Collective amnesia amongst the female UD populace


Anna Kaladish, Contributing Writer

The Legging Leatherette Jeans - BlackOur senior class gift should be a stand on the Mall with all shapes and varieties of long skirts to be doled out to needy passersby. Academia addles the mind, leading to the neglect of food and sleep and even, as it turns out, pants! Harried young ladies dashing about in pursuit of knowledge are so preoccupied with lofty thoughts that there is a pandemic of forgetting to wear trousers. Unfortunately, the more likely explanation is that a shocking number of otherwise intelligent and respectable females have been deluded into a heinous fashion trend that condones the wearing of exposed, skin-tight leggings.
Leggings are not pants. They are obscene. I assure the offenders in this crime against decency that no mature and self-respecting individual wishes to see so distinctly the contours of your derrière. Wearing a slightly long, sheer tunic over your spandex leg sleeves does little to offset the unpleasantness of such snug attire. A small T-shirt does far less. Mall á la Mode? What our newspaper needs is Mall á la Modesty!
Leggings are by no means the only offender, though arguably the most pernicious and prevalent. Soon the Texas spring will heat up, and suddenly women will believe that a square foot of material suffices to clothe the entire lower half of their bodies. Short shorts, indistinguishable from miniscule undergarments, will become the norm in every building on campus, from the cafeteria to the church.blank-leggings-w352
Leggings have the benefit of being ascribed to the cult of comfort. (Alhough, if your wardrobe is making everyone else uncomfortable by its extreme tightness, you may have a seriously disordered and egocentric understanding of comfort.) “Booty” shorts and “Daisy Dukes,” however, cannot possibly be described as comfortable.
Sitting in Anselm on a balmy day in late spring, you may have to listen to the horrible noise created by your unfortunate neighbor’s exposed thighs making prolonged contact with the patent leather seats. If you think your discomfort in this situation is immense, think of the poor woman whose thighs are sticking to a filthy plastic chair! There is no need to subject ourselves to this torture. Let the madness end.
I would advocate an organized legging-burning in front of the Tower as a statement against this atrocity, but leggings are useful for warmth when worn appropriately under other items of clothing. We needn’t be rash and wasteful in stamping out the foul legging pestilence. Additionally, such a burning may come off as reminiscent of the bra-burning demonstrations of yesteryear. To align the two causes would be misleading, for my complaint against leggings comes not from a feminist crusade. No, my complaint is on behalf of all mankind.
While the long-skirt stand I suggested at the beginning of this article is unfeasible, I encourage you to take it upon yourself to become a “long skirt.” “Long skirt” is traditionally used as a derogatory term to describe devout women who wear ankle-length skirts; however, although I do not own a single long skirt, in writing this article I will be lampooned as a “long skirt.” Therefore, “long skirt” signifies more than a daily clothing choice; it is a frame of mind that values modesty for the sake of holiness.
You can be a long skirt, and you should encourage all the women in your life to adopt the modesty and prudence of long skirtness for the sake of their beauty and the benefit of everyone who has to look at them. Modesty does not always entail long, flowing garments, but it is perennially amenable to good taste and high class.
If you, patient reader, are desirous of modesty and wholesome Christian living and take but one thing away from this rambling tirade against indecency, let it be this kernel of wisdom: When you embark each morning on your life’s adventures, ask yourself before leaving your room, “Did I remember to put on pants today?”


  1. Bravo Anna!Even (and I believe especially) as a man I do not appreciate the outlines of women’s derrieres. I find tights to be disgusting and they ought never be treated as pants. I do not travel campus in my Under Armor, do not travel campus in your underpants either.

    Also, topless (e.g. unstrapped) sunbathing (or any type of laying out in a bikini) ought to be disallowed at UD. It is disgusting and unbecoming of our population, especially since it happens on Jerome Hill, a central, very visible location. Which, if I’m honest, is probably why most of these women do it there. It out to be ended by Student Life as Lewd Conduct.

    • I’m pretty sure girls don’t do topless sunbathing on Jerome hill because they want people to see them half naked. I’ve never done it myself, but seriously? You’re ascribing impure motives to someone’s actions? If I’m going to be honest, that particular comment revelas more about you than the girls sunbathing.

      • Sorry, Luke, but I have to agree with Christina. Your implication that young college women sunbathe on Jerome hill in order to entice young men does ascribe darker intentions to them than the action seems to entail. Your implication is an unjust accusation. You cannot read minds, so you cannot know that that is what they are trying to do.

        You find tights disgusting? Luke, modest women wear tights all the time in the cold, many of them under long skirts!

        Also, you do not appreciate the outline of women’s derrieres? Excuse me, but you are writing like a boy. Boys need to learn to be men, and instead of being offended by the actions of their sisters in Christ (which is any and every woman in the world regardless of her virtue), they need to remember that it is because God made woman beautiful that she ought to be modest. It is because He made woman to be loved that she ought to be modest. It is out of love that you ought to urge woman to be modest, not out of self-righteousness (something that every person is guilty of) or personal weakness.

  2. This article was condescending and hardly funny. I have never written a comment to the newspaper, but this article was so far beyond rude and hateful. It is possible to be a “wholesome Christian” and still occasionally wear leggings as pants… The fact that she proposed that wearing “short shorts” made a woman a bad christian (the last paragraph of the article seems to suggest this) is so sad. The writer’s reaction to and condemnation of other female’s dress seemed like she would be embarrassed and angry to even see her own body in short shorts, even if in the privacy of her own room. It is sad that other’s bodies make her disgusted, and think that people are “obscene”. A woman is able to be very “self-respecting” and still be comfortable with her body. Perhaps, being comfortable with her body and sexuality is something that increases her self respect. Certainly, reading articles like this in our newspaper makes girls much more self-conscious and hateful of their own clothes and bodies. Also, if this writer has never worn “short shorts” then how could she possible be able to say, as fact, that they are not comfortable. Her suggestion of “Mall a la Modesty”, although perhaps a joke, is absurd because the only good that would even accomplish is making women embarrassed and uncomfortable with their bodies and sexuality. I disagree entirely with this article, and simply, if a woman desires to wear short shorts, she has every right to, and it will not, and should not, condemn her. I think one of the saddest and most regrettable things is when Christian women are embarrassed of, or think their sexuality is bad or wrong. Sexuality is gorgeous and wonderful and beautiful and so many other positive things. The attraction between a man and woman, emotionally, but yes physically as well (gasp), is beautiful. I think it is absurd, and breeding hate in your heart, to look at other women who are comfortable in their skin, and come to the conclusions that this writer did. Our bodies are beautiful things and they should be celebrated as such. Yes, I entirely agree that your body should be saved for marriage, but I also believe that a woman (and even man!) should be able to celebrate, decorate, and adorn her body however she think is beautiful. Writer, just because you like polka dots and think only polka dot dresses can make a woman beautiful and a good christian and a self-respecting person, does not, in any way, that a woman cannot wear stripes! And she should not be the subject of your condescension, whatever her choice.

