196. “The adornment of women”
196. “THE ADORNMENT OF WOMEN”
What can this old celibate monk possibly tell us about women’s clothing and cosmetics?
As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind that . . . a woman’s apparel may incite men to lust. . . . Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband. . . .
But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. . . . And the same applies to men in this respect. . . .
Yet in this case some might be excused from sin when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom, although such a custom is not to be commended. . . .
Objection: Cyprian says: I hold that not only virgins and widows but also wives and all women without exception should be admonished that nowise should they deface God’s work and fabric, the clay He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features. . . . This is an assault on the divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. . . .
Reply: Cyprian is speaking of . . . a kind of falsification. . . . Wherefore Augustine says: To dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether even their husbands are willing to be deceived by it. . . . It must, however, be observed that it is one thing to counterfeit a beauty one has not, and another to hide a disfigurement arising from some cause . . . For this is lawful. . . .
Accordingly, since women may lawfully adorn themselves, whether to maintain the fitness of their estate, or even by adding something thereto, in order to please their husbands, it follows that those who make such means of adornment do not sin in the practice of their art. . . (II-II,169,2).
Reason and common sense prevail again (surprise, surprise). Which of the following opinions of St. Thomas is unreasonable?
(1) “A woman’s apparel may incite men to lust.” (That’s precisely their purpose!)
(2) “A woman may use means to please her husband.” (On some occasions, sexual desire is deficient rather than excessive and needs to be aroused. No natural passion is of itself always morally good or bad.)
(3) Marriage is the only proper place where this deliberate arousal of erotic desire is right.
(4) “The same applies to men in this respect.” (There is no double standard.)
(5) Some do wrong here not deliberately but out of thoughtlessly following bad social customs.
(6) Such customs are bad. (It is social customs and institutions, not only individuals, that are to be judged morally good or bad.)
(7) Cosmetics are not intrinsically wrong. “Women may lawfully adorn themselves.”
(8) They are good when they hide disfigurements or ugliness.
(9) They are deceptive when they are “false advertising”.
(10) Respect for their social estate (e.g., queenship) justifies special adornments.
(11) The motive of pleasing their husbands does this too.
There is obviously much more to be said today on this subject. But not less.