Desensitized?

[Bluegoat]

How can you call it provocative when it is no longer provocative? If a designer was intending for a type of dress to provoke, shock, or cause sexual arousal but then give it a few years it loses that effect completely, doesn’t that defeat the designer’s purpose? That almost sounds like a good thing to be honest. :\

Firstly, because it still is provocative to many. Just not shocking, which is not the same thing. It may cease to be provocative to those people who find the shocking provocative - such people always need something new to get the same effect.

Secondly, because intent is very important, both from the point of view of being “sexy” and from the point of view of sinning. I’ll explain what I mean in both cases.

Often what we find arousing or sexy are things that in some way indicate that the person is trying to be arousing or sexy. So if all of a sudden a fashion came in that women who coloured their hands red were looking for a casual sexual partner, that would, to many people, become a provocative and arousing signal. Not because red hands are in themselves a turn-on, but because of what it means. So if a woman is wearing clothes designed to be sexy and arousing, she is saying something about how she sees herself (though sometimes unwittingly.) She is making a public statement of her sexuality and perhaps even availability. That is the signal being passed on, even if all of society is used to that style and no longer shocked by it. Right now, our culture has a lot of clothes that fall into this category for women.

From the point of view of sin - for a Catholic, modesty is an important virtue. THat can mean different things in different places as far as clothing and behavior. But the intent to be immodest is always a sin - even if it is a failure. So a person wearing clothes that are perfectly modest is still culpable if they are trying o be immodest.

So a type of clothing designed to be immodest represents a sin against modesty by the designer, even if no one finds it sexy. And by the person who wears it to be sexy, even if the effect is the opposite. Of course we can’t control what other people wear, but we shouldn’t involve ourselves in attempts at sinful behavior by others.

But remember - shocking and immodest are not the same. I wouldn’t be shocked to go into a strip club and see naked women, but that doesn’t mean that they are being modest. It is pretty clear what they mean. And personally, I find male strippers to be the opposit of provocative, but they aren’t being modest either.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

As Christians we are called on to rebuke sinners, though some are so militant in their sinfulness that they reject the authority of the Pope, even of God.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As Christians we are called on to rebuke sinners, though some are so militant in their sinfulness that they reject the authority of the Pope, even of God.

An attitude like that can be dangerously judgmental if all you do is judge a person by what he/she wears without looking at other aspects of his/her behavior.

 

[j2c99]

An attitude like that can be dangerously judgmental if all you do is judge a person by what he/she wears without looking at other aspects of his/her behavior.

Actually its very easy, and maybe even rightly so, to judge a person as violating the virtue of modesty when they are dressed in g-strings and whatever slutty bathing suit attire while collecting the money to send off to a Make-a-Wish kids foundation. Create any scenario you want… if someone is dressing immodest, then you can say they are dressing immodest and sinning against the virtue, so to speak.

Remember that old saying that we Catholics like to use… “the ends never justify the means”? Guess what it applies here too.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Actually its very easy, and maybe even rightly so, to judge a person as violating the virtue of modesty when they are dressed in g-strings and whatever slutty bathing suit attire while collecting the money to send off to a Make-a-Wish kids foundation. Create any scenario you want… if someone is dressing immodest, then you can say they are dressing immodest and sinning against the virtue, so to speak.

Remember that old saying that we Catholics like to use… “the ends never justify the means”? Guess what it applies here too.

Yeah sure, imply that a girl is dressing like a whore while she’s just standing there minding her own business not seducing anybody simply on the grounds that you can’t take your eyes off her miniskirt. You’re not gonna get kicked in the crotch for sure.

You know good 'ol Samuel 16:7? Guess what? It applies here too.

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually its very easy, and maybe even rightly so, to judge a person as violating the virtue of modesty when they are dressed in g-strings and whatever slutty bathing suit attire while collecting the money to send off to a Make-a-Wish kids foundation. Create any scenario you want… if someone is dressing immodest, then you can say they are dressing immodest and sinning against the virtue, so to speak.

Remember that old saying that we Catholics like to use… “the ends never justify the means”? Guess what it applies here too.

In this case, it seems clear there is immodesty. However, although I think many fashinable clothes are in fact immodest, it doesn’t always follow that the person wearing them is immodest.

In order for the person to be immodest, his or her intent must be immodest. Sometimes people, especially young women, wear clothes because they are trendy, or what their friends wear. Pre-teens and even teenagers often don’t have much self-reflection on this type of thing, they wear what the group is wearing, and what they see in magazines. Or they mistake provocative for feminine. Often, they become more aware of the import of such clothing later, as they mature, but not always.

