Challenging Assumptions about Modesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s why I used the word “if” to show a distinction of sorts.
 
Lea101 said:
she was actually happy that he did that.
Click to expand...
MANY women are not offended when they are treated as inferior to men. That doesn’t mean it is OK.
Lea101 said:
he asked her if she would like to call someone if I’m not wrong.
Click to expand...
But that changes the example. Pence is doing it for HIMSELF. Schwimmer is doing it for the benefit of the woman. Pence doesn’t want to be alone because he can’t handle the temptation, so he therefore treats women differently - to their detriment. Schwimmer does it not to benefit himself, but to benefit the woman.
Your example is not applicable. Are you really trying to defined Mike Pence? If your spouse told you that if they were ever alone with a member of the opposite sex, it’s possible they would cheat on you - what would you say? You’d be OK with it? Seriously, try it out tonight and tell me what happens.
 
I don’t think I made this clear: I’m not against modesty. I actually prefer it with my own clothes.

I’m against demanding that others conform to subjective and culturally relative standards of modesty in order to accommodate one’s personal proclivity to stray sexually. That seems selfish and even narcissistic.
 
Last edited:
This is true but at the same time we have to draw the line somewhere. There is no way to even claim that we dress modestly ourselves if there is no yardstick for determining what’s modest and what isn’t.

My opinion on the matter is, the girl in the picture could use a couple more inches of fabric on her shirt (cut too low).
 
Bruised_Reed said:
If you say don’t be surprised about comments then what is your response to a woman who is attractive and dressed modestly but still gets comments. How about men don’t make remarks about women, period?
Click to expand...
Your response is spot on!
 
I don’t have a spouse. I don’t know if Pence does this because he thinks he would throw himself at a woman otherwise.

Someone here pointed out that he doesn’t eat or drink alcohol alone with a woman and that changes things tbh. I googled it and it’s true.

If my husband were to say he would avoid eating/drinking with another woman out of respect for me I wouldn’t whine about it tbh. I would not be in situations with a guy that can be seen as a date either (if I’m not single).
 
Last edited:
The Federal government nowadays, as opposed to in the time of LBJ, is about the last place you need to worry about “sexism” of any sort. Unless it’s the Monica Lewinsky kind.
 
blackforest said:
…

In a situation calling for 'lust control," where do her responsibilities end and yours begin?

…
Click to expand...
Sometimes nothing reasonable can be done to help a person from lusting, for it has nothing to do with dress or bodily positions. Sometimes it cannot be reasonably avoided to show what is normally hidden, such as in examinations and in the locker room. But sometimes a person will intend and even succeed in drawing lustful attentions.

The whole lifetime calls for purity. There is a responsibility is to not give scandal, which could be direct or indirect. It is not always possible to avoid it, and only a reasonable attempt at avoiding indirect scandal is necessary.

Note that even St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologiae:
On the other hand, as regards those temporalities of which we have the dominion, sometimes, on account of scandal, we are bound to forego them, and sometimes we are not so bound, whether we forego them by giving them up, if we have them in our possession, or by omitting to claim them, if they are in the possession of others. For if the scandal arise therefrom through the ignorance or weakness of others (in which case, as stated above, [Article 7], it is scandal of the little ones we must either forego such temporalities altogether, or the scandal must be abated by some other means, namely, by some kind of admonition.

In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways.
  1. First when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; in so far as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xl in Ev.): “There are some who think that attention to finery and costly dress is no sin. Surely, if this were no fault, the word of God would not say so expressly that the rich man who was tortured in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one, forsooth, seeks costly apparel” (such, namely, as exceeds his estate) “save for vainglory.”
  2. Secondly, when a man seeks sensuous pleasure from excessive attention to dress, in so far as dress is directed to the body’s comfort.
  3. Thirdly, when a man is too solicitous [Cf. II-II:55:6] in his attention to outward apparel.
“I answer that, As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman’s apparel may incite men to lust, according to Proverbs 7:10, “Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot’s attire, prepared to deceive souls.””
Click to expand...
Catechism
2523 … Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.
2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. …
2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.
Click to expand...
 
