Cleavage

[runwaymodel]

Look, the non-verbal that you are sending if you are wearing a low cut shirt is, “look at the girls.”

If you’re wearing a half-shirt, you are wanting people to admire your abs.

If you wear a sweater and a tight pair of yoga pants with boots, the non-verbal you are sending is that you want attention paid to other parts of your anatomy.

And if you combine the three…(low cut, midriff exposed, skin-tight, form-fitting pants)…well, guess what?

I full well understand that you may not intend to send that message, but that is the non-verbal you are sending.

I find it the height of irony when a woman dresses that way and then complains that guys are staring at her.

Having said that, I hope that most men who go to Mass will have at least enough mastery of the concept of “discipline of the eyes” to be able to filter out that non-verbal. But unfortunately, that is the non-verbal that is being sent.

Oh, and to reiterate (for those who like reading something into my words that I’m not writing): I don’t care if a woman walks down a city street at night stark naked, that’s no excuse for any kind of sexual assault.

I don’t think it’s fair to assume simply because a person wears tight pants that they want the attention focused on their butt. That says more about the person who is visualizing these things instead of the one wearing them.
That’s like if I were to make the assumption that people who wear ill fitting or worn-in clothing are lazy slobs with no regards to their appearance. That would also be an example of a non-verbal message those people would be sending if anyone was actually abiding by those cues. Unacceptable and judgmental either way.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Look, the non-verbal that you are sending if you are wearing a low cut shirt is, “look at the girls.”

If you’re wearing a half-shirt, you are wanting people to admire your abs.

If you wear a sweater and a tight pair of yoga pants with boots, the non-verbal you are sending is that you want attention paid to other parts of your anatomy.

And if you combine the three…(low cut, midriff exposed, skin-tight, form-fitting pants)…well, guess what?

I full well understand that you may not intend to send that message, but that is the non-verbal you are sending.

I find it the height of irony when a woman dresses that way and then complains that guys are staring at her.

Having said that, I hope that most men who go to Mass will have at least enough mastery of the concept of “discipline of the eyes” to be able to filter out that non-verbal. But unfortunately, that is the non-verbal that is being sent.

Oh, and to reiterate (for those who like reading something into my words that I’m not writing): I don’t care if a woman walks down a city street at night stark naked, that’s no excuse for any kind of sexual assault.

Being looked at and checked out is not the same as being objectified. I stand up for men all the time on this one and I will continue to do so. Men are hardwired to like to look at the female body, just like how I’m hardwired to think that sports are a lot more interesting when men play shirtless. If you don’t want to be checked out, just don’t leave the house. No matter what you wear someone will look.

Now, if we’re talking about being objectified, that’s wrong. But objectification happens when you look at someone and only see them for what they can offer sexually. This has nothing to do with clothing. Strippers are objectified, but so are Afghani women. Even frequently on this site you see virgins objectified. I’ve had it happen to me, and its dehumanizing and insulting. It goes way above being checked out.

I wore a very low cut top on my first date with my husband. (I didn’t mean to, it’s a long and embarrassing story). Of course he looked, of course he liked it. But he treated me like a human being that he was on a date with and he cared far more about what was on the inside. He just enjoyed the outside. That’s not objectification. (I also give him credit. I didn’t know that he was checking me out until years later when we were reminiscing about our first date.)

 

[Mandychu22]

We can all “come up” reasons – not treat another in a Christian manner. It the clothes --the signals --etc. etc. But it is by our own failure as Christians – that we end up treating people differently.

This. Exactly.

I think it’s rather entertaining to see how some people in this thread assume that their idea of modesty is applicable to every single person on this planet.

What we see as modesty is entirely cultural. If I were to wear a mid-calf length skirt and a nice blouse in some areas of the world, that would be scandalous. In other areas, wearing that much on a hot summer day looks very over-dressed.

150 years ago the people claiming standards of modesty cited in this thread would be scandalous. A woman in pants? What a harlot. How scandalous that you can see her ankles, she’s making men lust!

I’m not saying that modesty is subjective, but our understanding of it certainly is based off of our culture and upbringing. Some of the ‘modest’ clothing I own in North America may not be considered modest when we visit my In-Laws in Europe. On the other hand, when they came here for our wedding we had to explain to them the standards of modesty here because they are different. They weren’t dressing to be purposely immodest, they were dressing in a manner that was culturally acceptable to the best of their ability. Some people just don’t know. (Getting back to what started this entire discussion,) throwing them out of Mass because of this lack of knowledge is horrifying and wrong. Telling them they are asking to be treated as less than human is horrifying and wrong.

“Everyone is welcome here, as long as they completely conform to my idea of what they should dress like.”

Perhaps Lost_Sheep should have asked all the women coming into mass if they were on birth control, or required marriage licenses from those he knows are living together. After all, those are also scandalous. Surely he doesn’t think they deserve to go to mass either.

After all, Mass is only for those of us who are perfect.

 

[markomalley]

I don’t think it’s fair to assume simply because a person wears tight pants that they want the attention focused on their butt.

Being looked at and checked out is not the same as being objectified.

This. Exactly.

Ladies, I’m not saying I approve. However, it is what it is. Would you really rather live in fantasy land?

If you ever take a class that talks about communication models (perhaps a management class, a class in business development or the like), you will understand what I say about the importance of nonverbals and the fact that it is the sender’s responsibility to make sure that the message is encoded properly for transmission and that it is both received, decoded properly, acknowledged, and understood by the receiver.

And that holds true for nonverbals just as much as for verbals.

Look, all the shrill outrage, all the slutwalks, all the commentators on the news, all the diversity coaches at work, all the efforts of social engineering don’t change a thing. It may cause the exterior manifestation of the condition to go into hiding, but it’s still there. As long as our society is hyper-sexualized the way it is, it won’t ever change.

The only thing that will ever change it ultimately is the love of Christ. **Both **as manifested in you and manifested in him.

Without the love of Christ transforming the man, he’s a caveman (with due apologies to the GEICO actors).

And, oh, by the way, without Christ, you won’t fix it…

BlueEyedLady, I do appreciate your understanding that men are hardwired the way we are. The one point I’d make is that until you get past the first impression and the man actually getting to know you, he will only have the object upon which to pass his judgment.

That’s like if I were to make the assumption that people who wear ill fitting or worn-in clothing are lazy slobs with no regards to their appearance. That would also be an example of a non-verbal message those people would be sending if anyone was actually abiding by those cues. Unacceptable and judgmental either way.

Runwaymodel, it’s not fair. It’s not nice. I’m not asserting otherwise. But it is what it is.

And, sadly, most people will make the assumption that a person who wears ill-fitting clothing don’t care about their appearance. Frankly, if somebody shows up for a job interview dressed in such a fashion, there is an extraordinary chance that he/she will lose the job within the first minute of the start of the interview…even if he/she is the strongest candidate as far as qualifications are concerned. Fair? Hardly. But it is what it is.

I think it’s rather entertaining to see how some people in this thread assume that their idea of modesty is applicable to every single person on this planet.

What we see as modesty is entirely cultural. If I were to wear a mid-calf length skirt and a nice blouse in some areas of the world, that would be scandalous. In other areas, wearing that much on a hot summer day looks very over-dressed.

I agree with what you’re saying about standards being entirely cultural. That’s why I said: Non-verbal messages are highly localized in nature. For example, a woman walking around topless in a village in Papua New Guinea sends a radically different non-verbal message than a woman doing the same thing as a part of a Femen protest at the Vatican.
And, along those lines, that’s why I always found it quaint when some people complained about the indecency when there were topless women around JPII when he celebrated Mass in New Guinea. It wasn’t indecent. It was their culture.

And this is our culture (if you live in the USA, that is). And we have to work within that culture.

 

[Mandychu22]

Ladies, I’m not saying I approve. However, it is what it is. Would you really rather live in fantasy land?

If you ever take a class that talks about communication models (perhaps a management class, a class in business development or the like), you will understand what I say about the importance of nonverbals and the fact that it is the sender’s responsibility to make sure that the message is encoded properly for transmission and that it is both received, decoded properly, acknowledged, and understood by the receiver.

No one would rather live in a fantasy land, however it seems as though you are failing to accept the cultural reality that women dress this way in their every day lives to conform to social norms. I don’t wear a shirt that’s cut low enough to show a little cleavage in order to entice men, I wear it because it’s what is available in my size, and it is socially acceptable to wear.

I’ve taken classes about non-verbal communication (and even taught a few, years ago), I simply disagree that the clothing identified is used to entice men, rather than to please the women who are wearing it/maintain their comfort.

I’ve had men tell me that a neck from a certain angle, or eyes, or hands can cause lust. Should I cover my face and neck and wear gloves so as to avoid that situation? No, because that is ridiculous. So is insisting that women refrain from wearing other culturally acceptable clothing.

For the record, many women find button up shirts/suits/etc on men to be very sexually attractive within our culture because it is not often seen and is created to accentuate parts of the male anatomy women find attractive (chest, shoulders, legs, etc). Should I insist that men around me wear Jeans and baggy shirts, or suits that don’t fit properly according to current cultural standards, because I “can’t” look away?

I agree with what you’re saying about standards being entirely cultural. That’s why I said: Non-verbal messages are highly localized in nature. For example, a woman walking around topless in a village in Papua New Guinea sends a radically different non-verbal message than a woman doing the same thing as a part of a Femen protest at the Vatican.
And, along those lines, that’s why I always found it quaint when some people complained about the indecency when there were topless women around JPII when he celebrated Mass in New Guinea. It wasn’t indecent. It was their culture.

And this is our culture (if you live in the USA, that is). And we have to work within that culture.

I live in Canada, so it’s nearly the same clothing standards culturally. Here, wearing tight fitting clothing IS a culturally accepted norm for women. Showing a little cleavage is also totally normal and often expected, even (or sometimes especially) in business.

 

[Nacho45]

You are not *causing *them to fall. You might be presenting the opportunity for them to fall, but you are not causing it. If they fall, it is by their choosing.

As I mentioned in another post, remember the news story a few months ago when those topless women danced around that bishop while he tried to pray? Did they cause him to sin?

He could, I suppose, have looked at them but instead he chose not to. Instead, he turned away and prayed. I seriously doubt any sin was held against him.

Did the women commit a sin by flaunting themselves and trying to tempt him? Probably. But he chose not to succumb to their temptation.

You can’t sin unless you want to.

The truth is there whether you accept it or deny, but it isn’t going to change. Women and men are both culpable when they cause another person to sin. This is not complicated nor is it confusing.

 

[Nacho45]

You mentioned in your post that if women dressed in a righteous manner than men will not notice. Well here I am giving you an example of women dressing righteously and men behaving in a boorish manner anyway.

As for the Billy Joel song, some men see modesty as a turn on. Thrill of the chase and all that.

That isn’t what I said, but thanks again for twisting my words. I believe I’ll pass on the game you play.

 

[Nacho45]

---

The question is – What does God expect from us. Do we treat her in a Christian manner – or not.

I believe God expects us to dress with dignity.

 

[Nacho45]

My take on this is that dressing inappropriately for Mass can cause others to be distracted from the real reason they are there - to worship and to praise our Lord.

Exactly right and people should respect this fact and not create a situation where others are distracted.

 

[markomalley]

No one would rather live in a fantasy land, however it seems as though you are failing to accept the cultural reality that women dress this way in their every day lives to conform to social norms. ** I don’t wear a shirt that’s cut low enough to show a little cleavage in order to entice men, I wear it because it’s what is available in my size, and it is socially acceptable to wear. **

I’ve taken classes about non-verbal communication (and even taught a few, years ago), I simply disagree that the clothing identified is used to entice men, rather than to please the women who are wearing it/maintain their comfort.

I’ve had men tell me that a neck from a certain angle, or eyes, or hands can cause lust. Should I cover my face and neck and wear gloves so as to avoid that situation? No, because that is ridiculous. So is insisting that women refrain from wearing other culturally acceptable clothing.

