Modesty Vs. Morality

[Carrie]

[quote name='Lil Red Devil' date='Apr 22 2004, 12:58 PM'] cmom, you just take the words right outta my mouth! [/quote]
ditto

[popestpiusx]

Azriel, I will get to your particular question above later today.

As to the constant harping by womenfolk on here about how evil men are just trying to deny responsibility I once again, for at least the fourth time, will restate that you are missing the point. I am beginning to wonder if it is an intentional "dodge the question" scheme. All real men would openly and willingly acknowledge (as has been done on here) that modesty goes both ways. But you women MUST acknowledge that men and women are wired BY GOD in different ways. Men are simply more attracted by mere visual stimuli. This is not some new stunning revelation. It is a truth that has been known for 5000 years or more. In general women bear a heavier burden and it is more of a challenge for them to be modest (at least today). In order to verify this, go to the local mall. What will you see. You will see a bunch of scantily clad girls walking around with guys who, while admittedly are rather slovenly dressed, are not typically immodest. Most guys have no desire to walk around with tight little shorts or some skimpy little shirt. If they do, they will most likely be called a fag or some such thing. The biggest problems are usually with women's fashions. If you don't like that, sorry. But it is true. Let me again, though, that BOTH MEN AND WOMEN ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MODESTY AND FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!

Perhaps this will assist. It is from Fr. Regis Scanlon:

Because traditional Catholic teaching on modesty in the area of sexuality requires the woman to keep more of her body concealed than it does for the man, some Catholics believe that it is unfair to the woman. While it is true that traditional Catholic teaching on modesty in the area of sexuality is more demanding of the woman, it is not unfair. Just as the woman is the weaker gender in the area of physical power, so the man is the weaker gender in the area of sexuality (in the sense that the male is more prone to immediate sexual arousal). And just as it is wrong for a man to use his physical strength to lord it over a woman, so it is wrong for a woman to use the feminine characteristics of her physical body to dominate a man.

[popestpiusx]

And here is something from Pope Paul VI that will address those who have tried to claim that desensitization (or the fact that everyone does it or that it is cultural) makes certain forms of immodesty ok (i.e., bikinis):

In this way facts are discovered [i.e. by sociological surveys], but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts. The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man’s innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.

[PedroX]

Sojourner said:
[quote]Exactly. This is a balanced approach to modesty. We dress modestly out of respect for our bodies and respect for our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we each work on making our own lustful thoughts and desires subject to Christ. [/quote]

You neglect to acknowledge that first and foremost we dress modestly, because immodesty is a sin.

[quote]I don't know that I would pin this on vanity, per se. A woman running may not choose to wear small shorts and a sports bra not out of vanity, but out of a desire to be comfortable. I wear a tank top when I'm cleaning my apartment, or hiking, or exercising, and it's most definitely not out of vanity. [/quote]

So, if its not out of vanity, why do women dress immodestly? Men do so for two primary reasons 1) vanity 2) to be sexually provocative. I was attempting to be charitable and assign vanity. Immodesty is a sin by itself, so I guess the reasons don't matter, but...

To others,

I stand firmly with PSPX on this one. Men, of course bear the responsibility for constantly converting our hearts. We need to constantly be more conformed to the mind of Christ (as St Paul would say). However, you act like all the men who might see a scantily clad woman (no other way to describe many women today) are actively pursuing Christ. Even among Christians those of us who are attempting holiness are few. All I've called for here is for modesty. Who would deny the need (command) for that?

peace...

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 20 2004, 08:58 AM']
And as for a girl wearing a bikini in public, it depends on the place. Walking down the street, no. At the beach, yes. Besides, everybody at the beach is dressed like that, so I'd say there's a good chance guys there would be desensitized to what women wear, as they're used to it. However, guys walking down the street would surely NOT be desensitized to a girl wearing a bikini, as that's just not something you normally see. [/quote]
Yeah....Riiiiiiiight. If a normal, red-blooded, healthy, heterosexual male sees a hot girl in a bikini, his first thought is not going to be "Oh look, at the pretty sand." His eyes will automatically go to some part of her anatomy. Whether it's on the beach or not.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 22 2004, 11:13 AM'] Azriel, I will get to your particular question above later today.