    • And for the sake of throwing the male perspective into the ring, it is possible to have some self control. Just because someone is wearing bootie shorts doesn’t mean you have license to stare at their butt. That’s not very polite. Besides, I practically never notice girls running around wearing tights as pants until other girls bring the subject up to demonize them. Anna Kalladish, stop oggling women.

    • I am pretty sure the point Anna was trying to make with this article was exactly what you’re saying: that “our bodies are beautiful things,” which is why it matters HOW we adorn them. Just because someone is able to wear short shorts or leggings doesn’t mean that they should. It sounds like you as well as a lot of other people who have commented are making a lot of assumptions about the author (“The writer’s reaction to and condemnation of other female’s dress seemed like she would be embarrassed and angry to even see her own body in short shorts, even if in the privacy of her own room.”). The purpose of this article is not to judge or put anyone in particular down, she is just trying to make a point.

      • The point being that more modestly dressed girls on campus are morally superior to less modest girls, ergo the less modestly dressed girls on campus need to modify their behavior. Pretty sure I got it. It’s most certainly a case of judging others and imposing personal religious/moral values on them.

    • Hannah I appreciate your response so much. Women’s bodies should be celebrated. We were created in God’s image and are truly beautiful no matter what we wear. We should be able to be good and faithful Christians without feeling as though wearing shorter shorts is a sin. And quite frankly I think the comment about sun bathing is so absurd. That’s like saying guys on this campus shouldn’t work out or run without shirts on or even be at the pool without shirts on; that’s a visible place too! I also think that the comment from Andy just goes to show you that a lot of the guys (if not the majority) on this campus respect women and don’t automatically have sinful thoughts when they see a girl being comfortable enough with their sexuality to wear what some have coined as “immodest dress”. I think that both women and men should have the right to wear what they want and still be faithful Christians. We should respect each other and each other’s bodies even if one person’s clothing choice may not be your own. Isn’t Christianity so much about loving each person as God does no matter what they wear, what they do, or what they believe? Let’s gain some tolerance here!

      • “We were created in God’s image and are truly beautiful no matter what we wear. We should be able to be good and faithful Christians without feeling as though wearing shorter shorts is a sin.”

        Seriously? If that’s the criteria, then why not wear a bikini to class? Why wear anything at all?

        The relativism is overwhelming…

        • Right on Andrew.

          I’ll need to quote you and I should probably do it quite often when it comes to our society,
          “The relativism is overwhelming…”

          You nailed it.

      • Rosalyn,
        Men and women do differ in one so not obvious way. Men notice visual cues above other sense when noticing the opposite sex.
        In one study (Herz & Cahill, 1997), researchers
        asked men and women to rate the importance of olfactory (smell), visual
        (sight), auditory (sound), and tactile (touch) information on their sexual response.
        Males rated visual and olfactory information as equally important in the selection of a lover, while females considered olfactory information to be the single most important
        variable; in the words of an old television commercial, “If he stinks, forget it!”

      • so… Women at not really distracted by a semi-clothed man and men are distracted by a leggings dressed woman. If you are expecting to be in mixed company wear clothes that focus men’s eyes where you want to be. Yes, men have an obligation to take custody of their eyes. Also, though I do agree that yoga pants and other such athletic apparel is confortable, its most appropriate place is when at yoga class or some other exercise function.

        We are created in God’s image, so that we can be “capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”
        “In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman”
        Is it a sin to wear certain clothing, yes probably IF you do so to get the opposite gender to entertain lusty thoughts about you.

    • “Be neat, Philothea; let nothing be negligent about you. It is a kind of contempt of those with whom we converse, to frequent their company in uncomely apparel; but, at the same time, avoid all affectation, vanity, curiosity, or levity in your dress. Keep yourself always, as much as possible, on the side of plainness and modesty, which, without doubt, is the greatest ornament of beauty, and the best excuse for the want of it.”

      —St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to a Devout Life, Part Third, Ch. 25

      It seems like Miss Kalladish is judging people a LOT less than people are judging her right now. She has said nothing about the intention of the people wearing these types of clothing, and therefore has not made any moral claim. She has only stated her opinion that the trend of leggings is an immodest trend… whether the people who participate in this trend are guilty of being immoral is a completely separate story.

      • Jean,
        When Kaladish wrote the article, she most certainly did judge people. Example: “Harried young ladies dashing about in pursuit of knowledge are so preoccupied with lofty thoughts that there is a pandemic of forgetting to wear trousers.” First of all, she says that the “otherwise intelligent and respectable females” forgot to wear pants, which is obviously not the issue either here on campus or, supposedly, in her argument. Second of all, the sentence very clearly attempts to describe the thoughts and intentions of the alleged offenders. There is nothing to back up her theory (presented as a fact) of why girls do this, and she also publishes what she apparently thinks is going through their heads (also presented as a fact). Additionally, her phrase to describe the young women, “otherwise intelligent and respectable females”, clearly makes a statement that said women wear the type of pants that they wear because they are making a decision that is neither intelligent nor respectable. It seems to me that there is an oversized portion of judgement in these examples alone, which, by the way, are all located in just the first paragraph.

        Furthermore, I would like to quickly add that by publishing this judgmental article, Kaladish signed herself up to have her views and opinions judged.

  3. Forgetting pants is when you walk out in your underwear. Sometimes I wear shirts that fit pretty tightly, does that mean I forgot to wear one? Or what if I wear a tank – will my exposed arms be too much for some people to handle? I suppose we could all dress in baggy clothes like gangsters or people who’ve lost a lot of weight recently. yeah, let’s have Student Life enact a no form-fitting or skin-showing clothing policy. That will definitely save me from any distractions

  4. Thank you, Hannah!

    It is incredibly unfortunate that a young woman merely sun bathing would be labeled as some sort of exhibitionist. Before rushing to judgment, some food for thought:

    “If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastely as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”

  5. Wow, well this article was very harsh and hateful. I feel that modesty is a beautiful thing, as long as we realize that the bodies we have should be celebrated because they were given to us by God. This article makes Catholics look judgmental and holier-than-thou. Very poor taste, Anna. You should find kinder ways to say what you feel.

