Desensitized?

[Lost_Wanderer]

Okay, I’ve noticed people have been saying that when society is no longer outraged at what is “traditionally” being called immodest (let’s say the mini-skirt and the bikini for example) it is a sign of desensitization.

Now my question is, just what do you mean by that exactly? Are you saying that because a person is not turned on by something you would “normally” call immodest, that person is “desensitized”? That it is bad? Why is it bad? The person is not having lustful thoughts. Nobody is being degraded into a sex object. So why?

I mean, if a girl would switch between a long skirt and a short one and the guy looking at her isn’t being turned on either way, would be it still be logical to say the short one is still bad?

If so, why? :ehh:

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Let’s turn the question on its ear.

So what if people aren’t moved to pity and outrage because of abortion and euthanasia? What’s so bad about that? Why is being ‘desensitized’ considered bad?

 

[Leonius]

Okay, I’ve noticed people have been saying that when society is no longer outraged at what is “traditionally” being called immodest (let’s say the mini-skirt and the bikini for example) it is a sign of desensitization.

Now my question is, just what do you mean by that exactly? Are you saying that because a person is not turned on by something you would “normally” call immodest, that person is “desensitized”?

No that is not what is been said. By desensitised it is meant that people are no longer shocked that someone would dress in such a lascivious way or consider it immoral.

Such salacious. forms of dress still do arouse lust and always will do.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Let’s turn the question on its ear.

So what if people aren’t moved to pity and outrage because of abortion and euthanasia? What’s so bad about that? Why is being ‘desensitized’ considered bad?

You’re comparing apples to oranges. In abortion and euthanasia, there is a negatively affected party.

With regards to different forms of dress however, there is still a chance that nobody is being affected. I mean tribal people in some remote areas in the world don’t wear much either (look at African bushmen for example).

Such salacious. forms of dress still do arouse lust and always will do.

Are you truly certain of that? Aside from tribal people, here’s another (albeit fancy) example. Often times when I play games or when I write fantasy fiction, I have characters (most often girls) who dress in rather ‘light’ clothing. The reason for this is because the manner they fight with is reliant on agility and stealth. The modest clothing that so many traditional-minded Catholics find ideal however, would provide anything but that. Long dresses snag and they restrain a good deal of the leg movement necessary for long jumps, rapid kicks, quick dashes etc… Furthermore, in the heat of all the intense movement, I don’t find anything sensual at all. The impact of their attacks, the speed of which they move, and the intensity of their combos… you tend to focus more on the what the character is doing instead of wearing.

And believe me, that impression can lost long after the fight’s over… o.o

 

[edwest2]

It happens gradually. Very gradually. That way, those being desensitized often miss it.

The effect is made to seem inevitable. For example, that ‘old’ movie, TV show or record was tame by today’s standards. This, according to a voice on the radio or TV. Whose standards? What standards? People, especially the young, are led to believe that things are constantly changing.

The young are also told that something “new” is not your mother’s or father’s music/car/whatever. You must possess the new. The old is, well, old. Old is bad.

So, when a small, elite group of fashion designers decide that skirts will be shorter, they dress the most beautiful women in them and put them in movies or ads or wherever else people might see them. The same with bikinis.

For men, this is like drug addiction. And the media knows this. So, what was at first a little risque becomes a little more explicit until, after about 30 years, graphic images of prostitutes are sold in adult bookstores and later, on the internet. People are told that this is “adult entertainment” and are led to believe that it is OK. Kids’ entertainment over here, and adult entertainment after the kids are in bed.

Soon, like at this year’s prestigious Cannes Film Festival, they are showing a film about bestiality called Zoo, without judgment.

Soon, people begin to tolerate almost anything.

I urge my fellow Catholics and others of good will to consider this: if you teach your children something is wrong, don’t do it yourself. Or if you have a problem with something, get help. Don’t give your kids the message that profanity and graphic images of prostitutes engaged in sex acts are not for kids, but it will suddenly be OK when they become adults. Honor your father and mother. And keep right and wrong in your hearts from youth to adulthood.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So, when a small, elite group of fashion designers decide that skirts will be shorter, they dress the most beautiful women in them and put them in movies or ads or wherever else people might see them. The same with bikinis.