As to the constant harping by womenfolk on here about how evil men are just trying to deny responsibility I once again, for at least the fourth time, will restate that you are missing the point. I am beginning to wonder if it is an intentional "dodge the question" scheme. All real men would openly and willingly acknowledge (as has been done on here) that modesty goes both ways. But you women MUST acknowledge that men and women are wired BY GOD in different ways. Men are simply more attracted by mere visual stimuli. This is not some new stunning revelation. It is a truth that has been known for 5000 years or more. In general women bear a heavier burden and it is more of a challenge for them to be modest (at least today). In order to verify this, go to the local mall. What will you see. You will see a bunch of scantily clad girls walking around with guys who, while admittedly are rather slovenly dressed, are not typically immodest. Most guys have no desire to walk around with tight little shorts or some skimpy little shirt. If they do, they will most likely be called a fag or some such thing. The biggest problems are usually with women's fashions. If you don't like that, sorry. But it is true. Let me again, though, that BOTH MEN AND WOMEN ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MODESTY AND FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!

Perhaps this will assist. It is from Fr. Regis Scanlon:

Because traditional Catholic teaching on modesty in the area of sexuality requires the woman to keep more of her body concealed than it does for the man, some Catholics believe that it is unfair to the woman. While it is true that traditional Catholic teaching on modesty in the area of sexuality is more demanding of the woman, it is not unfair. Just as the woman is the weaker gender in the area of physical power, so the man is the weaker gender in the area of sexuality (in the sense that the male is more prone to immediate sexual arousal). And just as it is wrong for a man to use his physical strength to lord it over a woman, so it is wrong for a woman to use the feminine characteristics of her physical body to dominate a man. [/quote]
Excellent points!

[Azriel]

[quote]As to the constant harping by womenfolk [/quote]

Harping?

Oh my, I've not even begun to harp.

I wanna be offended, but I realize that if the women on this thread could do quite a better job at "harping" if they wanted to.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 21 2004, 10:12 AM']

Desensitization does NOT justify anything. In fact, it is part of the problem. The fact that so many people have no issue with this is proof of how bad our society is, and NOT a justification for continued immodesty.

[/quote]
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

And people wonder why girls like Britney Spears and Christiana Aguilera can continue to wear less and less clothing. It's because many Christians no longer take a stand against immoral dress! They've become desensitized to nudity. And the Superbowl incident happened, one can only surmise that this is a direct result of this indifference. Janet Jacksons anatomy was shown on live TV. What's next? When Christians don't stand against immoral dress, this is precisely what happens.

"Hey, it's culture. We won't take a stand against culture."

[cmotherofpirl]

Azriel

Edited April 22, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Sojourner]

[quote]You neglect to acknowledge that first and foremost we dress modestly, because immodesty is a sin.[/quote]

Why is immodesty a sin? Because it disrespects our bodies and our brothers and sisters in Christ. We are saying the same thing, PedroX. I just didn't call it sin in so many words. Thank you for doing so, as I think it's important to call sin by its name.

[quote]So, if its not out of vanity, why do women dress immodestly?  Men do so for two primary reasons 1) vanity 2) to be sexually provocative.  I was attempting to be charitable and assign vanity.  Immodesty is a sin by itself, so I guess the reasons don't matter, but...[/quote]

My comment was directed specifically toward the example you cited, a woman wearing small shorts and a sports bra, which I gave a specific reason other than vanity or a desire to be provocative that she might dress this way: out of a desire to be comfortable while engaging in physical exertion. I think the reason does make a difference ... motivation is an important consideration in determining sin.


