women all over the world wearing pants, looking as if they just walked out of a coal mine. These “fashion experts” have deliberately and successfully downgraded women. They have destroyed their feminine uniqueness, dignity and self-respect. Nowadays, there is no need to ask who wears the pants in the family, as almost everyone is wearing them, bearing the pagan “coat of arms”. These fashion “experts” have successfully indoctrinated the minds of most women with the desire to bear arms and the brunt of the workforce rather than with the desire to bear children. They have succeeded in reversing the role of women from that intended by Almighty God. It is interesting to observe how many women now find themselves, clad in military fatigues, assigned to the sweltering heat of a Middle East desert. “Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continues in faith and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (The first epistle of Saint Paul to Saint Timothy, chapter 2, verse 15). What ever happened to the desire to steadfastly follow the will of God in all things? It disappeared with the loss of Grace. These abominations do not occur just because “That’s the way the world is today.” The world is the way it is today because of the loss of Grace. This is the sole reason these abominations occur. The loss of Grace is the reason that most people accept these abominations as the ordinary “thing to do”. Grace gives the “Christian sense” to realize the difference between pagan abominations and Christian Truth and the strength to fight for the Truth and to hold firmly to the Truth.

She also gives the correct, and only, explanation as to why this catastrophic loss of grace has occurred.

— Comments —

Susan Anne White writes from Northern Ireland:

This post was excellent and echoed my thoughts exactly. I despair of modern society. It is vulgar, coarse and totally lacking in propriety and decency.

Aggressive immodesty is virtually everywhere including in churches. I have confronted Pastors in Evangelical churches about the immodesty they permit or turn a blind eye to. Sadly nothing changes.

The scantily-clad sluts make going out a miserable experience. In supermarkets they are in the majority and I feel surrounded by the madding crowd. They are an assault on the eyes and they provoke righteous anger in the heart of those who prize modesty and womanly propriety.

These hussies also threaten marriages because they want the eyes of men on them and there are many men with roving eyes who will give them the attention they seek and many of those men are married men. This gives these feminist sluts power over modest, faithful wives.

Why any man finds these wicked women attractive or desirable is a mystery to me when all they want to do is to subjugate men and these foolish men who look at them help the feminists to that end.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

I think many women are not intending to be sexually aggressive. They are just following fashions. They have become desensitized to the effects of near-nudity on men and on their own minds and souls.

Mrs. White responds:

With respect Mrs Wood, I disagree with you when you say “I think many women are not intending to be sexually aggressive. They are just following fashions.”

Your post did not distinguish between those who are deliberately immodest and those who are immodest due to ignorance. I find it hard to believe that any woman who dresses immodestly is unaware that she is being sexually aggressive. If such women exist their number must be miniscule.
After decades of feminist indoctrination and their so-called “slut marches” how could any immodest woman claim she does not dress immodestly deliberately.

I was in a supermarket in Northern Ireland this week and there were many scantily-clad women but one was worse than the others. She was heavily pregnant, tattooed and wore a mini dress that was so tight around her pregnant abdomen that she was a walking representation of the depravity of society. She had two young boys with her, probably they are her sons.

How I pity those young boys and the example they are being set by their whorish mother.

Laura writes:

Let me clarify:

It is sexually aggressive, whether they intend it or not. It is offensive to God, first and foremost, and a visual assault on other human beings, whether they intend it or not. I was once relatively unconscious of these things too. I condemn my own insensitivity.

I was in a supermarket in Northern Ireland this week and there were many scantily-clad women but one was worse than the others. She was heavily pregnant, tattooed and wore a mini dress that was so tight around her pregnant abdomen that she was a walking representation of the depravity of society. She had two young boys with her, probably they are her sons.

I’ve seen the scene you’ve seen many times. In the supermarket, I am always on the verge of nausea.