For men, this is like drug addiction. And the media knows this. So, what was at first a little risque becomes a little more explicit until, after about 30 years, graphic images of prostitutes are sold in adult bookstores and later, on the internet. People are told that this is “adult entertainment” and are led to believe that it is OK. Kids’ entertainment over here, and adult entertainment after the kids are in bed.

Soon, like at this year’s prestigious Cannes Film Festival, they are showing a film about bestiality called Zoo, without judgment.

Soon, people begin to tolerate almost anything.

I urge my fellow Catholics and others of good will to consider this: if you teach your children something is wrong, don’t do it yourself. Or if you have a problem with something, get help. Don’t give your kids the message that profanity and graphic images of prostitutes engaged in sex acts are not for kids, but it will suddenly be OK when they become adults. Honor your father and mother. And keep right and wrong in your hearts from youth to adulthood.

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)?

 

[edwest2]

Modesty protects virtue. When a woman shows a lot of skin, that is considered immodest. It is considered inappropriate. If a man no longer reacts, that is not a universal remedy for all.

The dignity of the human person must be protected. Virtue guards beauty against exploitation. This idea of virtue must be possessed by men and women. As I watched the media expose people to gradually increasing levels of sexuality over the last 40 years, people stopped thinking something wrong is wrong. They forget about shame, guilt or modesty. They began to expect more and worse forms.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

Modesty protects virtue. When a woman shows a lot of skin, that is considered immodest. It is considered inappropriate. If a man no longer reacts, that is not a universal remedy for all.

The dignity of the human person must be protected. Virtue guards beauty against exploitation. This idea of virtue must be possessed by men and women. As I watched the media expose people to gradually increasing levels of sexuality over the last 40 years, people stopped thinking something wrong is wrong. They forget about shame, guilt or modesty. They began to expect more and worse forms.

Peace,
Ed

But how much skin is allowed varies from culture to culture- which to we judge a person’s modesty by?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

When a woman shows a lot of skin, that is considered immodest. It is considered inappropriate. If a man no longer reacts, that is not a universal remedy for all.

But how much skin is allowed varies from culture to culture- which to we judge a person’s modesty by?

My point exactly. Again, ed, I’m afraid like so many others, you’ve avoided my examples and scenarios. There are tribal people from various parts of the globe who are known for hardly wearing anything and it is considered normal for them. I still do not understand why you think it’s bad when a man does not show a lustful reaction. I mean, frankly shouldn’t that be a good thing? How can a person’s virtue be violated in that manner? Our first parents, Adam and Eve, were both naked when they were first created yet there was no lust between them. The Lord did not protest.

 

[jjb5985]

When a woman shows a lot of skin, that is considered immodest. It is considered inappropriate.

Peace,
Ed

Defining modesty as a woman showing a lot of skin raises issues for me. Would the paintings on the Sistine Chapel therefore be considered immodest? A woman posing in an art class? A woman showing certain parts of herself to a doctor of the opposite sex for medical diagnosis?

Circumstance and intent have to be brought into account making it a matter of more than just “showing a lot of skin = immodest”.

Point being, I can see a girl who may not be technically showing a large amount of skin but still be considered immodest by the nature of her clothes. I’m thinking night club type scenarios where I would say I’ve seen some immodest dress that seemed purely a means of arousing sexual desire. It’s hard to objectivly define what makes something immodest. A lot of our ordinary dress would be immodest by some strict Islamic standards.

 

[Leonius]

You’re comparing apples to oranges. In abortion and euthanasia, there is a negatively affected party.

With regards to different forms of dress however, there is still a chance that nobody is being affected. I mean tribal people in some remote areas in the world don’t wear much either (look at African bushmen for example).

Such tribal people also lead promiscuous life’s with multiple sexual partners, they are not an example of Christian morality.

Are you truly certain of that?

Yes I am 100 percent certain of this. There are plenty of men whose main reason for going to the beach is to check out the women in the bikini’s for example.

Aside from tribal people, here’s another (albeit fancy) example. Often times when I play games or when I write fantasy fiction, I have characters (most often girls) who dress in rather ‘light’ clothing. The reason for this is because the manner they fight with is reliant on agility and stealth. The modest clothing that so many traditional-minded Catholics find ideal however, would provide anything but that. Long dresses snag and they restrain a good deal of the leg movement necessary for long jumps, rapid kicks, quick dashes etc… Furthermore, in the heat of all the intense movement, I don’t find anything sensual at all. The impact of their attacks, the speed of which they move, and the intensity of their combos… you tend to focus more on the what the character is doing instead of wearing.