I of course recognize that there is a need for modesty, I don't believe anyone here disputes that modest dress is necessary. PSPX makes excellent points, which I agree with and have agreed with. I believe the issue that I and other women have noted and mentioned has to do with the sense we got early on in this thread which downplayed a man's responsibility to be constantly converting his heart, while emphasizing a woman's role in this area. I believe the point has been made and made again (and again), and I really don't believe we're all that far off in our takes on this subject.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 21 2004, 11:04 AM'] Modesty is a relative term. [/quote]
Then I hope you don't mind if I show up to the Phatmass reunion nekkid. :ph34r:

[IcePrincessKRS]

I agree that we all must adhere to modesty, and that modesty and temptation goes both ways.... It seems to me, though, that the "rules" are far more strict for women. I'm not trying to harp here, but I've been thinking about things that I wear and that my husband wears and how we react to one another. I can wear jeans or shorts and a t-shirt or tank top on a daily basis as I go about my daily duties and its all fine and dandy, but if I put on a skirt (I don't usually wear skirts that come above the knee, I think I own 1, most of my skirts range from ankle to just below the knee) and a shirt (sweater, blouse, or whatever) and that serves as a more immediate "turn on." Matt will wear his cargo pants and a t-shirt and I think he's the handsomest, hottest guy I ever did see.

I really think that a woman in a long dress can be more sexy and provacative than a girl in shorts and a t-shirt (and I don't mean girls trying to be sexy in skimpy shorts and t-shirts that are practically not there). Some people might think that my shorts are too short because they don't reach my fingertips, but I have looooong arms, they just don't make shorts like that, and if they do I can't find them--I certainly don't shop for the skimpiest shorts I can find (and even if I did I'm too cheap to pay $30 for that little ammount of fabric). I once had a guy tell me that girls shouldn't wear pants because it outlines their figures more and can be tempting for guys, but in my experience guys have been turned on more when I wear skirts (I usually only get comments or looks when I'm in a skirt). And frankly, for me at any rate, I think that whole pants rule goes just the same for men---I don't think men should wear skirts at all :haha:, but I definately think that a nice pair of slacks or jeans (as opposed to his grimy, holes in the knees, kick around the house/yard pants he likes to wear) on my husband is a turn on.

My point is, yes, we all MUST do our best to dress modestly, but no matter what we wear SOMEONE is going to get lusty over it.

[PedroX]

Sojourner,

A sin is a sin because it offends the law of God, not because it fails to fully respect our brothers and sisters. This is a significant difference.

Additionally, are you saying the comfort is an excuse for immodesty? A tee shirt and long shorts are so much more uncomfortable than short shorts and a sports bra? Think carefully about this. Why do people choose the least modest option possible and then excuse it by comfort? Many sins would be more comfortable for me than holiness, am I free to indulge? Again, significant differences.

peace...

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Apr 22 2004, 12:49 PM']

I of course recognize that there is a need for modesty, I don't believe anyone here disputes that modest dress is necessary. PSPX makes excellent points, which I agree with and have agreed with. I believe the issue that I and other women have noted and mentioned has to do with the sense we got early on in this thread which downplayed a man's responsibility to be constantly converting his heart, while emphasizing a woman's role in this area. I believe the point has been made and made again (and again), and I really don't believe we're all that far off in our takes on this subject. [/quote]
Great points Sojourner!

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Apr 22 2004, 12:49 PM']
Why is immodesty a sin? Because it disrespects our bodies and our brothers and sisters in Christ. We are saying the same thing, PedroX. I just didn't call it sin in so many words. Thank you for doing so, as I think it's important to call sin by its name.



My comment was directed specifically toward the example you cited, a woman wearing small shorts and a sports bra, which I gave a specific reason other than vanity or a desire to be provocative that she might dress this way: out of a desire to be comfortable while engaging in physical exertion. I think the reason does make a difference ... motivation is an important consideration in determining sin.


I of course recognize that there is a need for modesty, I don't believe anyone here disputes that modest dress is necessary. PSPX makes excellent points, which I agree with and have agreed with. I believe the issue that I and other women have noted and mentioned has to do with the sense we got early on in this thread which downplayed a man's responsibility to be constantly converting his heart, while emphasizing a woman's role in this area. I believe the point has been made and made again (and again), and I really don't believe we're all that far off in our takes on this subject. [/quote]
i'm with you, Sojourner. Good points.