Kathy G. writes:

As a former pagan, or heathen, I agree with your comments. Even when I was a heathen, I understood the  propriety of dressing the best you can for church. That stuck with me, and when I returned to Protestant Christianity, I would attend church “dressed up”, always a dress, stockings, some make-up. Most people in the Protestant churches also dressed fairly modestly and appropriately, although sometimes dresses are a bit short, low cut, legs naked.But Catholic Church was terrible. People show up looking like they are going picnicking after Mass, wearing shorts, flip flops, short skirts, bare arms, etc. . This was the Novus Ordo, the Trad Mass I attended was a bit better, and most ladies wore head coverings.

The dress of the general public at stores, etc. is awful. Completely de-civilized, without pride of appearance, shame, or even embarrassment. Elderly women wearing short-shorts, exposing white, veiny, lumpy, cellulite riddled legs, obese women wearing tight pants, shorts, stretchy leggings. You would think they would want to cover that up. No dignity at all.

Men wear children’s clothing, baggy, almost culotte-like polyester “shorts”, T-shirts, stretchy sweat pants with cartoon characters on them, like pajamas!

I have been guilty of pants-wearing, nearly all my life, not shorts or revealing or tight, but not feminine or womanly. I have never been a very “feminine” woman, and prefer the company of men as I find most of them easier to understand. I began wearing dresses in public a few months ago, and definitely noticed a difference in some of the men I have encountered. Very friendly, smiling, and I perceive, relieved at the “signal” they were receiving by my appearance that I am a traditional female, not a feminazi who will excoriate them for opening a door for me.

I spend a lot of time gardening and that is difficult to do in dresses (below the knee) and tights, so I will wear capri length pants at home. My husband doesn’t care either way, and is a bit bemused.

Our country is badly in need of Catholic missioning, but have been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated into materialism and idolatry, so I’m not optimistic, barring supernatural intervention.

Laura writes:

I used to wear pants and now I don’t, except when weeding and working in the garden — with a knee-length dress on top — and when hiking. There are lots of loose, short dresses out there and when you have to wear pants for manual work you can wear them on top.

Whenever I see an old woman in yoga pants, I want to cry.

She’s stripped of dignity — the only thing an old woman potentially has to offer physically.

By the way, I don’t mention these things because I think there is a chance of “going back.” Not at all. There is absolutely no chance of going back. These objections are completely foreign to the average person. You might as well be an alien from another planet. There is nothing a feminist loves more than sneering and making fun of women who admire modesty, as if it is the same thing as sexual prudery or frustration. The feminist is so liberated. Liberated for the impersonal, for disloyalty, treachery and disappointment. The truth is, she’s the puritanical one — even her sexual life is a utopian, political campaign.

No, we await God’s direct intervention. Those who market and promote these “fashions” will be devoured by flames, as will many of their customers. In the meantime. the visual trauma is a daily thing for those who have not been desensitized to slabs of human meat, who value intimacy and who strive, despite their own worthlessness, to love God with all their hearts, minds and souls.

Kathy G. responds:

Thank you for the short dress over pants suggestion. All my dresses, skirts and jumpers are mid-calf or longer, and I never look for short ones. But to wear over pants, they would be perfect, and so practical! Great idea! I think the old ladies bother me the most. They should be the ones upholding standards of behavior and modesty. Maybe they don’t consider themselves old, Idk.

Sometimes I feel like Rhett Butler at the end of “Gone With the Wind”, where he tells Scarlett to shove off, that he just wants to go and find any grace and decency that might be left in the world, words to that effect.

How far humanity has fallen.

Thanks again, Laura.

Dianne writes:

So, so good, Laura.  Inspired me to go back to skirts and dresses only. I have been striving for this many years now but do slip back. Even at my age, how I love my jeans at times. :-)

The immodesty today is horrific. My husband and I would never even visit the shore or any pool setting because of the indecent swimsuits worn.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

There is nothing wrong with a woman wearing trousers (pants).  We have to make a distinction between the horrible examples you and your commenters made, and the wearing of nice, properly fitting, not tight, modest pants.

Here’s my take:  Every generation inherits traditions – some good, some bad, and some neutral.  But no generation seems to be able to sit down and intelligently decide which ones to keep completely, or keep but modify somewhat, or dispense with entirely.