And believe me, that impression can lost long after the fight’s over… o.o

Fictitious drawings are not as powerful as real life women, and most women do not live the fantasies you indulge in.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Such tribal people also lead promiscuous life’s with multiple sexual partners, they are not an example of Christian morality.

Got any research to back that up? I read it up on Wiki (which in turn, cited a book) that because of their low-fat diet, bushmen women typically had late first menstruations and did not begin bearing children until about 18 or 19 years of age. Births were spaced four years apart, due to lack of enough breast milk and requirements of mobility that made feeding and carrying more than one child at a time difficult.

Yes I am 100 percent certain of this. There are plenty of men whose main reason for going to the beach is to check out the women in the bikini’s for example.

I guess I’m a real exception then.

Fictitious drawings are not as powerful as real life women, and most women do not live the fantasies you indulge in.

That was not my point. My point is, if a person is no longer sexually aroused by how a girl dresses, perhaps due to the interference of other factors, why would you still consider it bad?

 

[johngh]

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)?

Simply because while there might be some guys out there that a long skirt or a mini-skirt would make no difference to them (and quite frankly, I doubt men like that exist), there will always be people that WILL be effected. It doesn’t matter if you cause one person to have lustful thoughts or 10, it’s still wrong.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Simply because while there might be some guys out there that a long skirt or a mini-skirt would make no difference to them (and quite frankly, I doubt men like that exist), there will always be people that WILL be effected. It doesn’t matter if you cause one person to have lustful thoughts or 10, it’s still wrong.

Then what would be the point of it all? Long skirt or short, it wouldn’t matter then if you cause lustful thoughts in a person’s mind.

 

[Leonius]

Got any research to back that up?

Do you doubt me?

I read it up on Wiki (which in turn, cited a book) that because of their low-fat diet, bushmen women typically had late first menstruations and did not begin bearing children until about 18 or 19 years of age. Births were spaced four years apart, due to lack of enough breast milk and requirements of mobility that made feeding and carrying more than one child at a time difficult.

So if I write it on wiki that they lead promiscuous life’s then you will believe?

I guess I’m a real exception then.

There are always exceptions, but exceptions to not prove the rule. What effects you personally is not of any relevance as we are talking about society in general.

That was not my point. My point is, if a person is no longer sexually aroused by how a girl dresses, perhaps due to the interference of other factors, why would you still consider it bad?

First you would need to prove that no one would be aroused by it which you cannot do secondly if the effect of the clothing is only mitigated due to external factors then the mode of dress would still be intrinsically indecent by its very nature.

Now here is the research you requested:

“Promiscuity, especially the total number of sexual partners, is correlated with AIDS in both the United States and Africa [34,35]. Although generalizations are difficult, most traditional African societies are promiscuous by Western standards. Promiscuity occurs both premaritally and postmaritally. For instance in the Lese of Zaire, there is a period following puberty and before marriage when sexual relations between young men and a number of eligible women are virtually sanctioned by society. The father of a woman may judge the suitability of the man on the basis of the perceived willingness to invest in his daughter [36]. In the so-called “matrilineal belt” centered in south-central Africa, there is an especially high degree of adolescent promiscuity and uncertainty about paternity. This situation has probably contributed to the prominent family role of the mother’s brother. For example family wealth is inherited by offspringe of the maternal uncle rather than by patrilineal descendents from the husband. That is, wealth is passed on to a known biologic relative, rather than to the offspring of a wife who may or may not be biologic kin. Matrilineal inheritance thus may reduce societal pressure to prevent promiscuity; matrilineal societies are often promiscuous societies [37]. However, promiscuity is correlated not only with matrilineal societies. Many patrilineal African societies are promiscuous as well.” cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/hrdy1/

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Do you doubt me?

So if I write it on wiki that they lead promiscuous life’s then you will believe?

Yes, highly. For one, you don’t back up your claim with regards to the tribal people I mentioned (unlike the wiki article I cited). How can bushmen have such restrictions on giving birth and at the same time, the same level of promiscuity you mention?

