A not-yet-locked Thread on Modesty

[Fauken]

Every time there’s a tone deaf modesty thread on CAF, I put on a slightly shorter pair of jean cutoffs. These thighs are on blast.

Eh, except that’s not immodest. But if a woman wore those? Definitely immodest. She has her thighs on blast.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

That’s true, I forgot I’m a man so it doesn’t matter. I can go to the beach in a Speedo and it’s totally fine.

(To be fair, I think 95% of women would say that even a fit, attractive guy in a Speedo is not a turn on in the slightest…)

 

[Freddy]

VanitasVanitatum:

You don’t know how anyone here dresses so how could you even be talking about modesty to them?

Every time there’s a tone deaf modesty thread on CAF, I put on a slightly shorter pair of jean cutoffs. These thighs are on blast.

You know what I said about forming a mental picture of the poster? It’s not necessarily a good thing…

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You know what I said about forming a mental picture of the poster? It’s not necessarily a good thing…

Come on in, sugah, the waters fine.

 

[catholiclala]

There is that segment of men in every religion, and they are usually grumpy. It’s disturbing and speaks more to the psychology of those men than it does their religion. I do dress modestly, yet I’m still disturbed by this obsession with men.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

if people would stop denying the obvious, and the results of research:

Men have a stronger sex drive than women, and this gender difference is evident in cross-cultural research involving men and women from 53 different countries (Lippa, 2009). In each nation studied, men self-reported stronger sex drives than women. While some women do have a very strong sex drive, this sexual motivation functions differently for women than it does for men.

‘Research’ reliant on self reporting is inherently flawed for a variety of reasons. No psychologist worth his or her salt will take self reported data and extrapolate its meaning to a broader population. Self reporters can be telling the truth or making up answers, they can have little insight or a lack of objectivity resulting in false data (even if well intentioned), and any research relying on self reporting will draw a certain type of person whilst repelling others, therefore severely limiting unbiased data collection.

As for the webmd article, the article nor the sources listed actual empirical evidence; it was an opinion article.

there are Catholic men who are just short of being obsessed about controlling women, making decisions for women, and deciding they know best about anything to do with women.

Growing up in a variety of evangelical faiths (independent and southern baptist, nondenominational, fundamentalist) this is also a major focus of a subset of Christians.

I have not said that a woman cannot experience what she calls and understands to be “LUST”.

I HAVE SAID, in this one example below:

“No, I dismiss her judgment that she experiences something - “lust,” in this case - in the same way and in the same intensity a man does. ”

My favourite part is that you believe to know exactly what a woman’s understanding and experiencing of lust is better than she herself does AND you believe further to know a woman’s experience so very well–better than she knows herself!–that you can insist her experience cannot be of the same nature and intensity of a man’s. And goodness, you ‘dismiss her judgment’–her judgment of HER OWN personal experiences!

What I don’t understand is…why is it so important to you to insist over and over that a woman not only doesn’t understand herself but that her sexual drives and desires in no way equals those of a man’s. Women are actually telling you XYZ and you insist we might think we know XYZ but we’re wrong, but you actually do know XYZ.

 

[fide]

@NevermoreLenore

What I don’t understand is…why is it so important t you to insist over and over that a woman not only doesn’t understand herself but that her sexual drives and desires in no way equals those of a man’s. Women are actually telling you XYZ and you insist we might think we know XYZ but we’re wrong, but you actually do know XYZ.

I listen to divine revelation, and believe it.

 

[Lea101]

I have not said that a woman cannot experience what she calls and understands to be “LUST”.

I HAVE SAID, in this one example below:

“No, I dismiss her judgment that she experiences something - “lust,” in this case - in the same way and in the same intensity a man does. ”

That has been my point: men and women are DIFFERENT, and one example is, they are different in what they both call “lust.” They do not lust, when and if they lust, in the same way or in the same intensity.

All reports to the contrary on this thread, though they are frequently asserted by others, are FAKE NEWS .

A lot of “understanding” of women for a guy that said men can never understand women and vice versa.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Come on in, sugah, the waters fine.

Not anymore.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I listen to divine revelation, and believe it.

Ah. You’ve received divine revelation to have special knowledge of how women ‘really are’ regardless of said women telling you you’re wrong. Divine revelation that, for some reason, God bestowed upon you and not the aforementioned women. Makes perfect sense.

 

[sealabeag]

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread but I disagree here and I think maybe you’ve gone a bit far. Women can, of course, lust. And they can lust intensely. Some women have higher sex drives than some men. Some women lust more, and more intensely than some men.
What is true, is that lust is generally a sin that more men struggle with than women. In the same way that jealousy and envy are sins that women struggle with more often than men. But men can envy, intensely, and women can lust and sin in impurity, too.

 

[fide]

A lot of “understanding” of women for a guy that said men can never understand women and vice versa.

It seems I’m a popular target on this matter - but for the sake of truth, which is due honor - every authentic, supernatural mystery from the hand of God is impenetrable in a complete way. For example, the central mystery of God, the Holy Trinity, can never be totally “understood” by human persons. But we CAN understand the Trinity in some ways, and to some depths, in the supernatural light of His holy grace.

Marriage - the union of husband and wife - is a created, natural “parable” of sorts, even being a Sacrament of His grace - which does reveal some of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God WANTS us to grow in understanding of His mysteries! He wants men to grow in understanding of this mystery - the companion He created for us. He wants women to grow in understanding the mystery set before them, in the person of the man to whom they are joined and fitted by design.