For the record, many women find button up shirts/suits/etc on men to be very sexually attractive within our culture because it is not often seen and is created to accentuate parts of the male anatomy women find attractive (chest, shoulders, legs, etc). Should I insist that men around me wear Jeans and baggy shirts, or suits that don’t fit properly according to current cultural standards, because I “can’t” look away?

I live in Canada, so it’s nearly the same clothing standards culturally. Here, wearing tight fitting clothing IS a culturally accepted norm for women. Showing a little cleavage is also totally normal and often expected, even (or sometimes especially) in business.

Maybe that’s where the disconnect comes from. You, above, are saying a little bit of cleavage. I am talking about “plunging” necklines.

Thank you for letting me know this about the effect of certain business dress on some women. I did not know that. Is there any particular type? If I need to make some changes to my work wardrobe (within the realm of what is professionally acceptable, of course), I’d appreciate knowing. I would not want to be the near occasion of sin for any woman with whom I work.(I’m serious when I ask the question).

 

[thewanderer]

The truth is there whether you accept it or deny, but it isn’t going to change. Women and men are both culpable when they cause another person to sin. This is not complicated nor is it confusing.

Nacho, what you are talking about is “leading another into temptation” which is actually very different than causing another person to sin. You are right that leading others into temptation is a sin. You are wrong, however, that such is equivalent to causing others to sin. Lost_Sheep is spot on in his/her post.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I believe God expects us to dress with dignity.

Yes. but do we still treat her with dignity, no matter what? Do we still show respect?

 

[Demetra2]

Yes, people seem to have forgotten what modesty is and if you think cleavage is bad, how about those super tight stretchy pants which leave nothing to the imagination. You know, the ones not designed to be worn as actual pants, but are. It’s a lack of self respect and a skewed idea of what is important (having people look at you in the wrong way).

I have to agree that those super tight stretchy pants are a fashion crime! I see young women wearing them every where and they never look good in them no matter what size they wear. It is especially sad to see someone with a weight problem wearing these pants. I wish people would have more respect for themselves when it comes to what they wear in church and every where else.

 

[Nacho45]

Nacho, what you are talking about is “leading another into temptation” which is actually very different than causing another person to sin. You are right that leading others into temptation is a sin. You are wrong, however, that such is equivalent to causing others to sin. Lost_Sheep is spot on in his/her post.

I must apologize up front. I don’t enroll in semantic games and don’t accept the loopholes they present. In the end, both have sinned regardless of how one wishes to word things.

 

[Nacho45]

Yes. but do we still treat her with dignity, no matter what? Do we still show respect?

As much as possible.

The problem with this thread had been the bouncing around attempting to dilute the responsibility of the woman with outrageous claims and discussing everything but the main point. When that is finally realized it makes us able to move on to things like treating each other with dignity. Now that it’s finally understood the shared responsibility of people in how they dress, we can discuss your question.

It’s always fun when things work the way they should.

In fact, now that it’s understood the fault of the woman in how she presents herself and how she dresses, we can now talk about the fault of men even though the woman presents herself in a wholesome manner and provides no temptation.

 

[thewanderer]

I must apologize up front. I don’t enroll in semantic games and don’t accept the loopholes they present. In the end, both have sinned regardless of how one wishes to word things.

This isn’t a game of semantics, there is a very important theological distinction between causing another person to act and leading them into temptation. If you use the word “cause” you wind up with heretical theology, if you use the phrase “leads into temptation” your theology will be correct. This is no small matter.

 

[Nacho45]

This isn’t a game of semantics, there is a very important theological distinction between causing another person to act and leading them into temptation. If you use the word “cause” you wind up with heretical theology, if you use the phrase “leads into temptation” your theology will be correct. This is no small matter.

In the end, both have sinned regardless of how one wishes to word things. I find it more important for people to take responsibility for their actions than attempting to skew the truth with semantics.

One topic at a time. If a woman knows men will look at her in a lustful way, should she not take the steps to attempt to prevent that or should she reject her responsibility and toss all of it on the person looking at her lustfully because she dresses herself in an unwholesome manner?

I say she accept her part for purposeful placement of a stumbling block for another to fall into sin or take every step she can to be seen as a righteous woman. Share nothing in the sin of another and if he falls without her assistance, then it’s all on him alone

Of course, some don’t like taking responsibility for their actions which creates a problem.

 

[Mandychu22]

As much as possible.

The problem with this thread had been the bouncing around attempting to dilute the responsibility of the woman with outrageous claims and discussing everything but the main point.

Main point: If a woman dresses with the intention to lead men into temptation she has sinned, if that was NOT her intent than she has not sinned. By definition sin requires intent and full knowledge of what one is doing. Wearing clothing that is culturally acceptable, but some men find sexually appealing, is NOT the same thing as intentionally leading him to sin. Even if it means going topless/showing abdomen/wearing something tight.

Men do NOT get to decide on behalf of women what they intend when they wear certain items of clothing. We have minds of our own, no matter how many names we are called (so far in this thread I remember seeing Harlot and Slut… there may have been more).

If men see a woman dressed in an overly sexual manner and he continues to look at her with the intent of lusting after her body, he has sinned. If he avoids that than he has not. EVEN if the woman is trying to lead him into sin, the sin must be, BY DEFINITION, his choice. The responsibility for that sin must be his, or it is not his sin. It is that simple.

 

[thewanderer]

In the end, both have sinned regardless of how one wishes to word things. I find it more important for people to take responsibility for their actions than attempting to skew the truth with semantics.

Nacho, I specifically said that the person who leads others into temptation sins in doing so, I am all for everybody taking responsibilities with their own actions and I have made no effort to “skew the truth”. Instead I merely pointed out an extremely important and relevant theological point which makes the difference between truth and heresy so that you could avoid spreading heretical beliefs and/or falling victim to them yourself.

One topic at a time. If a woman knows men will look at her in a lustful way, should she not take the steps to attempt to prevent that or should she reject her responsibility and toss all of it on the person looking at her lustfully because she dresses herself in an unwholesome manner?

I say she accept her part for purposeful placement of a stumbling block for another to fall into sin or take every step she can to be seen as a righteous woman. Share nothing in the sin of another and if he falls without her assistance, then it’s all on him alone

Of course, some don’t like taking responsibility for their actions which creates a problem.

I agree with you here and have already said as much. This was a part of my original post here. I am not attacking the fact that it is a sin to lead others into temptation and never have. Now that I have assured you of that, are you in a better frame of mind to recognize the importance of the distinction between saying “caused another to sin” versus “leads another to sin”?

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Main point: If a woman dresses with the intention to lead men into temptation she has sinned, if that was NOT her intent than she has not sinned. By definition sin requires intent and full knowledge of what one is doing. Wearing clothing that is culturally acceptable, but some men find sexually appealing, is NOT the same thing as intentionally leading him to sin. Even if it means going topless/showing abdomen/wearing something tight.

This is not entirely correct. The three components to a moral act are:

1. object (nature of the action)
2. intention
3. circumstances

If any one of these are defective (wrong object, bad intention, wrong circumstances), the act is wrong. Now obviously the intention to lead into sin is enough to make an action wrong, but similarly an action which by its nature has the effect of leading into sin is also wrong, since the action is by nature wrong regardless of intention. This is similar to how an action which involves the killing of an innocent human being, even if the intention of this action is good, is still wrong; it is because the object of the act (murder) is intrinsically evil. Similarly, presenting an occasion of sin to another (without a justifying cause proportionate to the action, e.g. running out of a burning house) is an evil action and is not justified by a good intention.

So, for example, if a woman dresses in something that she knows does tend to lead men into sin without a justifying cause, even if her intention is not to lead men into sin, it is still wrong. This applies to men too, vice versa, of course.

In order to make an “intention” defense, the intention would have to be not to commit the evil act. That is, she must have not intended to wear those clothes, or to be seen wearing those clothes. But one cannot do something which has an evil effect and then be free from moral consequences because she did not intend the effect which she was completely aware would happen. I cannot pull a trigger and then be free from moral consequence because I merely intended to flex my finger.