Lea101 said:
If my husband were to say he would avoid eating/drinking with another woman out of respect for me I wouldn’t whine about it tbh. I would not be in situations with a guy that can be seen as a date either (if I’m not single).
Click to expand...
If Pence was your boss and your male co-workers got to have one-on-one meetings with him or got to have lunch meetings while you couldn’t because he was afraid he might want to have sex with you, I think you’d change your mind.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The Federal government nowadays, as opposed to in the time of LBJ, is about the last place you need to worry about “sexism” of any sort.
Click to expand...
I;m just talking about Mike Pence and his policy of treating women and men differently because he can’t control his sexual urges. I think it’s embarrassing and pathetic. If I told my wife she better come to every meeting I have with another woman because I could have an affair, she’d kill me. I find it laughable that some people actually commend the man for saying those things. Me? Personally, I could honestly tell my wife not to worry whenever I meet with a woman alone.
 
Last edited:
Mike Pence is a federal government employee.

Several of us have told you this likely does not have anything to do with his sexual urges, and one person pointed out it was speculation on the part of the article writer.

However, if you want to continue feeling all superior to Mike Pence, then have fun with your pride.

God bless.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think it’s so much that he thinks he’s going to have an affair if left alone with a female staffer.

I think the idea is more that he’s making sure he’s not in an innocent situation people could misinterpret, not to mention protecting himself from potential accusations, even unfounded ones.

I wouldn’t quite take it to the extreme he does (I’m fine having lunch with a female coworker, for example) but I do see the wisdom for someone in such a highly visible position.
 
Last edited:
BoomBoomMancini said:
I don’t think it’s so much that he thinks he’s going to have an affair if left alone with a female staffer.

I think the idea is more that he’s making sure he’s not in an innocent situation people could misinterpret, not to mention protecting himself from potential accusations, even unfounded ones.
Click to expand...
If you have the time, read this article from a Christian perspective:


The point is that it is not OK for men in power to treat women differently simply because they cannot control their sexual urges. You must treat everyone the same. No alcohol at meetings with women? Then no alcohol at meetings with men either. No one-on-one meetings with a woman? Then no one-on-one meetings with a man. If you disagree here, I’m sorry, you are sexist.
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
You must treat everyone the same.
Click to expand...
Why? That seems to be more unfair than taking each individual into account for who they are as a person in order to maintain their dignity. We can’t treat everyone the same because people are different and those differences should be honored and respected.

Should he have a drink at lunch with a male co-worker who struggles with sobriety just because he may have a drink with other co-workers who don’t have that problem? If he treats the alcoholic the same as those who are not, that seems quite uncaring and unmerciful.

I don’t think Mike Pence avoids being alone with women because he can’t control himself otherwise. I think he does it as a mark of respect to the women he meets with, as a show of respect to his wife and as a prudent decision to protect his reputation and integrity in regard to his career.

It’s really quite unthinking of others to treat everyone the same in all situations. Honoring the dignity of everyone means taking into account the actual person in front of you and their needs and their individual situation.
 
You asked me about my spouse and I replied…and now it’s back to Pence being my boss?

I would understand a married man avoiding intimate situations with a woman (one-on-one dinners with a woman, alcohol etc). I’m not seeing him doing all of these things as a boss. I’m seeing him doing all of these things as a married guy. Most married people don’t really do this sort of stuff without approval from their spouse anyway. I don’t know their marriage and frankly I really don’t care about him enough to want to know.

You keep assuming that he’s doing so because he can’t keep it in his pants and people have kept telling you that it’s for other reasons…?

If you can somehow prove that he is doing so because he thinks he would have sex with them, or that he’s going out on one-on-one lunch/dinner meetings with a guy, you would have some sort of a point. His nature of his work right now would mean that he probably don’t hang out with colleagues alone, let alone promoting them.

I’m not even denying that women would be missing out professionally, or that he should never extend the rule to guys. But right now, you’re just covering your ears and screaming ‘sexist’ (a judgment on a person’s character) which is mostly based on assumptions on what is happening
 
You have a good point.

In other words, it’s the attractiveness that’s the problem exacerbated by the clothes.
 
Mike pence is the smartest man in the public eye. With all that has been going on with the me too movement and now with Kavanaugh there is no way anyone can question his integrity in this area of his life. He respects his marriage enough to not leave open any doubts about his love for his family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top