  6. You describe the woman’s body as a most disgusting thing. If you sincerely wanted to convey the message of modesty I assure you your approach here will only bring out defensive and cold feelings. Your writing sounds bitter and immature, “Alhough, if your wardrobe is making everyone else uncomfortable by its extreme tightness, you may have a seriously disordered and egocentric understanding of comfort.” The judgement here is palpable. and have you ever thought that if other’s wardrobe is making you uncomfortable maybe it’s you that may have a serious disordered and egocentric understanding of what women should wear. it seems it may be your own mind that you need to purify…

    • “You describe the woman’s body as a most disgusting thing.”

      FALSE Miss Kalladish has said nothing of the sort. She has not made any statement about the beauty of the body or the lack thereof. PLEASE stop putting words in this girls mouth.

      And as to the statement of needing to “purify,” it seems as if you are judging people much more than Miss Kalladish. She has not made an accusation as to the intention of the leggings wearers, she has only stated her opinion of the trend.

      • The article describes leggings as “obscene.” It’s clearly not the leggings themselves that are indicated, but the female body underneath. “Obscene” and “disgusting” are synonymous terms, so it’s perfectly reasonable for Natalie to conclude that this is Miss Kaladish’s position.

  7. I agree with Hannah-this is a very condescending not to mention sanctimonious article (finally, an opportunity to use that word!). I find it arrogant and narrow minded (in the bad way) to go on a diatribe against particular fashions without even once considering mitigating circumstances like modern societal mores and fashion. If you’re going to try to call people to change, belittling them with a sarcastic article is probably the worst way to go about it. You will get nothing but backlash or the few nods of approval from the choir (and from the sound of this article, the latter is all you were looking for). Also, I felt more uncomfortable reading this article’s description of girls exposed thighs against leather than I EVER have felt in the presence of a girl sitting on leather in shorts. Modesty is all about context and the right time and place. Sometimes the lines get muddled in today’s oversexed society but if you want to go about correcting that ask yourself when writing another article: “Did I remember to not be a jerk today?”

    • Thank you Christina I completely agree with you. Beyond being uncharitable and judgemental, this article forgets that women wearing “trousers” was considered obscene, immodest, and an overexposure of the female form about one hundred years ago. Modesty is a great virtue in part because it is extremely difficult to toe the line between allowing God’s natural beauty to shine through you and veiling it for its sacredness. Deciding in what way we are to dress is a matter of prudence because modesty is relative in different cultures and requires practical wisdom to discern how to practice. We should typically try to stay on the modest end of whatever culture we are in, but also have to be vigilant of when that line is changing, something you obviously are not doing.

    • “They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. **But, of course, it is better to be neither.**”

    • As I think Rebecca indicated, it is clearly better to be neither. Now, where did the prideful end up in the Inferno? The 9th circle, the very pit of hell. This, again, is precisely the point that Lewis is making.

  8. Let’s talk about sex.

    Do I have your attention now? Good. A woman’s sexuality is guarded by her modesty, not rejected. To imply that I as a woman must be comfortable showing every curve I have, and being willing to show skin by wearing short shorts and bikinis, is rude, wrong and yes, it does in fact make you a “bad” Christian by being immodest. It’s a sin to intentionally lead others sin. Here’s a good article.
    Read the first sentence. Does that sound condescending to you?

    If you don’t understand what immodesty does to men, there is in fact survey to explain a few things.

    If you don’t understand the beauty of modesty, love, and respect, read “Love and Responsibility” by Pope John Paul II or “Men, Women and the Mystery of Love” by Dr. Ted Sri.

    And in response to the young woman who said the sins of the flesh are the least of all… An uncited C.S. Lewis quote? Really? C.S. Lewis wasn’t Catholic, and since UD is a Catholic school it should abide by Catholic theological and moral teaching. Interesting thought, but wrong.

    And it is very interesting that some of y’all think the attitude of the writer was sarcastic, when I for one, whose first language is sarcasm, saw none of it from her-merely humor, opinion and irony-, but plenty of harshness from the peanut gallery.

    If you are willing to show your skin, you should be willing to be touched there by strangers. Leggings are skin-tight.

    Anna, good job. I would have appreciated a link to surveys about modesty as well. Harvard, I believe, did a very good one.

    • Sara, would you then like to say that a woman who wears tight clothing is “willing to be touched” by a man who rapes her? That seems to be what you are implying.

    • To Sara’s “If you are willing to show your skin, you should be willing to be touched there by strangers”: If I leave the house with my face/arms/toes uncovered am I “willing to be touched there by strangers”?

    • Sara, you’re pointing out that immodesty is bad. That’s a given and not even the main critique most people had with the article. It was how she went about saying immodesty is bad. And being humorous about it does not make the way she said it less harsh. If anything, it just added to its condescension. The sentence “Women are incredible creatures” is not condescending, you’re right. The sentence: “Harried young ladies dashing about in pursuit of knowledge are so preoccupied with lofty thoughts that there is a pandemic of forgetting to wear trousers” is. If the rest of your argument rests on the fact that a girl did not cite C.S. Lewis as the author of that quote (and the fact that he’s not Catholic does not make what he said wrong) and the fact that the word ‘sarcastic’ was inaccurate, then your argument is very weak. Also,

      “If you are willing to show your skin, you should be willing to be touched there by strangers. Leggings are skin-tight.”

      Good luck defending that one. I often have the backs of my knees exposed. Do I want strangers to touch me there? No.

    • Sara, rejecting all of C.S. Lewis’s intellectual contributions to Christianity because he “wasn’t Catholic” is bigoted and close-minded. You’re better than that. UD is better than that.

      And though everyone else has pointed this out, the statement, “If you are willing to show your skin, you should be willing to be touched there by strangers,” is utterly absurd.

    • I doubt very much there is a learned Catholic who would deny that Pride is the most treacherous sin, which is precisely the point Lewis is making. I chose to study philosophy at UD so that I could defend my faith with logical arguments that extend beyond the “because the Church said so” mentality and thus be accepted by non-Catholics as well. Dismissing Lewis’s comments because he “isn’t Catholic” is the easy way out that completely (and conveniently, for you) ignores the potential validity of his conclusions. Such willful ignorance breeds nothing but intellectual poverty and a most weak defense of the Catholic faith.

    • “If you are willing to show your skin, you should be willing to be touched there by strangers.”

      Seriously, this sounds like you’re quoting rapists and sexual predators. This is an utterly disgusting thing to suggest. No, a woman (or anyone for that matter) is NOT obligated to endure touching by anyone for any reason if they are not comfortable with it. I am truly disappointed that this type of perverse thinking is coming from another woman.

    • “If you are willing to show your skin, you should be willing to be touched there by strangers.”

      Uh oh. I don’t think you thought this one out before you posted it. Strangers do not have permission to touch each other unless a hand is offered for a hand shake. Sometimes touching a stranger’s shoulder is acceptable. Other than that, it is a violation of personal space at best, sexual assault at worst.

