Cleavage

[Mandychu22]

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.

Let’s just say you’re right. So instead of wearing the clothing I deemed to be modest, I listen to my husband and change my shirt. He agrees I’m now dressed modestly.

Then I leave the house and notice that a male friend is staring at my chest. Oh no! My well fitted clothing must be too tight! I better take responsibility for my actions… So I go out and buy shirts that are too large, but hide the shape of my body. He agrees that what I’m wearing must be modest dress.

But my jeans! They’re not very tight, much looser than the ones my peers wear, but still fitted. I go out for the third time and find a man staring at my rear. I’m frustrated because I have now changed my attire twice and men are still staring. I’m frustrated and react by asking him not to stare only to be told that if I didn’t want men to stare I shouldn’t dress to entice them. I did not, however, dress with that intent in any of those cases. But HE has determined that it is my fault, and I don’t want to be a temptation, so I “take responsibility for my actions” and buy loose skirts to hide the shape of my lower half too.

And now I’m being fetishized because I’m dressed in a manner inconsistent with cultural norms. How do I avoid being a temptation now? (Not to mention incapable of gaining employment in most businesses because who wants to be the place that hires ‘frumpy’ women to represent them?)

No wonder I don’t care what other people say is “too much cleavage” or “too tight” clothing. Every person’s opinion on the topic is different, and what one man says shows too much others will believe is modest. Who’s opinion do I take as ‘law’? Yours, or my own good judgement? Should we take a worldwide poll of what every man thinks is too sexual for women to wear, and make women conform to it? Surely my modesty is between myself, my husband (out of courtesy), and God?

Growing up with mainly male friends taught me a lot about this topic. Men will look no matter what a woman is wearing. You continue to say ‘purposeful’ but most of the time it’s not. It’s men projecting their ideas onto her decisions… Half the time we don’t even realise you’re looking, because sex is the furthest thing from our minds and far from our intent when we dressed.

Maybe men need to accept that her cleavage/butt/etc isn’t there to entice him, it’s there because it’s stuck to the front/back/etc of her body. Believe me, most ‘well endowed’ women would love to be able to take off their chests. Unless she is literally asking you to look, it’s probably not there for your sexual stimulation.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Let’s just say you’re right. So instead of wearing the clothing I deemed to be modest, I listen to my husband and change my shirt. He agrees I’m now dressed modestly.

Then I leave the house and notice that a male friend is staring at my chest. Oh no! My well fitted clothing must be too tight! I better take responsibility for my actions… So I go out and buy shirts that are too large, but hide the shape of my body. He agrees that what I’m wearing must be modest dress.

But my jeans! They’re not very tight, much looser than the ones my peers wear, but still fitted. I go out for the third time and find a man staring at my rear. I’m frustrated because I have now changed my attire twice and men are still staring. I’m frustrated and react by asking him not to stare only to be told that if I didn’t want men to stare I shouldn’t dress to entice them. I did not, however, dress with that intent in any of those cases. But HE has determined that it is my fault, and I don’t want to be a temptation, so I “take responsibility for my actions” and buy loose skirts to hide the shape of my lower half too.

There is a line between wearing clothing which actually has a legitimate causal connection to producing lustful thoughts in someone’s mind, and wearing normal clothing which has no connection to that. For example, even if a man has a negative/impure reaction to an exposed forearm, one is not expected to cover that part of the body because it has no actual causal connection to an immoral thought. It has no sexual meaning - either biological or cultural. So any sexual thought due to that would be due to a strange idiosyncrasy on the part of the man, which is not your fault.

 

[Mandychu22]

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.

I have literally walked out of my home in baggy clothes (we’re talking 3x Men’s shirts on an XL woman’s body) that hid everything from the neck down and hid my entire shape, only to have men look at my chest with lust. And I’m not a very attractive person, I can’t imagine how this must be for women who are physically attractive. I have absolutely no idea what to do about this, other than to have my breasts surgically removed (which I would also assume is sinful, and would be a disservice to my future children who I hope to breast feed). I guess I should stay at home, hidden away, because that’s the only way to ensure men don’t lust after them.

I know that’s not anyone’s intent (at least not in North America) but until we have an objective, cross cultural standard of modest dress EVERY single item of clothing worn can be considered too revealing by someone.

I don’t intend to cause men to lust when I leave my house even though I know it likely does happen based on past experience, but I’m also not willing to demean myself by refusing to leave my house (or being a slave to the opinions of unfamiliar men) because my chest is larger than most. I know what I believe is modest, and most men and women I know agree with my assessment, but there’s always someone who’s going to be happy to point out that you’re dressing like a prostitute no matter what you wear… and I’m sure they don’t believe that their assertions are overly restrictive/inappropriate either.

 

[Mandychu22]

There is a line between wearing clothing which actually has a legitimate causal connection to producing lustful thoughts in someone’s mind, and wearing normal clothing which has no connection to that. For example, even if a man has a negative/impure reaction to an exposed forearm, one is not expected to cover that part of the body because it has no actual causal connection to an immoral thought. It has no sexual meaning - either biological or cultural. So any sexual thought due to that would be due to a strange idiosyncrasy on the part of the man, which is not your fault.

However a chest and a backside, the body parts discussed in my post, DO have a connection to immoral thought. So does dressing in an overly modest manner, within North American culture at least, due to the sexualisation of ‘innocence’ (school girl/nun/other fetishes). I agree that there is a line between reasonable modesty requirements and unreasonable ones. I just don’t agree that men get to make that determination based on their own preferences, without taking into account the judgement and intent of the woman involved. Especially when you take into consideration that fact that every man has his own idea of sexual attractiveness, and every woman has a different idea of what is appropriately modest.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

However a chest and a backside, the body parts discussed in my post, DO have a connection to immoral thought.

But they are also just a part of the body. If you were not calling undue attention to those features or somehow accentuating them (revealing, whether by actual uncovering or by excessive form-fitting), then people should be reasonably able to deal with it as a normal structural aspect of the body.

So does dressing in an overly modest manner, within North American culture at least, due to the sexualisation of ‘innocence’ (school girl/nun/other fetishes).

We don’t have to cater to perversion.

I agree that there is a line between reasonable modesty requirements and unreasonable ones. I just don’t agree that men get to make that determination based on their own preferences, without taking into account the judgement and intent of the woman involved. Especially when you take into consideration that fact that every man has his own idea of sexual attractiveness, and every woman has a different idea of what is appropriately modest.

Of course, a lot of this is a prudential decision. I assume people mean well and are doing their best even if I would do something different if I were in the same circumstances.

Oh, and by the way - this is not really related to your post - in no sense at all do I advocate looking “frumpy.” I find that dressing well is one of life’s joys.

 

[Mandychu22]

But they are also just a part of the body. If you were not calling undue attention to those features or somehow accentuating them (revealing, whether by actual uncovering or by excessive form-fitting), then people should be reasonably able to deal with it as a normal structural aspect of the body.

Of course, a lot of this is a prudential decision. I assume people mean well and are doing their best even if I would do something different if I were in the same circumstances.

Oh, and by the way - this is not really related to your post - in no sense at all do I advocate looking “frumpy.” I find that dressing well is one of life’s joys.

They are just a part of the body, and I agree with you about revealing them being a big portion of what makes things immodest, however it feels as though some men like to ‘pass the buck’ onto the women around them by claiming these things are occurring even though the women are dressed in a culturally acceptable manner. Some of the attitudes expressed in this thread really don’t show the assumption that people mean well, unfortunately. An attitude I see paralleled all too often in real life, in a manner that makes me feel ‘wrong’ for being a woman… which is why I find it necessary to fight it!

I also agree with you about looking frumpy! There’s not much that puts a spring in your step/ gives you confidence quite like dressing well!

 

[hizown]

The Church is certainly welcome to anyone, but simple decorum is not out of order.

** {thumbs UP} **Even restaurants and stores have minimum dress codes for customers.

I believe the best approach to this is women should respect themselves enough to not create a situation where they are devalued.

:clapping::tiphat::yup: The grand irony is that feminism has NOT taught women to respect themselves in this way.

It is my respect for humanity and appreciation of the fact that we are all loved by God that causes me to be disgusted when I see women, His daughters, dressed like slovenly prostitutes debasing their human dignity.

[SIGN] [/SIGN]

We should of course view each other as persons, and sons and daughters of God.

But if your peripheral vision is so bad that you don’t notice a well endowed woman (and please not I said exposed cleavage specifically) even when looking at her face when talking, I think you need to see an optometrist.

There’s also that verse in Hebrews: “Let us worship Him with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire [alluding back to the O.T. where God burned to smithereens the false worship].”

Lost Sheep, bravo for your courage! {mega applause}

 

[Nacho45]

Look up the Greek verb skandalizo. It means to place a stumbling block, to entice or to cause to fall away (make to offend). It is a word of action used in the scriptures I provided. The noun usage of the word, skandalon, refers to things causing the effects. It is found most often I believe in Matthew and paralleled in Luke 17:2. I do not have all my reference materials with me so you will have to do some research on your own here or wait for me to do it later.

You may not agree, but there it is. The original language is what it is and nothing less or more.

 

[thewanderer]

But they are also just a part of the body. If you were not calling undue attention to those features or somehow accentuating them (revealing, whether by actual uncovering or by excessive form-fitting), then people should be reasonably able to deal with it as a normal structural aspect of the body.

We don’t have to cater to perversion.

Actually, well that depends, this outright statement that you would never have to be careful to avoid tempting others for this kind of temptation strikes me as very odd for someone who is willing to recognize that we have a duty to reasonably avoid leading others into sin. Its not so much about what is perverted as what the cultural norms and how likely wearing a certain article of clothing is likely to tempt others to sin vs the reasons you have to wear said article of clothing. If the two balance out, your good and can wear it so long as you do not intend to tempt others, however, if the two do not balance out, and the chance of it leading others to sin is greater than your reasons for wearing it then it doesn’t really matter what sort of temptation it is. You can’t go around claiming that we have to avoid leading others into temptation, but only if its the “right” kind of temptation. The whole point of avoiding scandal is out of charity for our fellow men. What right do we have to be less charitable to a certain group of people merely because we have deemed their particular temptation “too perverted”. No, we have to use the exact same standards for determining whether or not scandal would be caused no matter what kind of temptation is in question. And thats not to say we should become scrupulous about this, just make a reasonable effort without allowing yourself to obsess about it or worry excessively about it.

Of course, a lot of this is a prudential decision. I assume people mean well and are doing their best even if I would do something different if I were in the same circumstances.

Oh, and by the way - this is not really related to your post - in no sense at all do I advocate looking “frumpy.” I find that dressing well is one of life’s joys.

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Actually, well that depends, this outright statement that you would never have to be careful to avoid tempting others for this kind of temptation strikes me as very odd for someone who is willing to recognize that we have a duty to reasonably avoid leading others into sin. Its not so much about what is perverted as what the cultural norms and how likely wearing a certain article of clothing is likely to tempt others to sin vs the reasons you have to wear said article of clothing. If the two balance out, your good and can wear it so long as you do not intend to tempt others, however, if the two do not balance out, and the chance of it leading others to sin is greater than your reasons for wearing it then it doesn’t really matter what sort of temptation it is. You can’t go around claiming that we have to avoid leading others into temptation, but only if its the “right” kind of temptation. The whole point of avoiding scandal is out of charity for our fellow men. What right do we have to be less charitable to a certain group of people merely because we have deemed their particular temptation “too perverted”. No, we have to use the exact same standards for determining whether or not scandal would be caused no matter what kind of temptation is in question. And thats not to say we should become scrupulous about this, just make a reasonable effort without allowing yourself to obsess about it or worry excessively about it.

Yes, sorry if I was a bit imprecise - I mean that in a case where people find modesty a sexual temptation, there’s really not much we can do. Dressing modestly is an obligation and we have to follow it. For example, if someone was incited to lust by the sight of someone going to Mass (I mean by the actual act of going to Mass, not by the appearance of the person who does so), or by the sight of Catholic school children conforming to their (modest) school dress code, then, well, those are necessary actions so there’s not much we can do.

But I agree that if, for example, someone somehow found that the color green caused serious temptation to lust, we should probably refrain from wearing green around that person out of charity, because that’s not much of an inconvenience at all. I don’t have my moral theology books with me at the moment so I can’t go as in-depth as I would like

 

[thewanderer]

Look up the Greek verb skandalizo. It means to place a stumbling block, to entice or to cause to fall away (make to offend). It is a word of action used in the scriptures I provided. The noun usage of the word, skandalon, refers to things causing the effects. It is found most often I believe in Matthew and paralleled in Luke 17:2. I do not have all my reference materials with me so you will have to do some research on your own here or wait for me to do it later.

You may not agree, but there it is. The original language is what it is and nothing less or more.

Let me ask you this, what do you think it means to say that we cause others to sin when we lead them into temptation? Do you think this means that the tempter is responsible for the sin and the sinner is not? In what way does a tempter “cause” another person to sin. They are not forcing them to sin, it is impossible to force another person to sin. They are clearly making it easier for others to sin, and so, are leading others into sin, but how is this a causation? The cause of the sinful action is still the choice of the will of the sinner, not the temptations he/she suffers. If you try to claim that the tempter is the cause rather than the sinner then you have a huge theological problem. If this is not what you mean by saying the tempter causes the other to sin could you please clarify what it is that you do mean?

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, sorry if I was a bit imprecise - I mean that in a case where people find modesty a sexual temptation, there’s really not much we can do. Dressing modestly is an obligation and we have to follow it. For example, if someone was incited to lust by the sight of someone going to Mass (I mean by the actual act of going to Mass, not by the appearance of the person who does so), or by the sight of Catholic school children conforming to their (modest) school dress code, then, well, those are necessary actions so there’s not much we can do.

But I agree that if, for example, someone somehow found that the color green caused serious temptation to lust, we should probably refrain from wearing green around that person out of charity, because that’s not much of an inconvenience at all. I don’t have my moral theology books with me at the moment so I can’t go as in-depth as I would like

Hypothetically, if you were in a society where the vast majority of men were more tempted by what is now considered modest clothing more than they were tempted by what is now considered immodest then we would have a moral obligation to wear the clothing which is most likely to protect our dignity and be least likely to present an occasion of sin to others. So if through some bizarrre twist of fate some culture should develop such a fetish for long skirts and baggy clothing that said clothing becomes inextricably linked with sexuality, it becomes the clothing worn by prostitutes etc then it would be immodest and sinful for you to wear said clothing in that society. It doesn’t matter how modest it may be in ours.

 

[underacloud]

I’m not sure why what Nacho45 is saying has been received with such an outcry.

Do we “cause” each other to sin? Yes, and Jesus gives a very strong warning against this:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

No one is advocating that men can avoid responsibility for their sin, if they lust over women, regardless of how the woman is dressed. No one (as far as I can tell) in this thread is advocating blaming the woman and letting the man escape with no culpability for his lust.

We should all dress modestly, so we don’t cause our borthers and sisters to sin. Or if you prefer, so we don’t create an occasion of sin for them.

And we should all be careful not to lust over our borthers and sisters, even if they dress immodestly.

 

[josie_L]

Each person is responsible for hi/her own sin. Blaming a woman for a man’s lust is a cop out and shameful.

I’m a woman, and although I would never suggest the idea that a woman who is immodestly dressed is asking for it, there is within our culture a lack of modesty. Women who dress in a very provocative manner, although they may have a right to dress this way, are lacking, whatever you may say, modesty (and to some degree and for some women I’m sure that their apparel is meant to entice and display their attributes for others to admire), thus I believe responsibility also lies with women, i.e., if modesty is to make a return than women need to reflect that through their persona and apparel.

P.S. I’m not suggesting we wear clothing that completely covers our legs and arms, back and chest, because I myself could not condone such a thing, however, like eating junk food, the amount of skin you reveal should be in moderation.

That’s my two cents.

 

[The_Bucket]

We should all dress modestly, so we don’t cause our brothers and sisters to sin. Or if you prefer, so we don’t create an occasion of sin for them.

And we should all be careful not to lust over our brothers and sisters, even if they dress immodestly.

It really is as simple as that folks.

 

[PaulinVA]

Two thoughts.

First, posters who are talking about men viewing women with lust. Do you really mean lust, or do you mean interest? Lust is sexual pleasure sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. Is that really it? I don’t think so. I think most people are talking about interest. It’s not right, but I don’t think it’s lust.

Second, this thread is about what people wear to Church, and a later post about a lay person asking someone to leave Mass due to how they are dressed. So, should a lay person, an usher, ever tell someone to leave Mass due to how they are dressed?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Do we “cause” each other to sin? Yes, and Jesus gives a very strong warning against this:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

“Little ones” as in impressionable children. With adults it is different.

A woman may dress provocatively; that in and of itself may be a sin. But she is not *forcing *a man to look at her. She may or may not be providing/offering a near occasion of sin, but unless a man acts on it he has not sinned.

 

[The_Bucket]

So, should a lay person, an usher, ever tell someone to leave Mass due to how they are dressed?

I would say almost never. Unless they are causing a widespread distraction by say, showing up in actual, literal underwear or something, no.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I would say almost never. Unless they are causing a widespread distraction by say, showing up in actual, literal underwear or something, no.

If a person is asked to leave mass because of inappropriate attire, there is no reason they cannot go home, change into something more appropriate and then come back to a later mass.

No one is forcing them to miss mass; the issue is their clothing.

 

[The_Bucket]

Prudence man, prudence. What if telling him/her to go home means that is the last time that person shows up at Mass ever again? Was it worth it?