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you highlighted one portion of the research yet did not care to take note of the line before it that says:

"Although generalizations are difficult, most traditional African societies are promiscuous by Western standards. Promiscuity occurs both premaritally and postmaritally. For instance in the Lese of Zaire, there is a period following puberty and before marriage when sexual relations between young men and a number of eligible women are virtually sanctioned by society.

Furthermore, nowhere does it state that the promiscuity in these societies is the result of how the women dress. There are also portions in your source that say that urbanized regions of Africa have higher levels of promiscuity. Bushmen are indigenous nomads so I’m afraid I can’t really say using your source is very good for this discussion. (Especially since it’s from an article discussing HIV and not immodest clothing).

There are always exceptions, but exceptions to not prove the rule. What effects you personally is not of any relevance as we are talking about society in general.

You say you are 100% certain. Therefore, even one person (though I highly doubt I’m the only one) is an exception that is no longer 100%. It’s common sense. Just thought I’d point that out.

First you would need to prove that no one would be aroused by it which you cannot do secondly if the effect of the clothing is only mitigated due to external factors then the mode of dress would still be intrinsically indecent by its very nature.

I’m not saying nobody. I’m merely saying that if people are ceasing to be turned on/aroused by what has been traditionally deemed immodest, it shouldn’t be seen as a negative sign of the times. Answer the question. What difference would it make if a girl switched between “modest” and “immodest” attire if a man won’t be turned on either way?

Furthermore, saying clothes are intrinsically anything is quite extreme. As I’ve already cited before, many of the girls I’ve seen dress, not to arouse, but to allow more movement. When you’ve managed to show a girl doing kung fu in a big, puffy ball gown, let me know.

 

[ac_claire]

I guess I’m a real exception then.

That was not my point. My point is, if a person is no longer sexually aroused by how a girl dresses, perhaps due to the interference of other factors, why would you still consider it bad?

Maybe you are the exception, but most men are not as virtuous or dsiciplined as you claim to be. Are you trying to say that because you aren’t affected by these sights of scantily-clad women, then nobody should be? How does that logically follow?

Also, the Church teaches modesty in dress. Not modesty in dress unless you’re around one of those rare people who claims to not be vulnerable to temptation.

 

[Leonius]

Yes, highly. For one, you don’t back up your claim with regards to the tribal people I mentioned (unlike the wiki article I cited). How can bushmen have such restrictions on giving birth and at the same time, the same level of promiscuity you mention?

So because I disagree with you I am a liar? I am not aware of the specific tribal people you are talking about but I did show you that other tribal people are highly promiscuous as you requested. I write articles on wiki by the way just so you know. It is quite easy to restrict the number of babies while still having promiscuous sex.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you highlighted one portion of the research yet did not care to take note of the line before it that says:

I did note that line, it does not negate the rest of the passage, STD’s such as Aids do not lie they are a clear indicator of promiscuous activity.

Furthermore, nowhere does it state that the promiscuity in these societies is the result of how the women dress.

I did not claim that it did it was merely presented to negate your claim that as some communities go around semi-nude then it must be ok. You did not think that through because you have already decided that you quite like women to dress immodestly.

You say you are 100% certain. Therefore, even one person (though I highly doubt I’m the only one) is an exception that is no longer 100%. It’s common sense. Just thought I’d point that out.

I said that I was 100% certain that immodest forms of dress do arouse lust in people I did not say the same thing causes lust in 100% of the population, you are clutching at straws.

I’m not saying nobody. I’m merely saying that if people are ceasing to be turned on/aroused by what has been traditionally deemed immodest, it shouldn’t be seen as a negative sign of the times. Answer the question. What difference would it make if a girl switched between “modest” and “immodest” attire if a man won’t be turned on either way?

Furthermore, saying clothes are intrinsically anything is quite extreme. As I’ve already cited before, many of the girls I’ve seen dress, not to arouse, but to allow more movement. When you’ve managed to show a girl doing kung fu in a big, puffy ball gown, let me know.

I am not interested in your theoretical questions I live in reality I suggest you come join me. In the real world people are still affected by lust as they always have been. Everyone knows that certain styles and modes of dress are sexually provocative, furthermore utility is not the priority when choosing clothing, it is far more important that the clothing be dignified.

http://www.japanator.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/samurai3.gif

This Samurai is dressed modestly and is not impeded by it, he does not have any problem killing people while dressed like this.

http://www.dailycognition.com/content/image/crouching_l.jpg

The woman above is dressed modestly and is using kung fu.

This discussion is over.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Maybe you are the exception, but most men are not as virtuous or dsiciplined as you claim to be. Are you trying to say that because you aren’t affected by these sights of scantily-clad women, then nobody should be? How does that logically follow?

Also, the Church teaches modesty in dress. Not modesty in dress unless you’re around one of those rare people who claims to not be vulnerable to temptation.

My question is less about discipline and more about how society views things. People complain on these threads all the time about bikinis and mini skirts yet when somebody shows up and says they don’t mind or are not aroused, they instantly pull the desensitization card. I mean, frankly, I’m finding it stupid. If I ready a manga with nudity, people tell me it’s sinful, when I tell them (and prove to them) I don’t mind the nudity and am reading it for something else, they say I’m desensitized. At that point, I felt like all logic was now thrown out the window.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So because I disagree with you I am a liar? I am not aware of the specific tribal people you are talking about but I did show you that other tribal people are highly promiscuous as you requested. I write articles on wiki by the way just so you know. It is quite easy to restrict the number of babies while still having promiscuous sex.

I didn’t say you were a liar. I am asking for your sources. Many so-called African tribes nowadays dress roughly in the same fashion as rural, third world farming folk. Furthermore, as to your last statement, bushmen are nomads in the most primitive sense so if you’re going something along the lines of “they use condoms”, I’ll highly doubt it.

I did note that line, it does not negate the rest of the passage, STD’s such as Aids do not lie they are a clear indicator of promiscuous activity.

Yet you have not provided evidence that it is related to the type of clothes they wear.

I did not claim that it did it was merely presented to negate your claim that as some communities go around semi-nude then it must be ok. You did not think that through because you have already decided that you quite like women to dress immodestly.

You’re missing the point. I’m asking why is it that when people start saying they are not sexually aroused by some form of dress that is deemed “immodest” by the more traditional-minded crowd, it is a form desensitization and should be seen negatively? It doesn’t make any sense.

I said that I was 100% certain that immodest forms of dress do arouse lust in people I did not say the same thing causes lust in 100% of the population, you are clutching at straws.

No, I knew perfectly what you meant. You just need to turn your example around. If the potential for a dress to incite lust is 100%, yet some people remain unaffected then that reduces its effectiveness. It’s just the same way you can claim a certain brand of bug spray is 100% effective but when some bugs manage to form some immunity to the substance, the effectiveness is reduced.

I am not interested in your theoretical questions I live in reality I suggest you come join me. In the real world people are still affected by lust as they always have been. Everyone knows that certain styles and modes of dress are sexually provocative, furthermore utility is not the priority when choosing clothing, it is far more important that the clothing be dignified.

Tell that to the ladies who had always had to pick up their fat skirts before they could start running (and that’s not even considering whether or not they had high heels).

Look I know my questions sound theoretical but what they’re concerned with is pretty much real. People are slowly starting to claim that they are not aroused by bikinis yet instead of trying to meditate on this development, traditional-minded folks instantly cry out “desensitization” and brand it a negative sign of the times.

Siliconera - Welcome to the Unseen Side of Video Games!

This Samurai is dressed modestly and is not impeded by it, he does not have any problem killing people while dressed like this.

Do you know anything about samurai techniques or have at least seen the general flow of a duel? The fight is always on level ground. He’s not impeded because the only thing that needs to be flailing around is his sword, not his legs.

Ninjas on the other hand, they jump around all over the place. Also, many movies featuring modern-day assassins/spies (particularly female ones) are always portraying them with the least ‘baggy’ type of clothing. I mean look at Charlie’s Angels. Did you ever see them fight in those nun outfits in Full Throttle?

http://www.dailycognition.com/content/image/crouching_l.jpg

The woman above is dressed modestly and is using kung fu.

This discussion is over.

On the contrary, I was actually expecting an image like this. Sadly, pants aren’t deemed modest by some traditionalists so I’m afraid for the purpose of discussion, this example fails.