Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I want to make a point which I think is missing from this discussion a person ( even us guys) can or at least should be able to look at a member of the other gender in a bathing suit--even a bikini-- and apreciate that they are attractive, and perhaps even bueatiful/handsome and not lust after them. Frankly you should even be able to do that to someone who is naked. Lust is a personal failure not the Failure on the part of the Lusted a fter. Now some one is immodest when they intentionally attempt to dress in a provacative manner, intending to create a lustful reaction in people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 20 2005, 11:52 PM']I want to make a point which I think is missing from this discussion a person ( even us guys) can or at least should be able to look at a member of the other gender in a bathing suit--even a bikini-- and apreciate that they are attractive, and perhaps even bueatiful/handsome and not lust after them. Frankly you should even be able to do that to someone who is naked. Lust is a personal failure not the Failure on the part of the Lusted a fter. Now some one is immodest when they intentionally attempt to dress in a provacative manner, intending to create a lustful reaction in people. [right][snapback]617683[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, in a perfect world, sans concupiscence, you should be able to even look upon someone totally naked and not be lusting. However, in western culture (I'm not going to argue about tribal types who go mostly nude all the time), nudity/near nudity in public is immodest and generally provocative towards lustful thought. Incidentally, I was in a discussion group last night, and Wojtyla (JPII) in [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] makes an interesting distinction between sensuality and concupiscence. Basically, sensuality orients us towards the personhood of the other through the beauty of their body, whereas concupiscence orients us to enjoyment of the other person's body. Sensuality is directed toward the other as person, whereas concupiscence is oriented towards the self gratification/enjoyment of other as object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole8223 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 That's great that some of your girls found modest tankinis! I got a one-piece that looks like a tankini, but its actually all one piece from Lands End, and I love it! I guess I was generalizing when I said tankinis are generally not great either. I'm sure there are modest ones, and you girls found them! I guess, for me at least, I try to think of what is the purpose of wearing a two-piece (modest tankinis excluded)? I mean, the purpose of them is to show off your body. I just don't think it is right. The reasoning isn't even based on a guy's reaction as much as what is modesty and what is the purpose of the object? A bathing suit has a purpose, but why two pieces that expose skin? Even if guys did not struggle with lust, a women should respect her body anyway. IcePrincess, I hear your point on kids, too. That makes sense. I guess I just see so many little girls in bikinis....and they are cute and innocent, but its hard for a kid to understand why they can't wear it anymore when they are 9 or 10, instead of 3 or 4.... I'm going on a cruise to the carribean on Sunday, with my boyfriend and 40 members of my family....pray for us cause there will be lots of immodest bathing suits around! Also pray we have a priest on the boat cause we really want to have daily mass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='scardella' date='Jun 21 2005, 08:53 AM']Yes, in a perfect world, sans concupiscence, you should be able to even look upon someone totally naked and not be lusting. However, in western culture (I'm not going to argue about tribal types who go mostly nude all the time), nudity/near nudity in public is immodest and generally provocative towards lustful thought. Incidentally, I was in a discussion group last night, and Wojtyla (JPII) in [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] makes an interesting distinction between sensuality and concupiscence. Basically, sensuality orients us towards the personhood of the other through the beauty of their body, whereas concupiscence orients us to enjoyment of the other person's body. Sensuality is directed toward the other as person, whereas concupiscence is oriented towards the self gratification/enjoyment of other as object. [right][snapback]617829[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I',m not talking about in a perfect world; I'm talking abouot adults, do you think a doctor is incapable of looking at a nude patiant without arousal, or an artist is unableto look at a nude model without arousal, both of those are part of "Western Culture" and both have traditionally been a non sexually arousing experiance. It is not the Body which invokes lust, not in a normally developed person, it is the body in conjunction with behavior which is inappropriate, if someone cannot look upon the body of another, even a strikingly beautiful member of the opposite sex and simply acknowledge is a strikingly beautiful withoput lusting for them then that person needs serious help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luthien Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I don't see how its okay for a dude to show his belly, butt its a mortal sin for a girl to show a little belly in a tankini. I mean an inch or two of belly doesnt make a girl a temptress, unless her intention is to tempt men. I have a tankini, it doesnt cover all of my stomach. I just liked the way it fit and felt on my body. Honestly if you went to the beaches I go to, you'd think that I was the most prudish one there. I know Im doing the whole black compared to a lighter shade of gray. But I must say. that my tankini, besides the belly thing, covers a majority of my torso. I wouldnt show my stomach at all any other time, but the beach is different. I will never wear a bikini again, but I like my tankini. From what I've said on these boards in the past year, would you label me as a temptress because I wear a tankini that shows a little of my belly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Luthien' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:19 AM']I don't see how its okay for a dude to show his belly, butt its a mortal sin for a girl to show a little belly in a tankini. I mean an inch or two of belly doesnt make a girl a temptress, unless her intention is to tempt men. I have a tankini, it doesnt cover all of my stomach. I just liked the way it fit and felt on my body. Honestly if you went to the beaches I go to, you'd think that I was the most prudish one there. I know Im doing the whole black compared to a lighter shade of gray. But I must say. that my tankini, besides the belly thing, covers a majority of my torso. I wouldnt show my stomach at all any other time, but the beach is different. I will never wear a bikini again, but I like my tankini. From what I've said on these boards in the past year, would you label me as a temptress because I wear a tankini that shows a little of my belly? [right][snapback]617885[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not all of us would label you like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:13 AM']I',m not talking about in a perfect world; I'm talking abouot adults, do you think a doctor is incapable of looking at a nude patiant without arousal, or an artist is unableto look at a nude model without arousal, both of those are part of "Western Culture" and both have traditionally been a non sexually arousing experiance. It is not the Body which invokes lust, not in a normally developed person, it is the body in conjunction with behavior which is inappropriate, if someone cannot look upon the body of another, even a strikingly beautiful member of the opposite sex and simply acknowledge is a strikingly beautiful withoput lusting for them then that person needs serious help. [right][snapback]617881[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I agree entirely. Context plays a significant part in any discussion of immodesty. What is appropriate (and therefore perfectly modest) to wear to the beach may very well be innappropriate (and therefore totally immodest) to wear on a date. Ostensibly we are talking about "Western" Culture, but it seems to me that many are simply referring to "American" Culture, in which any exposure of skin is made arousing and sexual. Western Europe certainly counts as "Western Culture" and yet topless/nude beaches are significantly more common and accepted in those countries, and they are not thought of as places meant for arousal. The point is that we should all be able to control our passions to the point that we can look upon, and admire, the beauty of a member of the opposite sex without becoming aroused. Know your limits and know your context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Western Europe certainly counts as "Western Culture" and yet topless/nude beaches are significantly more common and accepted in those countries, and they are not thought of as places meant for arousal. You can say that again...When you're on a beach in Europe and all of a sudden a gang of 65 plus ladies arive having misplaced all bathing attire-you would most definetly come to the conclusion above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole8223 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I wouldn't label anyone as a temptress..I'm not one to do that. If you can wear a tankini and be modest, then that is great! I was just sharing my feelings about the purpose of two-piece bathing suits.... I didn't mean to make you feel labeled as anything! It's awesome you care about modesty...I'm sure you know what works as moest on you. Everyone is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:46 AM']Ostensibly we are talking about "Western" Culture, but it seems to me that many are simply referring to "American" Culture, in which any exposure of skin is made arousing and sexual. Western Europe certainly counts as "Western Culture" and yet topless/nude beaches are significantly more common and accepted in those countries, and they are not thought of as places meant for arousal. [right][snapback]617905[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The beach as a place of arousal is definitely true in America. I believe most Americans wouldn't go to a topless/nude beach because they might see someone's imperfect naked/partially naked body and become non-aroused. You always hear jokes about old fat people being on the beach and how it's a turn-off. Regardless of what you wear, remember, it's the beach. Go enjoy the sun, build sand castles, and swim in the ocean. Save arousal for the privacy of your own home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 21 2005, 10:13 AM']I',m not talking about in a perfect world; I'm talking abouot adults, do you think a doctor is incapable of looking at a nude patiant without arousal, or an artist is unableto look at a nude model without arousal, both of those are part of "Western Culture" and both have traditionally been a non sexually arousing experiance. It is not the Body which invokes lust, not in a normally developed person, it is the body in conjunction with behavior which is inappropriate, if someone cannot look upon the body of another, even a strikingly beautiful member of the opposite sex and simply acknowledge is a strikingly beautiful withoput lusting for them then that person needs serious help. [right][snapback]617881[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I thought that's what I was getting at. I was by no means implying that we're incapable of controlling our thoughts or that it was normal to lust in response to nudity. American culture (I stand corrected) is still in rebellion against its Puritanical roots, but it hasn't escaped that influence either. So for most Americans, to show "extra" skin in public (disregarding art; a doctor seeing a patient is private) or even tight clothes is implicitly trying to call attention to the body as object, which is why we have pants that have words on the buttocks and skimpy bikinis and halter tops which draw attention to breasts, etc. Now, on the beach or at the pool, we are more inculturated to have guys with shirts off and girls in two piece bathing suits. If you're not doing it to provoke lustful thoughts and in keeping with the "local custom" so to speak, then you're fine (unless you or another has a weak conscience a la Paul in Cor speaking regarding food sacrificed to idols). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 (edited) Ah yes, the problem here, as always, is with America, with its ingrained puritanical/hedonistic Masonic evil. Stay away from its foul beaches - those latter-day Sodom and Gommorahs of Masonic Lust! Take me instead to the nude beaches of Europe, that Eden of primordial innocence, where beautiful young women innocently bask their nubile Nordic bodies in the sun, and frolic about in the nude unashamed, where concupiscence cannot touch them! There, lust and sin can not be provoked, no matter how voluptuous the unfallen form of these pure, uncorrupted creatures! Edited June 21, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole8223 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Modesty is not about the end result of provoking lust, but about being respectful about your body. Who cares where you live...wrong is wrong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:05 PM']Ah yes, the problem here, as always, is with America, with its ingrained puritanical/hedonistic Masonic evil. Stay away from its foul beaches - those latter-day Sodom and Gommorahs of Masonic Lust! Take me instead to the nude beaches of Europe, that Eden of primordial innocence, where beautiful young women innocently bask their nubile Nordic bodies in the sun, and frolic about in the nude unashamed, where concupiscence cannot touch them! There, lust and sin can not be provoked, no matter how voluptuous the unfallen form of these pure, uncorrupted creatures! [right][snapback]618020[/snapback][/right] [/quote] haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:05 PM'][Edited: This was a sarcastic joke post that I thought better of, and decided it might cause unnecessary scandal and contention.] [right][snapback]618020[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well I thought it was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now