And so it is with women wearing pants.  Where in the bible does it say women must not wear them?  Is this article about pants VS dresses or is it about immodest, ugly clothing in general?

Some women, when they decide to go traditional/conservative,  go whole hog, including the wearing of below-the-knee or quite long, dresses and skirts all the time no matter what. (Not to mention never getting a haircut.) They would die  before they put on a pair of suitable, modest trousers.  I see this as no better than women mindlessly attiring themselves in the latest hideous “fashion”, i.e., they just can’t think for themselves, they need to be told by outside authority (in this case the promoters of “a return to tradition” how to dress and behave.)

How about those of us women who have rejected this rotting, degenerating culture that sometimes we have to sort things out for ourselves.  There is simply nothing immodest or somehow “wrong” about a good pair of properly-fitting pants.  I saw some photos in my family’s photo album from the 1950s and a few of the women were wearing nice, decent, stylish pants, the kind with pleats.

As usual, I thank you for considering my opinions.

Laura writes:

I agree that pants can be worn with modesty.

Skirts, however, are more flattering to the female form in general, especially for heavy women, elderly women and pregnant women; cause women to be more conscious of, and less assertive in, their movements (e.g., women in skirts never sit with legs spread); serve to differentiate the sexes and are more attractive to men.

You say women who are more traditional tend to “go whole hog,” can you name one traditional society in which women wore pants?

Laura adds:

I once attended a concert of a premier orchestra. The first violinist was a woman wearing pants. She sat with her knees spread through the entire event.

It was … very unbecoming.

Pants animalize women. Skirts elevate them.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

You wrote, “You say women who are more traditional tend to “go whole hog,” can you name one traditional society in which women wore pants?”

No, I cannot.  In no traditional society did women wear pants.  My own grandmother, who died at age 96 a few years ago, NEVER put on a pair of pants!  My other grandmother, who I never knew (she died in 1947) never wore pants judging by the photos of her that I have seen.  All these photos show her in long dresses.

And that is my point.  Do we have to continue with all traditions, all  the time?  Very few old women from my childhood (my grandmothers’ generation) ever cut their hair until they were really old when their “caregivers” [yuk] did so for ease of washing their hair and it was probably not their choice.  These women, for as long as they could, put their long hair up into a bun.  Yet if I might get personal with you, in that colored photo, your hair doesn’t appear to be long.  Looks like you cut it to some degree.  But I feel quite confident in saying that long hair was the tradition since the day of Creation.

From wikipedia:

Historically, women in the West have usually worn their hair long. Although young girls, actresses and a few “advanced” or fashionable women had worn short hair even before World War I—for example in 1910 the French actress Polaire is described as having “a shock of short, dark hair”, a cut she adopted in the early 1890s[6]—the style was not considered generally respectable until given impetus by the inconvenience of long hair to girls engaged in war work.

Well, you can have the last word.  Some conditions need to put on “tradition”; that word has never been adequately defined to my satisfaction.  And, yes, the points you make about dresses VS pants are generally true.

Laura writes:

Thanks for your comments.

I never argued that women should not cut their hair. If we had a more family-oriented society they would probably cut it much less because they would be saving that money for children, but I never argued against it and so I don’t support something just because it’s “traditional.”

And as I said, I wore pants for years and wear pants, usually under a dress, sometimes now too — when hiking or working in the yard. Not that I hold that up as good.

Pants are much less feminine, that’s all. I take the Virgin Mary as the ultimate model for women and it is unthinkable that she wear pants. It would be so contrary to her high dignity even though she was not wealthy and was the wife of a laboring man.

The wearing of pants lowers the cultural tone of motherhood.

Obviously, it is our society’s tradition now, but the only minority groups in this country that maintain large families insist women wear skirts. (Except maybe for the Mormons. I don’t know about them.) They produce large families because the roles of men and women are defined and differentiated. And that extends to dress. When a culture wants women to wear dresses, it finds a way for them to do it comfortably, even in a farm field.

I don’t think men collectively will ever take on the burden of supporting families themselves in a culture of women in pants.

Pants are a symbol in modern culture of the proletarianized female drudge. She works all the time.

Please follow and like us: