A not-yet-locked Thread on Modesty

[fide]

And they all looked quite pretty and relaxed and were dressed perfectly normally for the circumstances.

Would that be acceptable for church wear? No. For office wear? Possibly not. For walking around Islamabaad? Quite dangerous.

There is no single standard for all circumstances.

Dressing “perfectly normally for the circumstances”? The word “normal” ought not be confused or conflated with the word “usual”. Many things “usual” in modern Western “woke” culture are profoundly abnormal in the sight and judgment of God.

God, who designed and created human nature, defines “the norm” for humans. God defines normality - not a culture, not a government, not a consensus, not a vote, not a judge, not a dictator with all the guns. And certainly not every individual person unto himself, delighting to make up his own norms. We don’t get to redefine our own sexual identity, or invent new meanings for marriage or family, or bend morality to suit our desires, or become a god unto ourselves.

For any who prefer “virtual reality” to actual reality, He will make Truth very clear on the Last Day. Better to get real now, than later!

 

[fide]

fide:

No, I dismiss her judgment that she experiences something -

This is both disrespectful and uncharitable.
You are not me.

Please have the courtesy to respect the statement of another poster when they describe their own struggles with sin.

I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this discussion further.

You omitted content from what I “dismissed” - radically changing it’s meaning. What I said was:

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.

 

[fide]

Yet you dismiss what a woman tells you as if you knew better than her on what she personally experiences as a woman.

Could you agree that “parenting” for a woman and mother is NOT the same as “parenting” for a man and father? They both use the same word “parenting” - but it is a very different experience and reality for the one and the other.

When a husband and wife engage in conjugal union, they both experience “conjugal union” - one word. Yet the experience and the reality of all that is happening (physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually) externally and interiorly, is very different. Again, God designed men and women differently, in His wisdom, for their mutual good. I’d say He did a very good job.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And they all looked quite pretty and relaxed and were dressed perfectly normally for the circumstances.

Would that be acceptable for church wear? No. For office wear? Possibly not. For walking around Islamabaad? Quite dangerous.

There is no single standard for all circumstances.

Dressing “perfectly normally for the circumstances”? The word “normal” ought not be confused or conflated with the word “usual”. Many things “usual” in modern Western “woke” culture are profoundly abnormal in the sight and judgment of God.

God, who designed and created human nature, defines “the norm” for humans. God defines normality…

What does God consider normal attire for walking along the beachfront at Bondi? And much more to the point, how on earth do you know?

 

[Lea101]

This is a new one on me. Not the phrase, but the application. I used those words when talking to my son and trying to impress upon him that thinking of, and especially treating, women in that way is not acceptable.

The context is more along the lines of “when you dress immodestly, you’re showing the world that you’re a collection of body parts not a person with dignity” rather than “Don’t look at people as though they are a collection of body parts”.

The speakers can always cross their arms and say “I didn’t call them that, I said they’re coming across as that”…but that has the same energy as a child saying “I didn’t call him stupid, I said he looks stupid!” lol

In all seriousness though, saying that sort of thing cheapens the belief that we are born with dignity and value and that nothing can take that away. Additionally, it implies that that’s how such speakers think of women who dress a certain way. Male or female. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[JMMJ]

Could you agree that “parenting” for a woman and mother is NOT the same as “parenting” for a man and father?

No. Not at all. Sometimes, maybe. Depends on the people involved and their particular situation.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I doubt that assertion - it is a talking point just too conveniently “PC” in the fad ideology of “gender equivalence.” God made them male and female with differences - not merely physical, but certainly physical inside and out, as well as psychologically - yet complementary to enhance fatherhood in the case of males, and motherhood in the case of females. God created family having strength through parents with gifts mutually complementary in their differences.

This is patently false. Women struggle with lust. Women watch porn. Women want and enjoy sex. There is nothing ‘PC’ in ‘the fad ideology of gender equivalence’ to acknowledge that women are often as sexual as men are presumed to be. There are a great deal of men who are not interested in sex, whose wives are desperate for the chaste intimacy with their husbands. How exactly is a woman’s high sex drive incompatible with motherhood? How does a man’s high sex drive contribute to fatherhood (other than the obvious, uh, initial contribution)? How does one partner’s higher interest in sex and the other’s lower interest equate complimentary union? People with well matched sexual needs–high, low, and everything in between–does more to strengthen a couple. Complimentary does not mean different or opposite.

I agree that a married man and woman should and do have complimentary union, but not based on western gender role ideation. We are socialised to equate certain traits and behaviours as being a ‘good’ man or woman, but these are conditioned, not innate.

I do not understand why some men insist that their issues with lust are uniquely male. Women ‘tempt’ men by dressing ‘immodestly’, thereby…what? Minimising culpability when men indulge lustful thoughts and behaviour? ‘I can’t help it–it didn’t take as long to undress her with my eyes because her skirt was two inches above the knee instead of at the ankle. Her fault, man–if only I didn’t see the calves, I wouldn’t have stumbled. Tsk tsk’.

Yes it’s too late now to try to influence women to dress more modestly. Once people gave moral authority to Cosmopolitan magazine (or the equivalent) we were doomed.

It’s never too late for anything. Let’s try this on for size; it’s equally silly: “It’s too late now to try to influence men to maintain custody of their eyes and control over their purity of thought”. Who gave moral authority over to Cosmo? We’re actually doomed? I have daughters who couldn’t care less about Cosmo or social media in regards to sartorial options. This doom and gloom tips so hyperbolic that I cannot take it seriously.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I didn’t find lectures on modesty to be particularly motivating in helping me change my ways. If anything it would have the opposite effect. If someone had told me I needed to be “schooled” on modesty I would have laughed in their face and ignored them. That’s not how you reach people.

Indeed. People don’t respond to judgmental chastisement because the lecturer is diminishing the person based on an outward appearance and just puts him or her in defensive mode.

All you “modesty-thread skeptics” (I notice you can’t help commenting on them!)

People who don’t agree exactly with your perspective are not necessarily sceptics. Open dialogue is what propels forward our search for God. Everything I’ve posted will be dismissed by the “modesty-thread apologists” as ‘feminist’ and ‘lapsed Catholic’ territories. Which is very far from reality.

 

[Lea101]

Both men and women can use the same word. My life experience tells me there is a radical difference. A woman can never understand a man, nor vise-versa. We are too different - the mars/venus thing. Note Jesus gave this teaching to MEN , not to women:

Mt 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Mt 5:28 But I say to you that every (masculine) one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Great! Does this mean I have not committed adultery if I looked at another men lustfully? What about the following passage where He talks about a man divorcing his wife and marrying another woman?

Snark aside, the Catechism already defines the definition of lust. And this definition easily applies to both genders. And for both sexes, it’s a grave sin.

Gender differences are either exaggerated or trivialised. The truth is that the sexes are more similar than you think.

This will sound quite mean, but i genuinely can’t figure out a better way of saying it, but many men think that women have this really different way of experiencing lust mostly because they don’t elicit that reaction from women.

Do you guys remember how much creeps were lusting over Taylor Lautner (shirtless werewolf in twilight)…he was 17 or 18 I think. Actors are always being drooled on by women and in my circle of female friends I have heard…uncomfortable things.

I wouldn’t say exactly the same in all contexts and that there are zero differences, but women do struggle with lust and the whole “venus/Mars” thing is honestly extremely outdated by now.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

the whole “venus/Mars” thing is honestly extremely outdated by now.

Not only outdated; debunked altogether. Brain studies have proven men and women are not neurologically different after all.

https://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2004/040217.MacGeorge.sexroles.html

Gender differences are either exaggerated or trivialised. The truth is that the sexes are more similar than you think.

And emphasising differences that do not exist is harmful (see link above).

Do you guys remember how much creeps were lusting over Taylor Lautner (shirtless werewolf in twilight)…he was 17 or 18 I think. Actors are always being drooled on by women and in my circle of female friends I have heard…uncomfortable things.

I was introduced to Lautner by my youngest’s obsession with the movie Sharkboy and Lavagirl.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I wonder if the trauma of what you described is the reason we don’t see him around anymore. Unwanted sexual attention, especially when aggressive and persistent, is very traumatising, especially for someone as young as Lautner and on such a grand scale.

 

[whatistrue]

The context is more along the lines of

Oh, I understood the context and don’t disagree with it, I just had not heard of it in that context before. Basically two sides of the same coin - on the one side you have presentation of the body as “parts” to be looked at and desired, on the other you have viewing of the person as “parts” to be looked at and focused on to the detriment of appreciating the person as a whole.

It leaves a distaste in my mouth.

And in mine.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

This will sound quite mean, but i genuinely can’t figure out a better way of saying it, but many men think that women have this really different way of experiencing lust mostly because they don’t elicit that reaction from women

Shots fired.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

We can only control ourselves, so I would say this thread doesn’t magnify the other half of the problem.

 

[goout]

goout:

You do realize that the OP and the discussion is in the context of women’s modesty.

Why? Are the women on CAF immodest or something? Who is this supposed to help?

The OP appears to be a man so it seems odd to be talking only about women.

YOu’d have to ask him/her. I’m just trying point out (with limited clarity evidently) that men hugely participate in the objectification of women and encourage immodesty by over-sexualizing relationships.

 

[Lea101]

I wonder if the trauma of what you described is the reason we don’t see him around anymore. Unwanted sexual attention, especially when aggressive and persistent, is very traumatising, especially for someone as young as Lautner and on such a grand scale.

Perhaps so tbh. I do know he’s seems like a pretty devout Christian (or Catholic, apparently he was raised as one) and he didn’t have a successful filmography and was often criticised for his acting and/or movie choices. Speaking of Sharkboy, they announced there’s a sequel LOL.

 

[Dolphin]

A woman can never understand a man, nor vise-versa. We are too different - the mars/venus thing.

Never thought I’d see this used as a defense for women not struggling with lust.

 

[Dolphin]

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.

This is the exact type of statement that causes women who struggle with lust or pornography to feel ‘unwomanly’ or weird or broken. This statement is wrong, unchristian, and uncharitable.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

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.

I’ll grant you that we can probably say that in general, the average woman experiences lust in a somewhat different way than the average man.

The problem is when you try to make a categorical statement like this and there are literally billions of women on the planet. There are huge variations in human sexuality; you can’t simply say “women are like this, men are like that.”

 

[Sarcelle]

What gets me is that he says that men and women cannot fully understand what the other is going through, yet at the same time dismisses what women tell him of their experiences because he thinks he know better of their experience than they.

I mean how would he know? He’s a man, he will never fully understand what women go through.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

What gets me is that he says that men and women cannot fully understand what the other is going through, yet at the same time dismisses what women tell him of their experiences because he thinks he know better of their experience than they.

Yeah, that’s completely contradictory. You can’t simultaneously argue “A man can’t know what a woman experiences and vice versa, we’re too different” and “no, I know she’s wrong when she says she struggles with lust.”

It’s like saying “I can’t perceive color at all, but I can definitively tell you that car is not blue.” It makes no sense.