Papist Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338239461' post='2436539'] I would say modesty is relative...but perhaps not in the way you are explaining it. (or seeing it) If a lady were to put on a swimsuit; and then ask, "is this the most modest swimsuit I can wear?", and the answer is no; would she be obligated 100% of the time to find a new swimsuit? The answer, I submit, is relative. If she is wearing the latest barely-there swimsuit by G-String Incorporated; yes..honey go cover yourself up. If she is wearing one of those two piece things that are like a top and a shirt at the same time, and some nice bottoms....I am not so sure...Because I am sure there is always something MORE modest than what she has. Now, she can play this fashion-plate 'modesty' game ad infinitum or not. I think (especially given the swimwear norms and fashions these days) a women attempting to be modest will be seen as such... oh wow a bikini...oh wow a g string.... oh wow that top is 3 sizes too small....and then WHAT?!??!..she must be a nun or something.... I say we give people praise for the attempt, and encouragement and guidance in their attempted implementation. (not that I am trying to imply you don't) At some point, I theorize there is a law of diminishing returns on the soul as it concerns modesty... [/quote] I am not real sure what you are saying. Are you saying that no matter what a woman wears she can always get more modest? That is probably the norm. I would think people do not think they are dressing immodest, yet there is a wide range of attire. How does one process this. I reflect on, if the Holy Family were on the beach, what would I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1338242245' post='2436577'] . I reflect on, if the Holy Family were on the beach, what would I see. [/quote] Sand, seagulls, water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubertus Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1338241342' post='2436562'] I have two comments here. One, "looking" does not always entail "lusting." Two, could it be possible that you are hypersensitive to women's dress (perhaps have some fear of catching sight of a woman in a short skirt) because the issue of modesty/immodesty concerns you? If the latter is true I find that a bit disconcerting (to be uber focused or concerned). The human body can be sexualized but it's also beautiful. Maybe keep that in mind as you travel across campus. [/quote] By lusting I don't mean just looking; I mean consent to dwelling on a woman's form for the derivation of physical pleasure, which is lust. And I'm a bit confused by the second question, but if by hyper-sensitive you mean in the manner that I will see a girl in a short skirt and immediately be 'scandalized' and think "Oh my goodness, I am scandalized!!" then no.. I can assure you I am unfortunately used to it. But if you mean that perhaps I am judging what is sinful because of a preconceived idea of what is modest and okay to look at and what isn't, then no, it's quite the opposite. Modesty is the most reasonable resolution of guarding the hearts of ourselves and our brothers and sisters from sin; it's not just what's "proper" and what isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1338242785' post='2436585'] By lusting I don't mean just looking; I mean consent to dwelling on a woman's form for the derivation of physical pleasure, which is lust. And I'm a bit confused by the second question, but if by hyper-sensitive you mean in the manner that I will see a girl in a short skirt and immediately be 'scandalized' and think "Oh my goodness, I am scandalized!!" then no.. I can assure you I am unfortunately used to it. But if you mean that perhaps I am judging what is sinful because of a preconceived idea of what is modest and okay to look at and what isn't, then no, it's quite the opposite. Modesty is the most reasonable resolution of guarding the hearts of ourselves and our brothers and sisters from sin; it's not just what's "proper" and what isn't. [/quote] No, hypersensitive as in - "if I look at a girl exposing too much leg for more than .1 seconds I'm going to fall into the fires of Hell." I exaggerate, but you get the point. I think as Catholics it's very easy for us to get hung up over things. "They're holding hands during the Our Father? ahhhhh!" blah blah. I used to let things like that distract me but now I'm much more low key. Believe me, I loathe the objectification of women, particularly in the media. But if it's 90 degrees out with nearly 100% humidity I'm not covering my legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think somewhere along the way, the manner in which we discuss lust, modesty and sexual attraction has been transformed from a question of degrees and intention, towards absolutism and an assumption about men being almost predatory towards women. In 2012, I think it's pretty beaver dam insulting to casually state, or imply, that women are "victims" in any way in regards to sexual objectification. Most girls I know who dress and behave in ways that might be viewed as "immodest" do so because they want to, and because they want to be desired. So you'll have to excuse me for not feeling like the sexual advances they receive are somehow examples of them being victimized by the scoundrels known as men. I also categorically reject the language surrounding the desire to protect women from the lust of men, as though makes are somehow incapable of controlling themselves whenever a bare shoulder or midsection floats in front of us. It instills a mindset that enslaves men AND women, stripping them of choice and culpability. If you're a pig, you CHOOSE to be a pig. It's not some predetermined disposition that comes along with the Y chromosome. Finally, there's nothing wrong with sexual attraction, which is different then lust. The former is simply a biological response to a wide range of stimuli, while the former is a desire to possess a person or thing in a way that rejects its humanity and dignity as a creature of God's making. Showing a little clevage doesn't CAUSE lust, any more than showing me a hamburger CAUSES me to want McDonalds. I think that distinction is often lost in these