Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women?

[jim111]

Not exactly. If I brought a group of men over from a small city in Saudi Arabia, I'm willing to bet at least half of them would get turned on by clothes we'd consider modest. Modesty isn't a fixed thing. Neither is arousal. In fact, there are psychology methods of training someone not to get aroused by a certain stimulus. 

 

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[Basilisa Marie]

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

 

But that's the thing - in places like Saudi Arabia, men DO get turned on by looking at a woman's eyes, because those are the only things they can see and they've sexualized them.  It's like how centuries ago in Europe showing ankle was sexual and scandalous because it wasn't normally seen.  And then in some tribal areas of South America it's common for women to go topless.  What counts as messed up is almost completely dependent on the culture.  

[Chestertonian]

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

 

Muslims disagree.

 

 

 

 

[jim111]

But that's the thing - in places like Saudi Arabia, men DO get turned on by looking at a woman's eyes, because those are the only things they can see and they've sexualized them.  It's like how centuries ago in Europe showing ankle was sexual and scandalous because it wasn't normally seen.  And then in some tribal areas of South America it's common for women to go topless.  What counts as messed up is almost completely dependent on the culture.  

 

disagree, just cause it was forbidden to show ankle does not mean it caused sexual arousal. Also just cause there breasts are exposed does not mean they do not cause lust.  A husband might see his wife's breasts every night, but that changes nothing. By this logic, you could go to a nude beach naked, and would not sin because that's how there culture is. Would you agree with this?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

People can get aroused by basically anything, even the smell of onions. 

[jim111]

Which is understandable, but here where people have pretty strong views, a little more "umph" is needed to get people to agree with you.  

 

Are we talking about active or passive scandal? Direct or indirect? 

 

From New Advent, an Encyclopedia you probably find suitable:

 

Wearing clothes with necklines lower than 2 fingers below the throat hollow (whatever that means, as it could be my fingers, your fingers, or the pope's fingers) is not an action evil in itself.   :)  Ergo, not scandal!  

 

Mary is not impressed

 

"Modesty in dress can lead to the loss of immortal souls, and if

gravely offensive, is a mortal sin for the wearer and occasion of sin

for the beholder of immodest fashions. Sins caused by immodest

fashions send to hell, or at least make worthy of hell’s fire, the souls

of many of those exposed to these fashions."

Our Lady of Guadalupe

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[CatholicsAreKewl]

disagree, just cause it was forbidden to show ankle does not mean it caused sexual arousal. Also just cause there breasts are exposed does not mean they do not cause lust.  A husband might see his wife's breasts every night, but that changes nothing. By this logic, you could go to a nude beach naked, and would not sin because that's how there culture is. Would you agree with this?

Actually, overexposure to something can dull whatever reaction you have to it. Witnessing your first death as a surgeon would probably affect you much more than it would fifteen years into practice. I'm sure going to a nude beach enough times would have this same effect.

Edited May 2, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Chestertonian]

How could you not be aroused by the smell of onions?! :eat:

[jim111]

Actually, overexposure to something can dull whatever reaction you have to it. Witnessing your first death as a surgeon would probably affect you much more than it would fifteen years into practice. I'm sure going to a nude beach enough times would have this same effect.

If you take a boy in a nudist colony away from all women for a year, then bring him back, he will get aroused by there breasts.

If you take a boy who has is normal away from women for a year, then show him a woman, he will not have the same sexual urges as the one who is looking at the breasts. I kinda feel like the results from original sin do not effect us when we look at a woman's face. At least for me when I see a woman's face, I an attracted but I am not tempted to lust. Its also not a matter of dullness cause i recognize the value of a woman with a very pretty face. Though its still not a lustful desire.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If you take a boy in a nudist colony away from all women for a year, then bring him back, he will get aroused by there breasts.

If you take a boy who has is normal away from women for a year, then show him a woman, he will not have the same sexual urges as the one who is looking at the breasts. I kinda feel like the results from original sin do not effect us when we look at a woman's face. 

This is interesting. I have no idea what would happen in those cases. Are you basing this off of a study by chance?

At least for me when I see a woman's face, I an attracted but I am not tempted to lust. Its also not a matter of dullness cause i recognize the value of a woman with a very pretty face. Though its still not a lustful desire.

Understood, but I feel there is a certain point where the blame can't be pinned on whatever is causing the temptation. 

[Chestertonian]

Okay, so let's assume that a certain level of immodesty is sinful. What now? I don't know where you live, but in the US approximately 25% of the population is Catholic. Half of that 25% don't go to mass regularly. So if you convince every single practicing Catholic woman to dress modestly, you're still going to be exposed to tons of heathen hussies.  

[Basilisa Marie]

disagree, just cause it was forbidden to show ankle does not mean it caused sexual arousal. Also just cause there breasts are exposed does not mean they do not cause lust.  A husband might see his wife's breasts every night, but that changes nothing. By this logic, you could go to a nude beach naked, and would not sin because that's how there culture is. Would you agree with this?

 

The whole point of it being taboo to show ankles was because it caused sexual arousal.  During King Henry VIII's time, women thought male calves were incredibly sexy.  Now, not so much.  Different body parts become sexy depending on the context.  Some women dig muscular shoulders and strong arms, some men are attracted to a defined collar bone and long legs.  People get turned on by more than just the "swimsuit areas" all the time.  

 

If I went to live with a tribe in South America and dressed how they dressed, the only things out of the ordinary that would draw attention to me is the fact that I'm pastey white and the fact that I wouldn't have a small child in tow.  It wouldn't be sinful.  If I made some friends in the tribe and brought them back to the States to visit with me, all of us would have to put on some "regular" clothes, because it's scandalous for women to walk around topless in the US.  

[Ice_nine]

I'm going to start dressing like I'm from first century Palestine. Will that make you happy?

 

 

I can't promise you or any other men that I won't still be ridiculously attractive but I'll try.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm going to start dressing like I'm from first century Palestine. Will that make you happy?

 

 

I can't promise you or any other men that I won't still be ridiculously attractive but I'll try.

Your full body covering should be all black or its still immodest.

[ploomf]

If women have to start dressing like they're from first century Palestine to make certain men happy then I insist the men have to dress like this.