      In order to succeed in an argument for modesty, you need to be thoughtful and intelligent in your posts. Most people would agree on some level of public modesty. You need to discover why that cultural belief exists and address leggings from there.

      Keep in mind, modesty is cultural. And even in the U.S., different regions and upbringings provide different versions of modesty. I always think to the example of French colonists forcing pacific islanders to cover their breasts because the French were offended by it. Eventually, it was the French who began to bathe topless.

  9. I fully agree with you, Hannah. Anna, I say this with the utmost respect, this article was written very poorly, it’s judgmental and makes Catholics look bad on our part with the whole “I am better than you” state of mind that most people associate us with. I feel that you are ‘venting’ your feelings to us. I can especially tell when you use the term “Madness”. How many people here actually feel that this is an escalating problem? In comparison to other schools, I feel that I could safely say that the women here dress very well. Women’s attire is not as bad here as you make us out to be.

    • I agree with Christina 100%. The “I am holier than you” attitude is certainly what turns off people from the Catholic faith. Not to mention it’s not a very Christian attitude to begin with. What is the most dangerous sin? Pride.

      • While personal arrogance is bad, Catholicism does lay a claim to absolute truth over all other religions, which includes modesty as a moral precept. I see no reason to think Anna was being anything more than humourus. This topic always drives people nuts, and I’m not entirely sure why. Immodesty is immoral, pure and simple, and admonishing the sinner, with charity, is one of the spiritual works of mercy. Anna is not making baseless accusatons, for many women at UD wear the things she describes. Comparing UD to the wost possible case does not change the objective nature of the UD situation she describes.


        She has only stated her opinion of a trend, not about the thoughts that go on in girls heads when they go along with that trend.

        You, on the other hand, are accusing her of the sin of pride. Immodesty is an evil, but not necessarily a sin. The intention of the immodestly dressed must be known in order to accuse them of sin…
        Anna has not made any accusations, but you have.

  10. This is the same vein of thought that drives “religious” people in the middle east, to demand that their women be fully covered. All under the vein of purity and sanctity. How sad and unfortunate that you view a woman’s body as such a source of immorality and shame.

  11. Right on, Anna. I do not think that speaking in favor of women reclaiming dignity is distasteful or hateful The truth may hurt, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

  12. From the Catechism:

    2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

    2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

    2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

    2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

  13. Anna,

    I agree with your point on the importance of modesty, perhaps people should reconsider what they think is appropriate attire. However, you employ such distasteful rhetoric and what I think was your attempt at wit was not only painful but extremely pretentious.

  14. Anna,
    What you say is true; women at UD should dress modestly. It is a work of mercy and a Christian’s duty to promote the good of the people around them, and modesty does this.

    It is also a work of mercy to persuade people to live better lives.

    However, using denunciatory rhetoric does more harm than good, as you may be able to see in the comments. People who are called out for their sins tend to react by double-downing on them. Now some people are tempted to say, ‘immodesty is awesome!’ If you are really interested in persuading people, you should build them up with charitable rhetoric.

    On the other hand, most of these comments accusing Anna of being mean are also really mean. It would be better to post constructive criticisms, especially since her main point-immodesty is bad-is correct and worth saying.

    If you are really offended by this you are probably overreacting.

  15. This was a very polarizing article with even more polarizing reactions. I wouldn’t call it hateful to be hyper-conservative. As far as Anna is concerned, this article serves to boost the “holiness” of our student body. While you may disagree with her, as I do, you shouldn’t call this hate speech!

  16. Some honest points:

    When I first read this article, I could literally feel my face turn red – not just because of what was being said, but because of the manner in which it was written. I, myself, have been one to toss out the common phrase “leggings are not pants,” but that was also back in my senior year of high school when girls were wearing see-through leggings with short shirts for free dress days.

    I prefer not to see girls’ underwear (in the unfortunate case of too-thin leggings), nor do I prefer to walk behind someone with a visible panty line.

    But NEVER have I ever put on a pair of leggings and thought to myself, “Man, I really hope I turn on fine UD men as I walk to class in these sexy skin-tight leggings I’m wearing with a huge baggy sweatshirt.” I actually usually throw on a pair of leggings because they are comfortable and happen to go with the long shirts I own and bought TO BE WORN WITH LEGGINGS.

    On the question of modesty, I completely agree that girls should dress modestly – but I think that people’s opinion of what is modest is what is truly being debated right now. Just because clothes reveal someone’s figure or show a little skin does not automatically make them immodest or suggest that a girl is begging for sexual attention.

    What concerns me more is the people who day in and day out dress as if they could care less about their appearances. I think people should care about how they look to a degree; people should take care of themselves, which in my opinion and in today’s society, usually means taking a couple minutes to make sure one looks presentable.

    To anyone that is scandalized by skin-tight leggings, I am truly sorry. I’m not going to go around quoting bible versus or Catholic theologians’ takes on modesty, but I do think people have the right – in society’s eyes and God’s – to wear long, dark, very comfortable leggings to class, to the library, to the mall, on a date, and really wherever and whenever they choose.

    I really hope someone rights a published newspaper article about all the reasons girls who wear long skirts should open their minds to see that just because a girl wears something that shows she has a figure – or even two legs – does not mean they are exposing themselves in a scandalous way.

    We are so blessed to go to UD, where most of the student body has respect for both the opposite gender and their own. Anna, you’ve caused quite a stir with both what you’ve said and how you’ve said it. I hope you and others at least see where everyone else is coming from, which is mainly that girls wear leggings because they are damn comfortable and happen to go with a ton of tops I own.

    • Rebecca- Excellent points. Leggings, when worn appropriately and tastefully, are one of God’s greatest gifts to women.

  17. bible verses*

    and if there are any other typos, please oh please forgive me.

    I’m also wearing leggings right now as I’m writing this

  18. You may think immodesty is bad—although it’s dubious whether wearing tight pants is immodest in the first place—but I can assure you that your judgmental, self-righteous attitude is far, far worse. “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” Jesus told us, and during his earthly life, he frequently spent time with prostitutes and sinners. The pharisees, who were primary concerned with external appearances, he utterly rejected: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”

    Unless you have love and kindness towards others, you have nothing. We pray that our sins be forgiven only to the same degree that we forgive others. I promise you, a heart filled only with pride, self-righteousness, and judgement is the swiftest path to hell, though you go there clad in the most modest of garments.

  19. Modesty is an excellent virtue. This is a poor article.

    As I already stated in my reply to Luke, you should encourage women to be modest out of love for them and because they are so beautiful. There is nothing shameful about the body of a woman, and everything beautiful and wonderful about it. With the help of a man, a woman’s body brings life into the world.

