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

[Nihil Obstat]

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. 

 

Actually there is a guy at my church I see occasionally who wears that outfit on the left, barefoot. Quite distinctive.

[ploomf]

Barefoot? That's immodest that is. Doesn't he know that some people have foot fetishes. Someone should talk to this man, for the good of peoples souls. 

[Ice_nine]

Fun fact: the part of the somatosensory cortex that responds to tactile stimuli of the genitals is adjacent to the part that responds to feet.

 

 

 

The more you know

[jim111]

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

No study, but God did not make women so that man could not look at her face without objectifying her. Also if one could lust after the face, makeup would not be sinful.

 

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

 

I would say because a woman is pretty, one knows that if they were to lust after them it would cause more pleasure then a less pretty woman.This does not mean that being pretty is a direct cause for lust.

[Basilisa Marie]

No study, but God did not make women so that man could not look at her face without objectifying her. Also if one could lust after the face, makeup would not be sinful.

 

 

I would say because a woman is pretty, one knows that if they were to lust after them it would cause more pleasure then a less pretty woman.This does not mean that being pretty is a direct cause for lust.

 

Makeup isn't sinful.  

 

So a woman is only responsible for a man's sin of lust if she's too pretty? 

[jim111]

Makeup isn't sinful.  

That was my point. If the face  directly caused lust, it would be, but it dose not.
 

 

So a woman is only responsible for a man's sin of lust if she's too pretty? 

 

Prettiness is a catalyst. Low masses are good, but sung masses are better, and the music enhances the ability to pray. Prettiness enhances the pleasure one has from lust. One does not need to be pretty for one to lust after just as one can pray without singing. Also one can be pretty and not cause any lust.

 

 

 

 

Basil- how do you feel about our mothers teaching on modesty.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[Basilisa Marie]

That was my point. If the face  directly caused lust, it would be, but it dose not.
 

Prettiness is a catalyst. Low masses are good, but sung masses are better, and the music enhances the ability to pray. Prettiness enhances the pleasure one has from lust. One does not need to be pretty for one to lust after just as one can pray without singing. Also one can be pretty and not cause any lust.

 

Basil- how do you feel about our mothers teaching on modesty.

 

People DO lust after faces, though. People lust after all sorts of body parts.  

 

Prettiness is a social construct, dependent on clothing and makeup and what society conditions us to believe is attractive.  It varies from culture to culture.  If prettiness can be separated from lust, why not nakedness? 

 

I personally find "Mary-like" modesty is one of the most annoying statements.  I'm not bound to believe any supposed statements from the Blessed Mother pertaining to modesty.  I think it's pretty rude to use the Blessed Mother to shame women for not measuring up to some arbitrary standard of modesty.  

[jim111]

People DO lust after faces, though. People lust after all sorts of body parts.  

 

Prettiness is a social construct, dependent on clothing and makeup and what society conditions us to believe is attractive.  It varies from culture to culture.  If prettiness can be separated from lust, why not nakedness? 

You may look at the face and choose to lust after the body, but the face by itself does not cause lust.
Because nakedness does not vary, the ability of certain body parts to lead ones passions to sex is universal and biological not cultural.

 

I personally find "Mary-like" modesty is one of the most annoying statements.  I'm not bound to believe any supposed statements from the Blessed Mother pertaining to modesty.  I think it's pretty rude to use the Blessed Mother to shame women for not measuring up to some arbitrary standard of modesty.  

I have not always been traditional, and I have walked around with my shirt off hoping to impress the girls, so I myself will probably be spending some time in purgatory for that. However I am glad I found out it was wrong, so I do not do it again. Until I talked to you, I was not sure if women lusted after me like that.

 

My point in that post was not to comment on the way you dress, but the idea that if a man or woman causes lust, they themselves sin. Do you believe that or not?

 

I don't know if we have to have Mary like modesty. All I am saying is to have modesty in line with the churches teaching, and that goes for men and women.

I have said this before, but if JP2 allowed a less strict dress code for women, I would accept that as a valid argument.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Fun fact: the part of the somatosensory cortex that responds to tactile stimuli of the genitals is adjacent to the part that responds to feet.

 

 

 

The more you know

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You may look at the face and choose to lust after the body, but the face by itself does not cause lust.
Because nakedness does not vary, the ability of certain body parts to lead ones passions to sex is universal and biological not cultural.

No, you're ignoring everything we've been saying earlier. There's a heavy cultural component as well.

 

 

 

I have not always been traditional, and I have walked around with my shirt off hoping to impress the girls, so I myself will probably be spending some time in purgatory for that. However I am glad I found out it was wrong, so I do not do it again. Until I talked to you, I was not sure if women lusted after me like that.

Who do you think you are, me? They weren't impressed, bro. 
 

 

My point in that post was not to comment on the way you dress, but the idea that if a man or woman causes lust, they themselves sin. Do you believe that or not?

Not unless they're on a sinscapade. 

 

 

I don't know if we have to have Mary like modesty. All I am saying is to have modesty in line with the churches teaching, and that goes for men and women.

I have said this before, but if JP2 allowed a less strict dress code for women, I would accept that as a valid argument.

:nun2:

Just woke up  :spike:

Edited May 2, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[PhuturePriest]

You may look at the face and choose to lust after the body, but the face by itself does not cause lust.
Because nakedness does not vary, the ability of certain body parts to lead ones passions to sex is universal and biological not cultural.

 

I have not always been traditional, and I have walked around with my shirt off hoping to impress the girls, so I myself will probably be spending some time in purgatory for that. However I am glad I found out it was wrong, so I do not do it again. Until I talked to you, I was not sure if women lusted after me like that.

 

My point in that post was not to comment on the way you dress, but the idea that if a man or woman causes lust, they themselves sin. Do you believe that or not?

 

I don't know if we have to have Mary like modesty. All I am saying is to have modesty in line with the churches teaching, and that goes for men and women.

I have said this before, but if JP2 allowed a less strict dress code for women, I would accept that as a valid argument.

 

Wrong. Faces are attractive. You can lust after someone's face.

 

The woman does not sin unless she dressed immodestly with the purpose to cause men to lust after her.

 

John Paul II's dress code is not binding on all Catholic women.

[jim111]

Who do you think you are, me? They weren't impressed, bro.

 

good, no scandal was caused.

 

Not unless they're on a sinscapade. 

 

I quoted a father, doctor, Summa, and Mary. What does it take to convince you, it is a sin for the person who causes lust, due to their immodesty.
 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

good, no scandal was caused.

 

 

I quoted a father, doctor, Summa, and Mary. What does it take to convince you, it is a sin for the person who causes lust, due to their immodesty.
 

Immodesty is not a fixed concept. 

[jim111]

Immodesty is not a fixed concept. 

 

 

“My dear Mother, the sins that bring most souls to Hell are the sins of the flesh.

Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much.

Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions;

Our Lord is always the same."

 

Our lady of Fatima

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[PhuturePriest]

good, no scandal was caused.

 

 

I quoted a father, doctor, Summa, and Mary. What does it take to convince you, it is a sin for the person who causes lust, due to their immodesty.
 

 

Yes, many Saints have said that. But you need context. If the immodest trollop is intending to cause men to sin and lust after her, then yes, you better believe God is going to punish her for that. But there are many women who wear even the most immodest clothing without realizing that it will cause men to lust.