There are other reasons people can wear inappropriate clothes, that are actual sins, too. Trying to shock people, or just not caring about social norms, or just not paying attention. Also vanity, displaying wealth or power through clothing, or any number of other things. Those are not the same as being immodest.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

An attitude like that can be dangerously judgmental if all you do is judge a person by what he/she wears without looking at other aspects of his/her behavior.

I speak strictly of behavior, but I think you know that. We are called upon to make rational judgments on people’s ACTS (statements included), not the state of their souls.

 

[j2c99]

In this case, it seems clear there is immodesty. However, although I think many fashinable clothes are in fact immodest, it doesn’t always follow that the person wearing them is immodest.

In order for the person to be immodest, his or her intent must be immodest. Sometimes people, especially young women, wear clothes because they are trendy, or what their friends wear. Pre-teens and even teenagers often don’t have much self-reflection on this type of thing, they wear what the group is wearing, and what they see in magazines. Or they mistake provocative for feminine. Often, they become more aware of the import of such clothing later, as they mature, but not always.

There are other reasons people can wear inappropriate clothes, that are actual sins, too. Trying to shock people, or just not caring about social norms, or just not paying attention. Also vanity, displaying wealth or power through clothing, or any number of other things. Those are not the same as being immodest.

I see what you’re trying to say. Yet regardless of the person’s culpability (though it might be reduced if they don’t know the precise morality behind their actions), they are breaking “a law”.

For instance, let’s say you are new to the United States. In your foreign country, driving on the left hand side of the road and going 100 mph is the norm. You go here, on the same visually looking type of road, renting the same type of car you have over there, and go that speed , you will get arrested or ticketed at the minimum. Does that mean the person who committed the crime is off the hook? No, the cops don’t care if they didn’t know the law, because they broke it regardless of knowledge of the precise law. Yes, maybe morally the guy is less culpable than a citizen of the US who should know the laws here, but he’s still guilty.

Not knowing what is or isn’t modest doesn’t negate the fact that a virtue is broken, or a sin is committed. Otherwise no one would be in trouble for the most part. But God knows everyones heart internally, so truth is always known by him about us whereas the government has no clue how to tell if a person really knew or didn’t know the law.

As for the other reasons people might wear such clothes as you said in your last paragraph, trying to “shock” people or wear thing with vanity in mind, are both sins if we look at it. Vanity is obvious, but I think when people have an aim to “shock” the majority, which I still think are properly-formed moral conscience individuals, then the aim is to rebel thus making it an act of pride.

 

[Bluegoat]

I see what you’re trying to say. Yet regardless of the person’s culpability (though it might be reduced if they don’t know the precise morality behind their actions), they are breaking “a law”.

For instance, let’s say you are new to the United States. In your foreign country, driving on the left hand side of the road and going 100 mph is the norm. You go here, on the same visually looking type of road, renting the same type of car you have over there, and go that speed , you will get arrested or ticketed at the minimum. Does that mean the person who committed the crime is off the hook? No, the cops don’t care if they didn’t know the law, because they broke it regardless of knowledge of the precise law. Yes, maybe morally the guy is less culpable than a citizen of the US who should know the laws here, but he’s still guilty.

Not knowing what is or isn’t modest doesn’t negate the fact that a virtue is broken, or a sin is committed. Otherwise no one would be in trouble for the most part. But God knows everyones heart internally, so truth is always known by him about us whereas the government has no clue how to tell if a person really knew or didn’t know the law.

As for the other reasons people might wear such clothes as you said in your last paragraph, trying to “shock” people or wear thing with vanity in mind, are both sins if we look at it. Vanity is obvious, but I think when people have an aim to “shock” the majority, which I still think are properly-formed moral conscience individuals, then the aim is to rebel thus making it an act of pride.

Well, sin is only sin if we know the law, as Paul tells us, which was my point. Not knowing really is an excuse with God. Laws of government are not quite the same, but in the case of immodesty, that is not usually an issue, at least around here. The government doesn’t really care about sin per se. They care about law and order.

I agree that shocking people on purpose is almost always a sin, and vanity is a sin as well. They aren’t the same as immodesty though. People tend to assume all sin related to clothing is immodest, but that is really not the case. If you try and oppress someone by telling them their whole body is evil and so they must cover it up, that is a sin, and modesty may even be the excuse to enforce it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Actually its very easy, and maybe even rightly so, to judge a person as violating the virtue of modesty when they are dressed in g-strings and whatever slutty bathing suit attire while collecting the money to send off to a Make-a-Wish kids foundation. Create any scenario you want… if someone is dressing immodest, then you can say they are dressing immodest and sinning against the virtue, so to speak.

Remember that old saying that we Catholics like to use… “the ends never justify the means”? Guess what it applies here too.

Oh, but the Bible, those Ten Commandments, all of Christianity—aren’t they just antiquated superstitions that we need to tailor to meet our modern, ‘sophisticated, enlightened’ needs?

 

[KrazyKaiju]

I understand where you might be coming from with prostitutes and sex acts but there is still a negatively affected party in the matter (such as the prostitutes, the viewers etc). What I want to discuss mainly is cases where there is absolutely no negatively affected party at all. Look at my example with the switching skirts again. If a guy is not turned on despite how many times you switch between a long skirt and a mini-skirt or a bathing gown and a bikini, why should you then label it as “desensitized” (a.k.a. bad)?

To be honest, it doesn’t seem like desensitization is a bad thing in itself. Take another semi-controversial example: the military. Assume we are involved in a “just war” and are the “good guys” (for lack of a better term). We don’t want our soldiers chickening out and turning tail - we want to win and promote justice! Desensitization might be favorable and permissible, for it would help our soldiers to become efficient killers and win the war. (Assuming there’s no negative post-war side effects)

But the permissibility of desensitization might depend on its “depth”. On one hand, a soldier could be desensitized to killing enemy units. Good. On the other, he/she could be desensitized to killing people in general. Maybe that soldier will pillage some villages, take out some children, and commit some terrible acts to get the war moving faster. Not cool.

Desensitization, by itself, is probably permissible, but when it’s coupled with certain facts, it may not be. Let’s go back to bikinis.

Case 1: A man could be completely “desensitized” to suggestive posters and be completely unaroused.
Pro: He is not objectifying women. He’s not treating them like something they are not - namely, a “mere object” or “mere means” (Kantian reference).
Con: He may not be moved to do anything about the media’s sex obsession. It is affecting others’ state with God (males/females who ARE aroused, women who choose to pose, media giants who put this stuff out there). However, the man under discussion may not find this terribly obvious.

Case 2: A man could be “desensitized” inasmuch that objectifying women is second nature - no unsettled feelings attached.
Pro: Mm…Can’t think of one.
Con: He’s objectifying a woman, which we will assume is wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z. He does not realize the full reality of his act. (i.e. stuff in the moral sphere)

To really evaluate the arguments presented here, we must have a very concise definition of desensitization and must talk about the depth of desensitization. I hope that was helpful.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Case 1: A man could be completely “desensitized” to suggestive posters and be completely unaroused.
Pro: He is not objectifying women. He’s not treating them like something they are not - namely, a “mere object” or “mere means” (Kantian reference).
Con: He may not be moved to do anything about the media’s sex obsession. It is affecting others’ state with God (males/females who ARE aroused, women who choose to pose, media giants who put this stuff out there). However, the man under discussion may not find this terribly obvious.

Just saying, your “pro” here can be more of a “con”.
You use suggestive posters - what do you mean? I’m envisioning some wellendowed woman throwing herself out towards the camera. By the point that one does not consider this a problem, he may already be objectifying women so much that he desires more than skintight and revealing outfits.

So I get back to my original analysis of desensitivity - it’s not always what you look at or are forced to look at - it’s how you do it.

You see a poster of said woman in the above poster for our example. Let’s say the man is to a point desensitivized, so upon looking at said poster, he feels no sexual urge. From here there is a correct response and an incorrect response.
Correct reponse: is to despize the sin of immodesty being portrayed.
Incorrect response: utter ignorance.

To use the example of Japan where standard school uniforms for girls are generally immodest by our standards, the correct response is to think that they really should be longer and maybe to say something about it. The incorrect response would be to ignore it and say “well…”

I’m still a student and frankly most of the girls dress immodestly. It would probably be rude to say anything, but that doesn’t mean we can view the dress as acceptable even if not preferred. Any form of immodest dress is unacceptable. Period. But that’s for the person wearing it. The Christian forced to come into visual contact with it still has a responsibility to hate the sin and love the sinner.