    You, Anna Kaladish, would benefit from some Theology of the Body talks. I know that to you, it probably seems obvious and unnecessary to emphasize the fact that it is because the woman’s body is beautiful that it must be protected and respected. However, from a reader’s point of view, your article sounds angry and estranges you from both women who sunbathe and women who sport long skirts. “Long skirt,” it seems to me, was coined in order to describe girls who dress for the sake of modesty to the point of ridiculousness. Therefore, yes, it is derogatory, but it also does not signify every woman who is concerned with modesty. You can dress modestly, but fashionably. Why look outlandish? We are meant to be leaders in this world and to lead via example. I’ve seen many women do it here at this university. Your article lacks the sense of Christian love and real concern that would make it persuasive. Rather, it’s tone sounds petty and unprofessional.

    C.S. Lewis uses modesty to illustrate the type of virtue which is relative in the sense that two women from different cultures can be as equally modest; although one might be sporting considerably less clothes. For example, a woman from the native culture of Hawaii would obviously be wearing a lot less clothes than a woman from the Victorian Age in England. However, in practice and in each of their societies, they could be modest in the same degree.

    Anyway, my point is that our American society, while modest in comparison to popular fashion in western European societies, is, overall, considerably more excepting of exposed skin and tight clothing. It even promotes it. Compared with the national standard, I doubt any UD woman comes below par when it comes to modesty. Furthermore, what is worse about culture today is that it endorses immodest behavior and actions. Movies, television shows, even books for teens discuss the act of making love as if it is just one of the best pleasures to be enjoyed during the short flash of haphazard happiness that youth is. You see, the problem is more than skin-deep, and more than clothes on your body.

    Finally, I would like to conclude with a shout-out to the boys. That is to say, modesty is not just about us women, but also about you men! No, it is not about the problem that you men are running around in skintight spandex and cheerleader skirts (although that would be a problem). It more has to do with the fact that as men, you ought to develop the strength and self-control not to look at women immodestly. This is not a problem that I have noticed having much predominance at UD. Nonetheless, men and women are wired differently and it seems, generally speaking, that men are more prone to visual stimulation than women are really aware of. Just know that you can do it, guys! More than than that, remember that modesty is a call for women to be women; that is to say, outwardly and inwardly breathtaking, but with only the tip of the iceberg showing. Also, it is a call for men to be men, that is to say, to appreciate that which he has the privilege to see in her, but to know that there is much more beauty hidden away and to be known only by one. He must respect that.

    Virtues cannot be hacked separate from each other. Modesty itself does not deal only with the dress and speech of a person. It deals with love of one’s self and others, and that is what ought to be emphasized. That is the stand that we must take on it if we want to make any sort of impact in our daily lives and in the world, just as God called us to do.

    • As the man who coined the phrase, I can affirm that is indeed derogatory; but it refers to a lifestyle of being overly judgmental. Ms. Kaladish used the term to describe the overly modest dress of said women, but this was originally just synecdoche. Not the entire point.

      In fact, even though Anna is quite fashionable, this article puts her in the longsskirt category.

    • You are wrong to say that American culture excuses women for wearing tights as pants. I can tell you that most young men get off on it the way they get off on pornography, though to a lesser extent. And they talk about it without end. I remember in high school a boy mockingly tried to direct my attention to a girl’s yoga pants clad butt so he could ask me if I thought it was smiling at us.

      He did so mockingly because he knew I wanted to respect the dignity of this girl. But how can a man do this when the ones he wants to respect are forcing him to struggle against his natural impulses? And for what? Comfort? You set us up for failure so you can be comfortable? That is uncharitable.

      • You can respect the dignity of a woman by not viewing her, or parts of her, as objects of sexual temptation. Asking to be respected is NOT “setting you up for failure”. Learn self restraint and stick to it, regardless of what your natural impulses urge you to do. It’s not a woman’s job to cater to your lack of self-restraint because you find parts of her sexually appealing. Learning to resist temptation is a natural part of life, so do it, and stop suggesting that if a woman’s body isn’t totally concealed that she is asking to be disrespected.

        • Part of avoiding sin is avoiding situations that cause temptation. If you read the catechism citations you’ll see that the whole purpose of modesty IS to cater to the people around you; because Christians want to help each other or something.

          I’m telling you that when girls wear yoga pants they are only pleasing the pigs and making it all the harder for good men to stay good.

          • “Christians want to help each other or something”

            Your words, Nick, were the reason why I brought men into my response. It seems that the devil desires to pit the sexes against each other in order to consequently bring both down. We were intended to help each other.

            In the case of modesty, that means that women dress appropriately to help men, but, as stated before, it is a two-way street. Men must also not look at women immodestly.

            There are people so perverted that they can still look at a woman who is completely covered up and still disrespect her and see her as a sexual object despite her modesty. On the other hand, there are people who disregard the morals of others, and put themselves out there in such a way as to attract attention of the impure sort.

            The reason why I mentioned American society is because most women actually dress fashionably for the sake of approval by other women, not men. It’s not that we don’t want men to find us attractive, but most men, quite frankly, are uninterested in fashion. Having a great sense of style helps us to get along with other girls rather than to get along with men who are generally indifferent about clothes (except in the case of modesty). Therefore, most girls get feedback on their clothes from other women, and not from men. Ergo, most women are not purposely out to bring down good men, even if they are dressed on the immodest side. Good men are universally sought after. The message of society which targets everyone of any religion or no religion sells the idea that dressing a certain way will win you friends, and that a good guy will like you if you are attractive enough (less about fashion, and more about natural good looks that if you are born without, well too bad for you).

            It must be frustrating to feel as if you are trying to be a good person and that exterior things are constantly trying to pull you down, especially when someone else has the ability to change the way they dress to help you. It is also frustrating to be witness to men and women that each blame the other gender vindictively for wrongs without trying to understand where they are coming from or the best way to help them.

            Do you have a sister or a mother? Every woman out there is somebody’s sister, or daughter, or mother, but not every woman has somebody to make her aware that modesty helps to protect her beauty from disrespect. I have a brother and a father, and they are very good to me in more respects than just this one. In turn, it seems to me that my brother and father know how to respect women. They are empowered by their relationships to my mother, my sister, and me, and, most of all, by God. You see, a father or brother urges you to dress modestly (but still pretty) because he loves you and doesn’t want men to look at you in a disrespectful way.

            I’m thankful for my father and my brother as well as for God. Your argument is valuable for the sake of the struggles of boys who are trying to be good. However, it is the love and respect of my father and brother that encourages me to dress modestly more than anything else. I feel sorry for any woman out there without men in their life like them.

            Anyway, I know that is a very wordy response. I don’t intend to write anymore, but God bless you all who have read this article, posted responses, or anything of the sort.