But in the end, “under-standing” is less important than “standing-under” the wisdom and intention of God, our Creator and Designer.

 

[fide]

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread but I disagree here and I think maybe you’ve gone a bit far. Women can, of course, lust. And they can lust intensely. Some women have higher sex drives than some men. Some women lust more, and more intensely than some men.
What is true, is that lust is generally a sin that more men struggle with than women. In the same way that jealousy and envy are sins that women struggle with more often than men. But men can envy, intensely, and women can lust and sin in impurity, too.

And I agree with much of your post here. But the differences I have been trying to point to are not merely the frequency of temptation - and embrace of the temptation - to lust (more in men than in women statistically), and not merely the average intensity of lust (greater in men than in women), but something more essential: the meaning of the word - its psychological, its physical, its spiritual “content” or essence. The “substance” of it, maybe is a way to say it.

I believe that we need, for precision, to speak of “masculine lust” and “feminine lust” as two distinct things, but that too would not be as clear as I’d want. One must begin with God’s holy intention of the two distinct ways in which husband and wife are to enter and complete conjugal union, psychologically, physically, spiritually, and name the sin that results when the man and when the woman rejects God and His will, and self-gift in His love, and instead assumes himself or herself as “god” within, with only other-taking (and not “self-giving”) for self-gratification. What is necessarily involved, it seems, is consideration of the distinct essential vocation of man as man, and of woman as woman. The “lust” if present in the man or in the woman, must be understood in the light of the distinction in their vocations.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

It seems I’m a popular target on this matter

Because you’re taking unsupportable, contradictory positions and when people point it out to you you’re obfuscating with a lot of flowery rhetorical flourishes.

You’re clearly a smart guy, but your posts would be a lot more persuasive and engaging if you would just state what you’re trying to say clearly in plain language. You don’t need to strain to make every post “profound.”

 

[fide]

Ah. You’ve received divine revelation to have special knowledge of how women ‘really are’ regardless of said women telling you you’re wrong. Divine revelation that, for some reason, God bestowed upon you and not the aforementioned women. Makes perfect sense.

I hope that you are not willing to submit your soul, your life, to judgments and opinions collected in a poll! The majority vote of fallen mankind is not a reliable foundation of truth.

To the contrary, Jesus corrects the opponents of God’s word - who refuse to believe Him - in this way:

John 5:44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

 

[fide]

Because you’re taking unsupportable, contradictory positions and when people point it out to you you’re obfuscating with a lot of flowery rhetorical flourishes.

You’re clearly a smart guy, but your posts would be a lot more persuasive and engaging if you would just state what you’re trying to say clearly in plain language. You don’t need to strain to make every post “profound.”

I am straining - not to be “profound”, but to be clear and precise. I realize it’s not easy reading! But it takes work to strain out the fog and pollution that has crept into the thinking of this darkening culture - and the light hurts the eyes, and the time required tests our patience. But Truth - which IS inherently profound! - is worth the cost.

And btw - to a very wise priest I knew, in the midst of a Scripture-based retreat I was attending, I “complained” that Jesus is very complicated, hard to understand, why is it so hard to hear all that He is saying?
The wise priest said, “Jesus is very simple. We are the complicated ones. We complicate everything and obscure the simple in our impossible contradictions, in which we try to live. It is hard to cast off the contradictions! But it is harder to live in them. It is simple to live in Truth.”

 

[Bluesky]

I think you have a good point about men and women being different in this regard, but the way I see it is the difference is based on their relative power.

If the men in Jesus’s day had acted on their thoughts they might have been able to get away with it but for the women, consenting or no the consequences were dire. Just think of the woman caught in adultery, where was the man?

Now that the relative power of women has increased there are going to be more situations where it applies in the same way.

 

[fide]

Now that the relative power of women has increased…

Thanks for your comment, Bluesy - and “welcome to the Forum”. I see this is your 1st post. But - did you see the posts of yesterday that announced that the Forum is closing down, at the end of December? So your visit here may be briefer than you intended. But while we have the time, let us make the most of it, as the Lord teaches.

Yes, the relative power of women has increased in the world. It is a mixed blessing for the world, I believe - blessings mixed with unhelpful consequences. Men are becoming feminized; women are becoming masculinized - this is not helpful. It is obvious why women have sought strength in the modern world - they have been abused and misused by men whom God called to be the protector of the woman. Thus many women concluded that the strength of the oppressor the man must be met and overcome by strength in the oppressed women, and women have tried, in many cases, to be “more of a man” than the men who abused them. For self-defense, at first, maybe, but then strength, like wealth and any other form of power, becomes addictive and abusive - a problem in itself.

The way of Jesus is very different from the “might makes right” philosophy of the strong of this world. His “beatitudes” in Matthew 5 are starkly, radically revolutionary - a new “strength” is proclaimed - that of those whose strength is in Christ, not in themselves:

Mat 5:2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
Mat 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
Mat 5:7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Mat 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 

[JMMJ]

Yes, the relative power of women has increased in the world. It is a mixed blessing for the world, I believe - blessings mixed with unhelpful consequences.

This quote explains all of your previous posts.

 

[fide]

Really? “All”? You have read all of my posts on CAF? I doubt that. Is my whole soul is now manifest to you?

Your comments continue to reveal more of yourself, as well, and I am sadly grateful for that.