Define Modesty?

[PennitentMan]

Hi there!

I need help defining this.

My thinking is not about pushing the boundaries per se, but I need to know if this is even defined in today’s terms.

If we exclude pornography, being the grave matter that it is, and as expressed in the CCC as real or simulated sex acts being displayed for third parties.

That leaves all other naked human body pictures in the realm of modesty and not pornography - again, se per the CCC

So, looking at this from varying points of view, we have various forms of nudity.

We I know that we have to take into consideration about provoking lust. If the purpose of the nudity is to provoke lust, then it’s obviously wrong and just by being there is an occasion to sin…a snare of the devil.

But having said that, today is not the same as 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. I mean showing an ankle in public was shameful, but nowadays, people walk around showing quite a lot more than that.

Here are two scenarios.

One instance:
Let’s say a woman dresses in a comfy low-rider pair of jeans, with a short, spaghetti-strap top on. She does this not to entice anyone, it’s hot out and she feels comfortable. She has no problem in the way that she dresses, she doesn’t feel immodest and doesn’t see it as immodest dress.

If I look at her, thinking wow, she looks pretty (face, body, hair, etc) how is that offending her modesty?
I’m not lusting after her, she doesn’t feel exploited, she feels comfortable in the clothes she chose, she doesn’t feel immodest.

The “line” so to speak is quite grey here. How do we know that modesty have been offended? How can we tell someone that their modesty have been offended if they don’t even think so? Her intensions are purely comfort, and I’m not going to go thinking what I wanna do with/to her or anything…

Another instance is art.
Let’s say there is a nude photo shoot. The purpose is art…study of light and shadow on the human form, for example.
Obviously the model is there freely and consenting to the photos. It’s not done to entice lust in anyone. It’s perfectly normal for them. How can I go and tell her that her modesty have been offended?

Didn’t Christopher West speak about “Naked without shame”?

I guess what I’m getting at is that I’m trying to reconcile this in my mind, basically.

When is modesty actually offended?
I’m thinking the parameters would be something like:
If the purpose is to entice lust.
If the person in question does not give full and willing consent to the portrayal of his/her body, and not feel totally comfortable that their modestly is not offended.

Then I think it’s so…otherwise, modesty is not offended, right?

My only problem is that thinking in this way, if the opportunity arises for me to see nude art, I’d still feel terribly nervous about it, even if modesty have not been offended, just because I’m incredibly scared of mortal sin.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!
PM

 

[Joannm]

Hi there!

I need help defining this.

My thinking is not about pushing the boundaries per se, but I need to know if this is even defined in today’s terms.

If we exclude pornography, being the grave matter that it is, and as expressed in the CCC as real or simulated sex acts being displayed for third parties.

That leaves all other naked human body pictures in the realm of modesty and not pornography - again, se per the CCC

So, looking at this from varying points of view, we have various forms of nudity.

We I know that we have to take into consideration about provoking lust. If the purpose of the nudity is to provoke lust, then it’s obviously wrong and just by being there is an occasion to sin…a snare of the devil.

But having said that, today is not the same as 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. I mean showing an ankle in public was shameful, but nowadays, people walk around showing quite a lot more than that.

Here are two scenarios.

One instance:
Let’s say a woman dresses in a comfy low-rider pair of jeans, with a short, spaghetti-strap top on. She does this not to entice anyone, it’s hot out and she feels comfortable. She has no problem in the way that she dresses, she doesn’t feel immodest and doesn’t see it as immodest dress.

If I look at her, thinking wow, she looks pretty (face, body, hair, etc) how is that offending her modesty?
I’m not lusting after her, she doesn’t feel exploited, she feels comfortable in the clothes she chose, she doesn’t feel immodest.

The “line” so to speak is quite grey here. How do we know that modesty have been offended? How can we tell someone that their modesty have been offended if they don’t even think so? Her intensions are purely comfort, and I’m not going to go thinking what I wanna do with/to her or anything…

Another instance is art.
Let’s say there is a nude photo shoot. The purpose is art…study of light and shadow on the human form, for example.
Obviously the model is there freely and consenting to the photos. It’s not done to entice lust in anyone. It’s perfectly normal for them. How can I go and tell her that her modesty have been offended?

Didn’t Christopher West speak about “Naked without shame”?

I guess what I’m getting at is that I’m trying to reconcile this in my mind, basically.

When is modesty actually offended?
I’m thinking the parameters would be something like:
If the purpose is to entice lust.
If the person in question does not give full and willing consent to the portrayal of his/her body, and not feel totally comfortable that their modestly is not offended.

Then I think it’s so…otherwise, modesty is not offended, right?

My only problem is that thinking in this way, if the opportunity arises for me to see nude art, I’d still feel terribly nervous about it, even if modesty have not been offended, just because I’m incredibly scared of mortal sin.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!
PM

Just a thought. Many of the figures in the Sistine Chapel are naked. If it is OK for the pope to look at this art work then it is probably all right for the rest of us. I majored in art in college and we had nude models in our drawing and painting classes…and this was a Catholic university. True, there is a line where art becomes pornography but I think most religious people can tell the difference.

 

[manualman]

There are two similar issues here mixed up: modesty and pornography.

Modesty is a virtue, but its manifestation is dependent on the culture in which you live. The best way to cultivate it is merely to take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask “What kind of message am I sending to others in the way I look? Am I projecting an image of a son/daughter of God or am I advertising meat?”

Pornography is similar, except in print instead of flesh. Rather unlike the flesh, nakedness in art can sometimes properly convey the message that the subject of the art is indeed a son/daughter of God. Pornography, on the other hand, merely uses images of the flesh to titillate.

For either one, mere written rules will not suffice. Only a properly formed conscience can tell the difference.

 

[skatepixie]

What is modest varries widely depending on the society. For example, to the Aztecs, nude was showing your navel. Showing your genitals or breasts, fine, whatever, but the navel was shameful. In fact, they humiliated their enemies by parading them around with their navels showing.

So, it’s imposible to say 100% what is modest for everyone. To me, it’s about avoiding occasion of sin for others. What that might be in the US is diffrent from where it would be elsewhere. It also depends what you’re doing and where you’re doing it. For example, there are things that are acceptable on the beach that aren’t in church. (duh! )

It’s all subjective, and intention is critical. For example, if your bathing suit breaks suddently, exposing you, that isn’t a sin. Yes, you would be embarassed and try to cover yourself, but it isn’t like you had decided to flash everyone, even if the result is the same.

 

[blessedtoo]

Hi there!

Greetings PM! I was just thinking about you the other day and wondering how you have been! Good to have you back! Hope you and your family are well!

But having said that, today is not the same as 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. I mean showing an ankle in public was shameful, but nowadays, people walk around showing quite a lot more than that.

I think we, as a culture, have become desensitized to such an extent that it takes a more shocking and realistic image than a painting, or a photo, or a scantily clad woman to cause a response. I don’t think that changes the concept of modesty itself as much as it speaks to how low the bar has been set.

Let’s say a woman dresses in a comfy low-rider pair of jeans, with a short, spaghetti-strap top on. She does this not to entice anyone, it’s hot out and she feels comfortable. She has no problem in the way that she dresses, she doesn’t feel immodest and doesn’t see it as immodest dress.

As a woman, I have to say that wearing low rider jeans with a short top which may expose the gut IS a definite attempt to attract attention. There is no credibility to the argument that a woman dressed like you described would be any cooler on a hot day than a woman dressed in a loose fitting cotton dress, or a t-shirt and a pair of walking shorts. And the way she feels doesn’t really play a part in the modesty question. I am fairly certain that the gals who wear tiny bikinis on the beach do not feel they are immodest and yet 90 percent of their bodies are exposed. And every woman who dons such attire KNOWS they will provoke a response. They are, in fact, depending on it.

I’m not lusting after her, she doesn’t feel exploited, she feels comfortable in the clothes she chose, she doesn’t feel immodest.

You may not lust after her, but certainly someone will. And she may not “feel” immodest, but she certainly may be. The question to ask this hypothetical woman is why is she dressed in a provocative manner? If she is honest, she will say she is seeking attention. The type of attention an exposed belly and rear will receive is, at the very least, questionable.

How can we tell someone that their modesty have been offended if they don’t even think so?

You can’t. Unless she is your 15 year old daughter! Your obligation in this scenario is to refrain from indulging in lustful thoughts. If you can look at a female who is dressed immodestly and not feel pulled into lustful thoughts, then you’re in good shape! (Of course, you have to hope the image doesn’t come back to you at some later time!) But that still doesn’t change the fact that she might, in fact, be dressing immodestly.

Her intensions are purely comfort

PM, it’s admirable of you to assume the wholesomeness of her intentions. Like I said before, a cotton summer dress is ultimately more comfortable than low rider jeans!

How can I go and tell her that her modesty have been offended?

You can’t. You have no obligation to correct another’s fashion and modesty faux pas. Staci and Clinton from “What Not To Wear” are getting paid the big bucks to do that!

If the purpose is to entice lust.

Or more broadly, male attention by using one’s body in a provocative way. I am sure if you asked the above woman whether she wants the man to feel lustful or simply attracted, she would say the latter. But she is using her body inappropriately and ineffectively to achieve her goal. Men, who are easily stimulated by visuals, are going to notice the body parts on display before contemplating the woman herself.

If the person in question does not give full and willing consent to the portrayal of his/her body, and not feel totally comfortable that their modestly is not offended.

Playboy playmates give full consent. I think their immodesty is clear.

My only problem is that thinking in this way, if the opportunity arises for me to see nude art, I’d still feel terribly nervous about it, even if modesty have not been offended, just because I’m incredibly scared of mortal sin.

As someone who viewed lots and lots of porn back in the day, I can tell you that viewing nudity in good art is completely innocuous. IMO, I can see more revealing displays on TV, in women’s magazines, and in films. And of course, if I did find nudity in art disturbing, I would simply stop looking!

God bless you PMan!

 

[GraceDK]

pennitentman.

Its all about culture.
St Paul says very clearly that when the law entered into the world, so did the recognition of sin.
Many of our fellow beings in heathen cultures have no desire to cause lust or have impure thoughts but we, in our very hightened awareness can be threatened by that awareness itself to make profane/passive things into blasphemy… as a religious science student I find it very true that all objects can, in a given circumstance, be made profane or sacred or unclean but things may well be passive in themselves… that to me eccoes some of Pauls thoughts very well… hope you follow me…

I remember the first time I went on a pilgrimage. I was a new believer in Jesus Christ. The place was realy hot hot hot and I wore a strap shirt and short shorts. I tell you from the bottom of my heart… I was 20 years old and had never heard of the Catholic ideas about modesty. I was innocent… shocked when a man told me I was tempting the young men in the area. shocked!.. and even scandalised I must say. This man was himself not wearing any shirt because of the heat… no good testimony to his point.I was humiliated… I thought “its all about the eyes that see” (actually it says so in the Bible… that clean eyes see clean things") but since then I have moderated my stance a bit.

In Islam men are taught that they will naturally be sexually aroused if they see the neck of a lady… and if she is not covered then she will get raped through her own fault. In my culture such thinking is absurd… but it is a reality… these young muslim men they WILL lust, get excited and so on … because they have been taught by another law that such is the nature of man.
woe to the woman. the law then causes the impulses and strong sentiments … the more law the stronger is the temptation… (that too is talked about by Paul at great length)

I hope I make my point clear. I am not advocating pornography or immodesty but healthy and critical thinking in the Christian man.
My dad never told me to not wear a strap shirt… not because he does not love me… but because he would not even consider that some men are so easily tempted… its not in our culture…

 

[PennitentMan]

Thanks you GraceDK and blessedtoo, that really did help my insight into the situation a lot.

Thanks also for all the other people that posted.

I want to make sure that I don’t put myself in a bad situation, and the points made helped.

Of course we will all stumble, especially if the temptation is extreme, but for everyday living, this had given me some good guidelines.

Thanks to all!

PM

 

[GraceDK]

Dear brother…
go into this link and listen to Christopher West who speaks about the theology of the body. Healthy Sexuality, could also be its name
catholic.com/radio/calendar_search.php

God bless you and long live the beauty of the body and healthy sexuality - a good gift of God.

 

[PennitentMan]

Dear brother…
go into this link and listen to Christopher West who speaks about the theology of the body. Healthy Sexuality, could also be its name
catholic.com/radio/calendar_search.php

God bless you and long live the beauty of the body and healthy sexuality - a good gift of God.

I’m very familiar with, but not too fond of Christopher West, actually - sorry.

Very good speaker and all, but his message is very, very generalized, and he puts NFP on a pedestal that is somewhat unattainable for some of us.
And then he makes it sound so easy and simple.

It isn’t.

Here’s a very funny, but true article on NFP:
crisismagazine.com/december2004/crocker.htm

But let’s not derail my own thread , thanks y’all!

Of course this is my very personal opinion.

 

[GraceDK]

dear pennitentman…
hey… dont apologize. If you wanna elaborate i’d be much more interested in that. You see, I am a convert to the Catholic Church… and sometimes it is very difficult to adjust to such a corpus of new thinking in the sexual area… and I am not very familiar with West’s thinking… just think that culture in generel is depraved of the idea of the beauty of our sexuality and I like the way West sort of encourages us to transform the way we look at things from within…
Anyway, brother… I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on this and the problems with NFP…can these methods really help the third world countries where there is so much suffering or is this an unattainable ideal? really … unless you wanna stop the thread now. Peace
…
“You are my Lord and my All, I found everything in You”

 

[PennitentMan]

dear pennitentman…
hey… dont apologize. If you wanna elaborate i’d be much more interested in that. You see, I am a convert to the Catholic Church… and sometimes it is very difficult to adjust to such a corpus of new thinking in the sexual area… and I am not very familiar with West’s thinking… just think that culture in generel is depraved of the idea of the beauty of our sexuality and I like the way West sort of encourages us to transform the way we look at things from within…
Anyway, brother… I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on this and the problems with NFP…can these methods really help the third world countries where there is so much suffering or is this an unattainable ideal? really … unless you wanna stop the thread now. Peace

Well, it’s a problem I (and a lot of others) have with NFP. It’s not just C.W. that elevates NFP like that, but I guess he’s just an easy target since he is a public speaker on it.

NFP has been nothing but problematic for my wife and I.

Firstly, it didn’t work properly, she is expecting a child from a genuine NFP failure, confirmed by doctors and even folks on this forum.

Secondly, when we were practicing it, it was like pulling teeth. When she’s in the mood, we can’t (Since woman are always in the mood during ovulation). The rest of the time I want to but she’s positively turned off sex (for her without ovulation, she’s just not interested in sex at all) So, that left us with a once every month or two months that we engaged in intimacy, after a supreme effort on her side to get interested (Great ego boost for me, hu?)

Now that she is pregnant, she is so sick from all sorts of pregnancy related complications (part of the reason why we were using NFP in the first place) that we are intimate even less.

I cannot think about what we are going to do after the baby is here.

So for people to say that NFP works 100%, and that it’s the answer to all your sexual problems, and that your wife and you will experience new depths of intimacy, and all that is just plain horse doooooo.

That article I posted earlier sums it up nicely.

It’s great that the Church teaches the sanctity of the marital act, I have no problem with that, but no one should go pushing NFP to the extent as it has been pushed. It’s not all that and a bag 'o chips.

So, to get to your point about third world countries, no it can’t. I have no faith in NFP, as pointed out above. I also don’t think that can you honestly think that you will sit people down that walk 5 miles to fetch water that is not infected with cholera, and whose daily worries include feeding their kids who haven’t had food for a week, to start plotting their temperature cycles, checking their cervix’s or examining their mucus. They WILL look at you like you are smoking crack.

So how do you combat STD’s and Aids in 3rd world countries? The only other catholic solution is abstinence.
Then you get headlines like these (From yesterday’s CWN website

UN official blames Church for spread of AIDS

Tegucigalpa, Oct. 24, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A UN official has blamed the Catholic Church for the spread of the HIV virus in Latin America.

Alberto Stella, who coordinates UN efforts to fight AIDS in central America, complained that condom use has been “demonized” by Catholic leaders in the region. He made the remarkable claim, “I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region” if condoms were always used.

Stella told the Reuters news service that sexual abstinence programs are “not working” as a means of curtailing the spread of AIDS. He reported that teenagers are becoming sexually active, eschewing the use of condoms, and therefore contracting the infection.

UN statistics show 1.7 million people in Latin American infected with the HIV virus, with over 400,000 new infections reported last year.

I don’t know man, I just don’t know.

Oh, I’m also a convert…approx 4 years now…

Sorry if this reply carries a depressive tone, I’m in a bad place right now, very much associated by my experiences as laid out above.

In Christ,
PM