Pax.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

To be honest, it doesn’t seem like desensitization is a bad thing in itself. Take another semi-controversial example: the military. Assume we are involved in a “just war” and are the “good guys” (for lack of a better term). We don’t want our soldiers chickening out and turning tail - we want to win and promote justice! Desensitization might be favorable and permissible, for it would help our soldiers to become efficient killers and win the war. (Assuming there’s no negative post-war side effects)

But the permissibility of desensitization might depend on its “depth”. On one hand, a soldier could be desensitized to killing enemy units. Good. On the other, he/she could be desensitized to killing people in general. Maybe that soldier will pillage some villages, take out some children, and commit some terrible acts to get the war moving faster. Not cool.

.

The Church is not, and has never been, anti-war.

Nice of you to look down upon the blood sacrifice made by our brave soldiers so you could continue to live in a country that allows your freedom to gripe about them. It does not sit well with those who appreciate their courage, obedience, and sense of duty, all qualities sadly lacking in this neo-pagan world.

The truth is not a matter of public opinion.

 

[KindredSoul]

The Church is not, and has never been, anti-war.

Nice of you to look down upon the blood sacrifice made by our brave soldiers so you could continue to live in a country that allows your freedom to gripe about them. It does not sit well with those who appreciate their courage, obedience, and sense of duty, all qualities sadly lacking in this neo-pagan world.

The truth is not a matter of public opinion.

We’ve strayed off-topic, but…it seems to me that KrazyKaiju was not trying to insult the occupation of soldier or belittle their bravery at all. Re-read his post, I beg you, and unless I have gravely missed something, you will find that he was saying that if soldiers became desensitized to killing in general so that they could easily take the lives of non-combatants and innocents (as opposed to killing an aggressor in war) then it would be bad. In fact, he granted that there definitely is a time and a place when war is acceptable, and that soldiers being desensitized enough to undertake that necessary task without breaking are not doing anything wrong… The very fact that he suggested that in his hypothetical example we were fighting a Just War, shows that he believes, as does the Church, that a war can be fought justly under the right circumstances. As for the Church not being anti-war, I assume that you would agree with the caveat that the Church is in fact against those wars which do not conform to the guidelines of Just War: catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp, which means we are in fact on the same page.

We seem to me to be on the same side of truth, both in the main topic of this thread and on this aside, so let us not misunderstand each other in such a way that divides us needlessly.

Likewise, let us not derail the thread

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[NoWhereMan]

Wars are caused because the Laws Of God are not obeyed, The Catholic Church doesn`t condone wars. We should avoid war at all costs

 

[MarysGirls]

Wars are caused because the Laws Of God are not obeyed, The Catholic Church doesn`t condone wars. We should avoid war at all costs

Many apologies for pulling this thread farther off topic…

It’s true that wars are caused because the Laws of God are not obeyed, but the Church does allow for a just war. In the act of defending innocents sometimes violence is necessary (sadly). Of course, the war is only justified if all other alternatives have been considered and violence is the best one…

Okay, back to the original topic!

 

[NoWhereMan]

Many apologies for pulling this thread farther off topic…

It’s true that wars are caused because the Laws of God are not obeyed, but the Church does allow for a just war. In the act of defending innocents sometimes violence is necessary (sadly). Of course, the war is only justified if all other alternatives have been considered and violence is the best one…

Okay, back to the original topic!

As far as I am concerned, these threads go on & off topics frequently. I am amazed at some of the stuff people throw into these threads. Besides when people are having conversations, it always tends to lead to other topics

 

[MarysGirls]

As far as I am concerned, these threads go on & off topics frequently. I am amazed at some of the stuff people throw into these threads. Besides when people are having conversations, it always tends to lead to other topics

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I understand where you might be coming from with prostitutes and sex acts but there is still a negatively affected party in the matter (such as the prostitutes, the viewers etc). What I want to discuss mainly is cases where there is absolutely no negatively affected party at all. Look at my example with the switching skirts again. If a guy is not turned on despite how many times you switch between a long skirt and a mini-skirt or a bathing gown and a bikini, why should you then label it as “desensitized” (a.k.a. bad)?

Depends on the way the prostitutes are being depicted and it depends on the TV show: I’ve noticed a lot of crime procedurals are shifting away from the “Pretty Woman” model (ie. gorgeous girls in skimpy outfits) and putting said skimpy outfits on very unappetizing-looking women, which apparently is a bit closer to reality; my mother and I were watching “COPS” a week or two ago, and they featured a prostitution sting operation in which two officers were pretending to be “Johns” picking up local streetwalkers so they could be arrested for solicitation. Said streetwalkers weren’t wearing halter tops and min-skirts, they were wearing jeans and tee shirts; they looked like regular women, not stunning vixens, too. I guess it’s really about what’s going on in one’s mind and heart, and not so much what’s on the surface.