          • Ok. And in this case women are more blameworthy than men because tights are excessively, tremendously immodest. Butts are fully visible in them. Do you think they aren’t?

  20. This article really made me re-think about what I’m wearing. I don’t usually wear leggings, but I do wear semi-fitted to fitted pants (which the majority of the world wears now). Still, it made me aware of the fact that I need to exercise modesty. It’s something Our Lord and the Church has commanded of us. I mean, I could never picture Our Lady wearing leggings and a short dress or fitted pants. I could imagine that she could wear relaxed fitting jeans or a knee-length skirt (with leggings), but not the way most of us dress, myself included. Time to re-evaluate my wardrobe!

  21. Thanks for the article, Anna. When I read it I read it in your voice and thought it was hilarious, and made some wonderful points about the tacky and inappropriate manner in which some of the UD ladies tend to dress.

  22. Anna, I just wanted to say that I thought that this article was funny, well-written, and spot on. Thanks for saying what I’ve been thinking!

    And in response to some of the other comments (Hannah, Theresa, Andy, Natalie, Christina): your criticism that Anna is being judgmental and uncharitable would be a lot more persuasive if you weren’t shouting it so rudely.

  23. The negative reactions of this article are perhaps a thousand times more full of hatred and judgement than anything Miss Kalladish has said.

    Her humor was a good move. Think about what would happen if she had written with a serious tone about this subject. I support you Anna! I hope you are not put under attack for this article.

    Padre Pio is smiling down at you right now!

  24. I think the UD news has been horrible this semester. They no longer publish smart and thoughtful pieces of news and commentary. Instead the editors and administration control everything here and do not let the serious writes have their pieces contributed. They should all resign especially the Commentary Editor for always failing to provide any real commentary. These articles only make UD look worse in the public eye and with all the comments, this article will only become more infamous. ANYONE ought there agree the newspaper sucks now?

  25. Anna is 100 dead on, personal appearance is a thing that us gals probably take for granted now and again. Boys and girls should dress far better for class than they do.. Catholic or not modess with her and wow.

    Besides she has a hot BF, so she’s probably onto something.

  26. Why can’t everyone just take a chill pill? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think a lot of people are making assumptions on the author’s character via text of an article. What is attacking her going to do? I personally don’t know the author and have my own opinions on the matter but doesn’t mean I will judge everyone and the author for having an opinion so why should you?

    What happened to love thy neighbor? 🙂

  27. Some could stand to re-read “Closed-minded Catholics at UD” (it has the second most comments on an online article, after this one). Although it was written nearly a year and a half ago, I think the general idea of it adequately captures how the majority of the opposition feels about the phrasing of this article and its implications towards “offenders.”

  28. Permit me a Platonic dialogue to make an important point:

    (Scene: Lunch hour at a consulting firm in Chicago, IL. Your boss approaches your desk)

    Boss: Hey, how’s that report coming along?

    UD Alumnus: Great, will have it done by Friday.

    Boss: That works. Hey what’s that you’re reading?

    UD Alumnus: Oh, it’s just the student newspaper from my alma mater. They have an online version.

    Boss: You went to UD, right? In Texas?

    UD Alumnus: Yes, that’s right. In Irving.

    Boss: Well what’s the big news on campus.

    UD Alumnus: Well, there’s this big debate about pants.

    Boss: Pants?

    UD Alumnus: Yes, pants. Apparently, there’s a big debate about which style of pants is most modest.

    Boss: Modest? Like mini-skirts? I don’t let my daughter go out in those.

    UD Alumnus: No, I’m talking about pants. Like leggings.

    Boss: Like what my wife wears to yoga class?

    UD Alumnus: Exactly. That’s the big debate. Some students aren’t happy about the pants on campus.

    Boss: Hmm, interesting. So this is what UD students spend their time talking about?

    UD Alumnus: More or less. People like to argue about odd stuff sometimes. It’s a real closed-off environment. We call it “the Bubble.”

    Boss: Well, I know it’s a Catholic school, but if these kids want jobs someday, they better learn how to be tactful and diplomatic. Imagine if someone started a crusade against yoga pants here!

    UD Alumnus: (shaking head) I know. A lot of alumni are trying their best to raise the reputation of our school. But it doesn’t help when you have current students making UD look like a strange, petty Catholic ghetto.

    Boss: Haha, don’t kill yourself over it. You’re doing all right. That reminds me, my wife has yoga tonight. Guess I’m making dinner myself.

    UD Alumnus: Want to hit up a Happy Hour instead?

    Boss: Sounds great! I’m craving wings.

    (Boss goes back to desk and draws a line through the phrase “Maybe UD?” on a post-it note listing schools to visit with his daughter. Eventually picks SMU, and begins to donate there.)


  29. Anna, thank you for your article. While I can’t say that I would have chosen your style of writing, I do think you make a good point: there are standards of modesty, and leggings sans something else on the lower half of the body generally do not fall within that standard.

    While the article may have shocked, and even offended some, I find three things more troubling than Anna’s tone.

    First, Anna is being satirical. It’s funny. If you didn’t laugh at her over-the-top expressions, you might have missed the point.

    Second, don’t attack Anna for saying these things. Make arguments. Too many posts judged *her* for supposedly judging others. She was judging a fashion trend. If reason stands on your side of the argument, let it speak.

    Third, the following comment in response to Anna: “I’m not going to go around quoting bible verses or Catholic theologians’ takes on modesty, but I do think people have the right – in society’s eyes and God’s – to wear long, dark, very comfortable leggings to class, to the library, to the mall, on a date, and really wherever and whenever they choose.

  30. I hit submit too soon.

    This comment is deeply troubling. The author says she won’t appeal to any authority on questions of modesty. She will do what she chooses, and claims that choice as a right in the eye’s of society and in the eye’s of God. Even the supreme court’s standards are more objective than that. I find the rhetoric of this response to Anna’s polemical rhetoric intellectually lacking and deeply troubling.

  31. I’m surprised at all the relativism being invoked in this comment section.

    Aren’t there any norms of behavior and decorum that we should endorse in a civil society? Such norms are contentless without concrete applications. Some forms of behavior and dress must be ruled out if we are going to have any kind of a developed culture.

    That involves making judgments–not of persons and their worth–but judgments about the acceptability of action. That is what cultures do. They rule things in, and they rule things out.

    Cultures can be worse or better, depending on what they rule in and what they rule out. So how do we figure out the good from the bad? Here is a good strategy. Find a culture inspired by a coherent, positive view of the human person. Where do you find that? The saints, the Doctors of the Church, JP II, Saint Theresa, etc. What would they say about our MTV, New York fashion world inspired clothes?