discussions, and causes the stuff in the preceding paragraphs to occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1338238557' post='2436534'] I don't know.. I think there is a line that even culture and context shouldn't cross when it comes to modest dress. A man (or woman) does not think differently or wear different eyes when swimming or laying out. I don't think it's relative. The concern shouldn't be with just attractiveness, but with all women (and men). Another point: as Gabriel in the modesty video says, care should be taken when clothing our children even before puberty, so that they don't think it's okay to keep dressing the way they have been dressing once they do hit puberty. [/quote] Actually I do think man and woman do think differently when swimming as opposed to shopping. If a male is walking in a mall and all of a sudden a female appears in a skimpy string bikini the man's reaction will definitely be different than if she is merely one of many people in suits on a beach. Context is important. As to your other point, looking at a woman is not the same as lusting after her, and if you have to walk looking at the ground you will sooner or later probably walk into a car or telephone pole. I understand men think about sex about twice as much as women and hormones do affect males more than females, but how will you function unless you move to Alaska? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338243766' post='2436601'] I think somewhere along the way, the manner in which we discuss lust, modesty and sexual attraction has been transformed from a question of degrees and intention, towards absolutism and an assumption about men being almost predatory towards women. In 2012, I think it's pretty beaver dam insulting to casually state, or imply, that women are "victims" in any way in regards to sexual objectification. Most girls I know who dress and behave in ways that might be viewed as "immodest" do so because they want to, and because they want to be desired. So you'll have to excuse me for not feeling like the sexual advances they receive are somehow examples of them being victimized by the scoundrels known as men. I also categorically reject the language surrounding the desire to protect women from the lust of men, as though makes are somehow incapable of controlling themselves whenever a bare shoulder or midsection floats in front of us. It instills a mindset that enslaves men AND women, stripping them of choice and culpability. If you're a pig, you CHOOSE to be a pig. It's not some predetermined disposition that comes along with the Y chromosome. Finally, there's nothing wrong with sexual attraction, which is different then lust. The former is simply a biological response to a wide range of stimuli, while the former is a desire to possess a person or thing in a way that rejects its humanity and dignity as a creature of God's making. Showing a little clevage doesn't CAUSE lust, any more than showing me a hamburger CAUSES me to want McDonalds. I think that distinction is often lost in these discussions, and causes the stuff in the preceding paragraphs to occur. [/quote] PROPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) I'd also like to give belated props to whoever said that culture and context matter. I would add that not every thing is a turn on for every guy. For example, I am not particularly attracted to women with larger chests. Thus, a woman could walk by with tassles and double-Ds and it would do nothing for me. On the other hand, a petite red-head in normal jeans, a nice polo shirt and dark rimmed glasses is sure to get a second look from me, no matter how modestly dressed she is. Edited May 28, 2012 by kujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Lol, here come the trolls, flaming, and explosions. It's modesty on phatmass. Might as well be trench warfare for all I'm concerned.[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338244716' post='2436613'] I'd also like to give belated props to whoever said that culture and context matter. I would add that not every thing is a turn on for every guy. For example, I am not particularly attracted to women with larger chests. Thus, a woman could walk by with tassles and double-Ds and it would do nothing for me. On the other hand, a petite red-head in normal jeans, a nice polo shirt and dark rimmed glasses is sure to get a second look from me, no matter how modestly dressed she is. [/quote] You deserve a prop. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338242156' post='2436575'] 8 pages of this poo. [/quote] Yet, you still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Wut 8 pages? It went from 4 to 8 in only an hour. HOLY FISH STICKS WITH A BUCKET OF TARTAR SAUCE POURED ON SOME BEACH BABES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1338243126' post='2436589'] No, hypersensitive as in - "[b]if I look at a girl exposing too much leg [/b]for more than .1 seconds I'm going to fall into the fires of Hell." I exaggerate, but you get the point. I think as Catholics it's very easy for us to get hung up over things. "They're holding hands during the Our Father? ahhhhh!" blah blah. I used to let things like that distract me but now I'm much more low key. Believe me, I loathe the objectification of women, particularly in the media. But if it's 90 degrees out with nearly 100% humidity I'm not covering my legs. [/quote] Intentional or accidental. The difference is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Kujo, I love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 [quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1338245619' post='2436638'] Kujo, I love you. [/quote] :Terrorist Fist Bump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338241821' post='2436571'] Don't be bitter because I strut what I got. If I'm going to take the time to put on a nice dress and get made up then I'm at least going to make sure I can turn some heads. [/quote] Unfortunately, you do. [spoiler][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2752/4460349120_d08700f315.jpg[/img][/spoiler] don't look if you don't want to see Hassy in a dress. Edited May 28, 2012 by Amppax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts