A preoccupation with modesty - "sex on the brain."

[Debora123]

I’m not going to say it’s ok, but I’m not going to say it’s wrong, either. My personal opinion is that nude art is not for the masses. Your average Joe will have a hard time desexualizing the image to recognize the beauty of the form. It is something that is too easily abused by sinful desires.

Epiclotus, I’ll be honest with you.

I saw the thread you started a while back where you confessed to being a sex addict and opened up about your struggles with porn and objectification of women.

As I’m sure we can agree, such addiction is notorious for giving people a skewed view of sexuality and the human body. And so for that reason I just don’t think we can have an objective, unbiased discussion about this particular topic… like we’ve been trying to do on this thread, Bob’s thread, and Jen’s thread.

We’ll just have to settle for agreeing to disagree.

I will say a prayer for you, your wife, and your marriage. God bless.

 

[epiclotus]

Epiclotus, I’ll be honest with you.

I saw the thread you started a while back where you confessed to being a sex addict and opened up about your struggles with porn and objectification of women.

As I’m sure we can agree, such addiction is notorious for giving people a skewed view of sexuality and the human body. And so for that reason I just don’t think we can have an objective, unbiased discussion about this particular topic… like we’ve been trying to do on this thread, Bob’s thread, and Jen’s thread.

We’ll just have to settle for agreeing to disagree.

I will say a prayer for you, your wife, and your marriage. God bless.

Prayers are always appreciated, but I question your motives for bringing it up. You seem eager to discredit what I say by calling attention to a thread almost two years old to the day, and a personal struggle that isn’t a part of my life anymore. Not that you bothered to ask, or address such a matter through a private message, but through an attempt to publicly shame me. Is your argument so weak that you would resort to such a tactic?

Debora123, I’ll be honest with you. I haven’t looked up a single thread you’ve started in the past. I reply to your posts based on their content alone. I’m disappointed that you cannot do the same.

We can certainly agree to disagree, but your attempt to silence me like this does nothing to remove my voice from the conversation.

 

[Debora123]

Prayers are always appreciated, but I question your motives for bringing it up. You seem eager to discredit what I say by calling attention to a thread almost two years old to the day, and a personal struggle that isn’t a part of my life anymore. Not that you bothered to ask, or address such a matter through a private message, but through an attempt to publicly shame me. Is your argument so weak that you would resort to such a tactic?

Debora123, I’ll be honest with you. I haven’t looked up a single thread you’ve started in the past. I reply to your posts based on their content alone. I’m disappointed that you cannot do the same.

We can certainly agree to disagree, but your attempt to silence me like this does nothing to remove my voice from the conversation.

I’m not trying to shame you at all. This is an anonymous, yet public forum. I didn’t think of private messaging you because the information is not private information.

I’m not trying to set up an ad hominem. I just don’t think we’ll agree on this given our different backgrounds and experiences.

 

[epiclotus]

I’m not trying to shame you at all. This is an anonymous, yet public forum. I didn’t think of private messaging you because the information is not private information.

I’m not trying to set up an ad hominem. I just don’t think we’ll agree on this given our different backgrounds.

It’s not private, but again, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I repeat, if you had concerns about my ability to engage in the discussion, you could have easily sent me a private message rather than call attention to something from my past.

I know nothing of your background other than what you have said in these few threads, yet it makes no difference to me on how I engage your posts unless you have brought up something specific which must be addressed (as in your references to where you were brought up). If you cannot maintain the same demeanor, I suggest you might be the one to reconsider how you post in these threads.

 

[Debora123]

It’s not private, but again, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I repeat, if you had concerns about my ability to engage in the discussion, you could have easily sent me a private message rather than call attention to something from my past.

I know nothing of your background other than what you have said in these few threads, yet it makes no difference to me on how I engage your posts unless you have brought up something specific which must be addressed (as in your references to where you were brought up). If you cannot maintain the same demeanor, I suggest you might be the one to reconsider how you post in these threads.

I thought it was relevant in the sense that it may help explain why we see things the way we do, and why we’ll never reach an agreement.

My sincere apologies for offending you.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not going to say it’s ok, but I’m not going to say it’s wrong, either. My personal opinion is that nude art is not for the masses. Your average Joe will have a hard time desexualizing the image to recognize the beauty of the form. It is something that is too easily abused by sinful desires.

By saying its ok I don’t mean that it is ok for every person in every situation, but just that it is, in itself moral. The Church certainly believes that is true. As for whether it is ok for any given individual given their particular weaknesses etc, that is for that individual to decide. And, to be honest, I know you didn’t appreciate Debora bringing up your past, but I thought it was very relevant. It explains why you find it more likely that it is almost impossible for someone to view such art without sexualizing it whereas I do not at all think that is the case. If you have had to personally deal with sexual temptations in the past that most people don’t it would be easier for you to view such temptations as more widespread, whereas I have not had to deal with such issues so it is possible that my perspective underplays the severity/extent of this problem. But so long as we can agree that in itself it is not sinful then we are on the same page. Beyond that it is a matter of personal prudence.

 

[epiclotus]

By saying its ok I don’t mean that it is ok for every person in every situation, but just that it is, in itself moral. The Church certainly believes that is true. As for whether it is ok for any given individual given their particular weaknesses etc, that is for that individual to decide. And, to be honest, I know you didn’t appreciate Debora bringing up your past, but I thought it was very relevant. It explains why you find it more likely that it is almost impossible for someone to view such art without sexualizing it whereas I do not at all think that is the case. If you have had to personally deal with sexual temptations in the past that most people don’t it would be easier for you to view such temptations as more widespread, whereas I have not had to deal with such issues so it is possible that my perspective underplays the severity/extent of this problem. But so long as we can agree that in itself it is not sinful then we are on the same page. Beyond that it is a matter of personal prudence.

Yeah, I know the Church doesn’t necessarily condemn nudity in art. Hence, all the works in the Vatican that feature people in the nude. There has to be consideration for the dignity of the person within the work, though, otherwise we could consider many things “art” that are truly debase.

Also, you will notice that even before Deborah’s remarks, I am quite careful to point out when something is my opinion by using phrases like “I think” and “personally” so there is no confusion between my making an objective argument and a subjective one. This is why Debora’s post was inappropriate because, whether she truly meant to or not, she basically suggested that all of my arguments are subjective. Then, factoring in my personal history, she decided that I was no longer a valid contributor to the thread.

Furthermore, she decided to categorize me with those that have “skewed” views of women, despite not seeking any information as to whether the thread she referenced was still relevant to my life. There is also an implication inherent in her argument against my participation that once skewed, a person can never correct their outlook. That is an incredibly uncharitable view to have toward another person.

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah, I know the Church doesn’t necessarily condemn nudity in art. Hence, all the works in the Vatican that feature people in the nude. There has to be consideration for the dignity of the person within the work, though, otherwise we could consider many things “art” that are truly debase.

Which is why I was careful to say nude art that is truly art.

Also, you will notice that even before Deborah’s remarks, I am quite careful to point out when something is my opinion by using phrases like “I think” and “personally” so there is no confusion between my making an objective argument and a subjective one. This is why Debora’s post was inappropriate because, whether she truly meant to or not, she basically suggested that all of my arguments are subjective. Then, factoring in my personal history, she decided that I was no longer a valid contributor to the thread.

Furthermore, she decided to categorize me with those that have “skewed” views of women, despite not seeking any information as to whether the thread she referenced was still relevant to my life. There is also an implication inherent in her argument against my participation that once skewed, a person can never correct their outlook. That is an incredibly uncharitable view to have toward another person.

I really think you might be misunderstanding her. From the past encounters I have had with her on CAF I am very confident that she meant nothing other than what I said above, that having lived through such an experience it is bound to colour your view of how often such things happen to people and how strongly they must be avoided etc as opposed to people like me and Debora who have not had to deal with those exact trials. But I really wasn’t trying to turn this into a big thing about Debora’s comment, I just thought it was helpful and pertinent to the conversation we were having, and because of that I brought it in.

 

[epiclotus]

I really think you might be misunderstanding her. From the past encounters I have had with her on CAF I am very confident that she meant nothing other than what I said above, that having lived through such an experience it is bound to colour your view of how often such things happen to people and how strongly they must be avoided etc as opposed to people like me and Debora who have not had to deal with those exact trials. But I really wasn’t trying to turn this into a big thing about Debora’s comment, I just thought it was helpful and pertinent to the conversation we were having, and because of that I brought it in.

I understood your purpose. While I do not wish to drag this on much further, I still take umbrage to the implication that a person must be forever coloured or skewed because of past experiences. If that were so, what hope or incentive would people have to do better? Yes, it does create a different understanding for those that have lived through such things, but in truth, it can merely be used as one of many potential points of reference. It need not be a lens through which all things are viewed.

Debora has apologized, and I accept it as such. Generally speaking, though, this is why ad hominems are bad form in a debate. She has said that she wasn’t trying to set one up, but it’s exactly what she did. That said, I won’t say anything further on the matter.

 

[thewanderer]

I understood your purpose. While I do not wish to drag this on much further, I still take umbrage to the implication that a person must be forever coloured or skewed because of past experiences. If that were so, what hope or incentive would people have to do better? Yes, it does create a different understanding for those that have lived through such things, but in truth, it can merely be used as one of many potential points of reference. It need not be a lens through which all things are viewed.

Debora has apologized, and I accept it as such. Generally speaking, though, this is why ad hominems are bad form in a debate. She has said that she wasn’t trying to set one up, but it’s exactly what she did. That said, I won’t say anything further on the matter.

And, like I said, I am confident that Debora did not mean it as you are interpreting it. That she did not mean it as an ad hominem. But I guess that is only something she can clear up for certain.

 

[Debora123]

And, like I said, I am confident that Debora did not mean it as you are interpreting it. That she did not mean it as an ad hominem. But I guess that is only something she can clear up for certain.

I wasn’t going to mention anything else on that whole thing, but just a final note: like I said, rest assured I did not mean that as an ad hominem. Thanks for hearing me out.

So anyway, on to some more nudity talk… Lol…

 

[Debora123]

So anyway, on to some more nudity talk… Lol…

By the way, how many of you have read “Love and Responsibility?”

I must confess I’m a huge fan… probably more so than TOB. It’s really helped shape the way I see these types of issues, and helped me strive to see these sort of things through a more pure, innocent way.

 

[thewanderer]

By the way, how many of you have read “Love and Responsibility?”

I must confess I’m a huge fan… probably more so than TOB. It’s really helped shape the way I see these types of issues, and helped me strive to see these sort of things through a more pure, innocent way.

I have and I loved it. I honestly think it should be required reading.

 

[edwest2]

This should be helpful.

thecatholicladyblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-revolution-of-fashion.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Catholic80]

psychologytoday.com/blog/psychoanalysis-30/201203/preoccupation-modesty-or-sex-the-brain

I agree. If I were to tell you, “don’t think about a pink hippo ever” and constantly reminded you not to think about the pink hippo, naturally, you’d be thinking about a pink hippo.

It’s two sides of the same coin, as Christopher West puts it. Ultra modesty (in an attempt to hide the body out of shame) is as bad as promiscuity.

Ironically, in places like Thailand where physical affection is limited, they have the worst prostitution and do the most vulgar things to women. The farther the pendulum swings one way, the farther it rebounds in the other direction.

 

[edwest2]

I agree. If I were to tell you, “don’t think about a pink hippo ever” and constantly reminded you not to think about the pink hippo, naturally, you’d be thinking about a pink hippo.

It’s two sides of the same coin, as Christopher West puts it. Ultra modesty (in an attempt to hide the body out of shame) is as bad as promiscuity.

Ironically, in places like Thailand where physical affection is limited, they have the worst prostitution and do the most vulgar things to women. The farther the pendulum swings one way, the farther it rebounds in the other direction.

Oh fer cryin’ out loud. What’s the big deal here? If a lady wants to wears a long dress with sleeves, why should I care? I’ll tell you why. Modesty means something. This thread has been mostly one long repetition. I don’t think about pink flamingos or hippos. But I might see an attractive woman and not even be thinking about it - at all at the time. Recently, I saw a very attractive and modest young lady. Saw. The end. Modesty and custody of the eyes tells us we can look but that’s it.

That’s why I’m avoiding the beach forever. I don’t want to see a bunch of teenagers with 90% + of their skin exposed. It’s wrong but they do imitate each other.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

Oh fer cryin’ out loud. What’s the big deal here? If a lady wants to wears a long dress with sleeves, why should I care? I’ll tell you why. Modesty means something. This thread has been mostly one long repetition. I don’t think about pink flamingos or hippos. But I might see an attractive woman and not even be thinking about it - at all at the time. Recently, I saw a very attractive and modest young lady. Saw. The end. Modesty and custody of the eyes tells us we can look but that’s it.

That’s why I’m avoiding the beach forever. I don’t want to see a bunch of teenagers with 90% + of their skin exposed. It’s wrong but they do imitate each other.

Peace,
Ed

Then it sounds like you are not falling pray to the over-focus on purity and modesty which can lead people to oversexualize others and make it easier for them to lust after others. Nobody is saying there is anything wrong with women wearing a long dress with sleeves. Nobody said there is anything wrong with modesty. What people are trying to point out is that while trying to attain chastity it is possible to fall into a problematic mindset which can make it even more difficult to remain chaste. They are warning people of a problematic way of thinking for the sake of trying to help people remain chaste. I don’t entirely understand why this seems to be frustrating to you.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Ultra modesty (in an attempt to hide the body out of shame) is as bad as promiscuity.

That’s an excessive comparison. Attempting to hide your body out of shame is not a mortal sin. Promiscuity is.

 

[Kamaduck]

That’s an excessive comparison. Attempting to hide your body out of shame is not a mortal sin. Promiscuity is.

I would argue that attempting to hide the body out of shame leads to mortal sin. In its own way, it can lead to lust just as immodesty can.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

I would argue that attempting to hide the body out of shame leads to mortal sin. In its own way, it can lead to lust just as immodesty can.

I meant that even if attempting to hide the body out of shame could lead to mortal sin (which I am not convinced of), it would still not be as bad as an actual mortal sin.