    So many people commenting here are naive enough to think that the prevailing styles–like tights in place of pants–have nothing to with our culture’s view of the human person. Why would you think that? That’s totally naive.

    The people that are setting our trends have reasons for promoting the styles that they do. They are promoting a specific culture. And their culture is certainly not inspired by the great western tradition we study here at UD. Rather, it is inspired by a rejection of Christianity and the Christian life. Again, let’s not be naive. Have you heard people in the New York fashion world, or in Hollywood talk about Christianity? Don’t you realize that Christianity is hated in these circles that are setting the very trends of dress that you are so blithely following?

    The fashions that so many are willing to adopt passively, without question, would never have come about in a culture formed by Christianity. We get the tight, matter of fact, unceremoniously bare-all clothes from a group of people that take Sarte, Freud, and Hugh Hefner as their inspiration. You may not realize it, but these are the people you are invoking in your nothing-to-hide, don’t make any definite judgments about real cultural norms, diatribe against the article.

    • Disclaimer: this comment addresses William’s comment and not Miss Kaladish’s article.

      While I agree with you that relativism is a social scourge, your argument goes too far. To the maximum extent permissible by the moral law, Christians ought to conform to the prevailing cultural norms of society. Doing so fulfills a direct imperative of the Church when she calls the faithful to be “leaven” in society. Christians should not be the cherry on the sundae, but the yeast in the dough. In other words, Christians are not an external garnish, but an integral ingredient of society. You can take the cherry off the sundae, but you can’t take the yeast out of the dough, it is completely incorporated and indistinguishable from its surroundings. And because it is so incorporated, it transforms the dough and allows it to rise.

      With regards to “concrete applications” of cultural norms, this is a matter of prudential judgment. One should not ascribe rigorous dictums to areas where the Church makes room for legitimate discussion and prudential decision-making. For example, the Smith family decides that their daughters cannot wear lip gloss until they reach the 8th grade. The Jones family, on the other hand, decides that their daughters can wear lip gloss starting in the 7th grade. This is not a case of relativism, but of prudential judgment by parents enacting concrete applications of modesty.

      To go back to “leaven in society,” turning the New York fashion scene into a boogeyman is not a Christian approach. One can shop at Armani, Gucci, Versace, GAP, H&M, Forever 21, Coach, Old Navy, and Target…and still be a naturally canonizable saint. Obviously one cannot violate the moral law; one cannot be immodest. But unless we have fashion designers who are Christian, the “dough” of New York will never be leavened (e.g. “going out into the deep” per JPII). I know of several virtuous UD alumni, all ladies, who are working in the New York fashion scene (one started a fashion/variety magazine for women). Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, these brave UD ladies want to work with their colleagues to preserve the genuine human good of tasteful, beautiful clothing (i.e. apparel that is modest, attractive, and not “frumpy”) while subtly influencing that culture and effecting positive change via their professional reputations (i.e. their colleagues must take them seriously). The same goes for every profession that desperately needs the “leaven” of Christianity. There is historic precedent for this:

      “For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life.” (Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 2nd Century A.D.)

      I’ll close by asking readers to re-read the last line of the above passage. So it was then. So it should be now.

      • Very nice response. Clearly well thought out.

        But I have to disagree–at least a little. Our prevailing culture and customs have coherence. They fit eachother and they fit our prevaling beliefs. In general, culture, customs, and beliefs all work together to perpetuate a unified complex of human thought and behavior.

        So if you try to fit 21st century American culture and customs as much as possible, without at the same time taking on the related practices and mentality with which they are associated, you are creating a disharmony and lack of coherence in your own life. And that can’t last. People move towards coherence.

        You can look to very recent history for an example of what I mean here. Catholicism in the United States existed for a long time in ghettos, which each had distinctive cultures and customs that differentiated them from non-Catholic American communities. Catholic identity was, at least by all visible measures, quite strong during that time. Catholic practice and identity, however, precipitously declined as Catholics integrated into the mainstream. Unfortunately, we have not seen much leavening from the inside over the past half century. We’ve seen loss of identity. Catholics, once in the mainstream, were clearly swept along. The majority adopted the prevailing Protest doctrines and minimalist liturgical sensibilities. And then, Catholics were readily swept along in tide of the sexual revolution. Catholics, because they were a minority group, were not able to shape sexual mores once in the mainstream. Rather, their sexual mores were shaped by the mainstream. They were not a dominant enough presence for things to have, realistically, gone any differently. Today, Catholics have taken on mainstream irreligiousity and no longer feel the need to practice the faith at all.

        Now let’s look at a contrast. Let’s look at where Catholicism is believed, practiced, and transmitted across generations in America today. The only place that Catholicism is passed with any reliability from one generation to the next is in pockets that resemble earlier Catholic ghettos. Communities that are self-consciously counter-cultural. Take Latin Mass communities, homeschool communities, and communities associated with universities like Christendom and Thomas Aquinas, and with monasteries like Clear Creek in Oklahoma. The retention rate of practicing Catholics that grow up in those close-knit, countercultural environments is extremely high, and the growth rate of those communities (coming from other Catholics and numerous converts) is also quite high.

        So I don’t see why a better strategy for evagelization is not to offer a coherent, stable culture as an alternative to the mainstream. And to make the difference known. And then people who are looking for a better way to live, more inspired by sane thinking, have something concrete, and visible to join. According to many demographers, this is exactly how the religious groups that are actually growing manage to make it happen (e.g. Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and more traditionally minded Catholics).

        So, I understand the spirit of your comment. But I think that the basic idea, though it has precendent and good intentions, is ill-conceived, and ultimately overconfident. And the effects of that way of thinking have been, arguably, disasterous for the Church in America.

  32. At least 99% of women at UD dress very modestly, and I feel this article is unnecessary for this audience. Usually you can tell when someone is being immodest by purposely dressing provocatively, whereas I think you should go up to a girl who is dressed in a way that makes her body look good and tell her “you are hot”. Good for her.

  33. Also, I do agree that it is important for women to dress modestly by not being purposely provacative and I admire Anna’s writing style.

  34. I can’t believe that the wicked, sinful pants described in this article are clearly shown in two different pictures! The poor men who had to see those, now must restrain their sinful thoughts from going to naughty places.

  35. If something as minute as women wearing skin tight pants ruffles your feathers, you’re going to have serious issues coping with the real world and respecting that everyone can and does make their own decisions, most often not in effort to please or displease anyone else. Also, there are plenty of young women at UD who present themselves as modest and exemplary, but are quite opposite in their actions. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what or who you’re wearing, which is (or at least was) one of the amazing assets of the UD culture. Judgments weren’t placed nor friendships made based on superficial similarities, whether that be long skirts or skin tight leggings.

    It’s very unfortunate you feel obligated to share your blatant nativity with the rest of the UD family. I hope you come to know before judging in the future.

  36. I understand the value of modesty, but I don’t like the implication that modesty or immodesty is solely a female issue. I totally oppose the suggestion that it is acceptable to publicly shame women for dressing in ways that they find comfortable because exposure to the female body is somehow obscene. It speaks volumes about how much the author of this article has been taken in by the hypersexual attitude of our society. Equating bare skin with sin and sex is perverse in a sense that it demonizes the beauty of the human body.

    It also implies that the crime of immodesty is one that can only be committed by women and their clothes choices. This is a two-way street. Indecency is also perpetuated by the mind of the viewer that views a woman and sees her primarily as a sexual object. Whether or not temptation is the intent of the woman, it is just as or more indecent to evaluate her body as a collection of parts that are rated from beautiful to obscene. Man or woman, it’s not your place to do that. That goes equally for a man with a wandering eye as it does for a woman who looks at another’s exposed skin and condemns her for sexual immodesty.

    I am truly disappointed that this level of insensitivity came from UD. Women tearing down other women is NOT Christian-like behavior. Evaluate your own indecency before you start judging others.

    • Mika, this is very well said, and cuts to the core of the issue. As a man, I could not agree with you more. It bothers me so much when I hear other men judging women for how they dress. It’s a disrespectful and misogynistic attitude towards women that places the blame on them for having God-given beauty, when the real issue is the sexualization of men’s minds that allows them to look at women’s bodies as objects, not as the children of God they are.

      • Blah blah blah. This is why modesty discussions are best left for single-sex environments. Throw a modesty debate in the midst of college men and women, shake up the ant farm, and watch the chaos ensue.

        Women, don’t fall for the whole “I acknowledge women’s inherent beauty” spiel. Actions speak louder than words.

        Which brings me to the dudes. Fellas, spare the ladies vacuous verbalizations of chivalry…and buy them dinner instead. Maybe throw in a dark chocolate gourmet cupcake. Don’t forget to open the door for them. And tell jokes. Lots of jokes. Wear nice shoes. Look at her eyes but don’t be creepy. Don’t smell bad either and brush your teeth. Avoid talking about your future procreative exploits (within the marital bond of course). And for the love of all that is sacred…don’t check your phone during the date. Oh and pay the bill too. Good luck!

        • What on earth does this have to do with the article at hand? Did you even read the article? It was emphatically not a discussion of good dating practices.

          • Sebastian, dude. John was replying to you, not to the article. He makes a great point. This whole public debate is really showcasing the differences between men and women. And one or two dudes are using this opportunity to score digital brownie points with the ladies (I think I just puked a little).

          • “You’re [INSERT AD HOMINEM] and just straight up wrong in this case.” – Christina

            Socrates would be proud…

            Shake. Up. The. Ant. Farm.

          • John, you initiated the ad hominem arguments with your attack on my character. Christina was pointing out that it was very rude of you to do so, and indeed it was. Look to your own behavior before you correct others.

        • Since you brought what would make Socrates proud into this discussion, let me point out that you began your argument with, “Blah blah blah” and ended it with rambling pointers on how to make a good impression on a first date. I’m just going to leave that on this metaphorical table that represents how absurd that statement sounds in the context you just provided.

          “Which brings me to the dudes. Fellas, spare the ladies vacuous verbalizations of chivalry…and buy them dinner instead. ” -John

          I can assure you Sebastian did not attempt to woo any woman with vacuous verbalizations in the comments section of this online article. You rudely ‘hinting’ that some guy is trying to hit on a girl via a comments section is about as ad hominem as it gets. Really, a comments section? Who would even think that looking at the clear reasonable arguments that were presented here.

          Maybe it was intelligence, a genuine passion for truth, and stunning good looks that got him the girl. Maybe he is someone who actually cares about something beyond himself in a way that is beautiful and inspiring. Sorry if that’s outside the scope of your experience.

          Here’s a tip: No amount of gourmet chocolate cupcakes makes up for intellect, character, and personality. So, spend less time working on the dating game and more time working on yourself. It’s a lot harder than remembering to brush your teeth and wear nice shoes.

          This is not a disturbed ant farm. This is you implying something insulting about my boyfriend and me responding accordingly.

          Like, I said, you were rude and wrong IN THIS CASE. You picked the wrong comment. Good day.

    • Mika, I thought I was the only one with that nickname! I agree that the expectation of decency should be applied to men as well as women. However, I don’t believe the author of this article in any way intended either to directly posit or to indirectly imply that “modesty or immodesty is solely a female issue.” It’s unfortunate that people have been offended, but I think the article was in fact meant to be a deliberately acerbic diatribe for the purposes of satire. Apparently this satire is a little too opaque for the average reader of the University News.

    • I completely agree with what ‘Mika’ has said above. “I am truly disappointed that this level of insensitivity came from UD. Women tearing down other women is NOT Christian-like behavior. Evaluate your own indecency before you start judging others.” This article displays a very negative and small-minded view of what should or should not be.

      Both the male and female figure were gifts from God designed to be appreciated and loved for what they are, no more and no less. God created and then left both of them stark naked in the garden. It was only AFTER they had committed original sin that they became ashamed of their bodies and tried to cover up and only after they had fallen from grace that He gave them clothes. I’m not saying that we should all run naked in the wind, however man was created to have a healthy respect for the naked form. So if a girl wants to show some ass with just leggings then let her and work on keeping your own thoughts pure.

      That being said, leggings reveal just as much as spandex and are just as ugly. Just saying.

  37. I’m with Anna on this one. Honestly, as a guy at the university who wears tights on a daily basis, whether its with my sexy long sweatshirt or just a t-shirt, I find myself being checked out by other guys and girls. In no way is this behavior acceptable, and to be completely honest, it’s repulsive. I know I wear revealing clothing such as low cut t-shirts and leggings, but seriously men, I do not want to be objectified. I am not an object, I am a strong independent male who expresses himself accordingly.

  38. While we’re on it…what’s with rugby players wearing such short shorts? This blatant display of man-thigh is truly disgusting.

    I propose we shut down the rugby team until they wear long-legged, loose-fitting pants for their uniforms.

    Also, basketball players need to have sleeves on their uniforms. No more scandalous showing of shoulders and arms. Truly a disgrace!

  39. I think this is a great article. I hardly think the author is sending the message we all need to dress like pilgrims. This article is not judging women, but rather inviting us all to set higher standards for ourselves. Please people, chill.

  40. I can’t even tell if you’re being serious or not lolol but if you are dear god I’m so sorry for your need to please other people by wearing a “long skirt”. And I hope one day you can appreciate the beauty of leggings. That’s all.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here