Desensitized?

[JSSebastianoP]

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.

Hi old friend! Just for techinical clarity, they were first nude due to a lack of original sin. When they brought sin into the world, the LORD GOD clothed them.

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.

I think that the part I highlighted is the problem in your statement.
My opinion: Reading manga with some images of nudity is probably okay, as long as we are reading it for something else (like you and I). The important part though is in fact to mind the nudity. You see it coming, just read the text blurb and move on to the next page (you know as well as I do that it’s all too easy to spot it coming - scene in an onsen or under a waterfall)…

I for one used to read a lot because of the nudity:banghead: but then I realized my sins. Even still, I couldn’t give up on the characters I had read so much about… So I developed a new technique of reading, when I come to a scene I know is gonna involve nudity, I just kind of skip over it… you know?

(On a side note, has anyone ever seen the film Cinema Paradiso? - I wish we still had priests like the one in that film…)

Do you see what I’m saying or does it not make sense at all?

Pax.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

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.

Just another tchnicality, traditionalists don’t necessarily view pants on women as immodest, but rather disordered. Slight difference in terminology…

Pax.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Hi old friend! Just for techinical clarity, they were first nude due to a lack of original sin. When they brought sin into the world, the LORD GOD clothed them.

Yeah but that pretty much proves my point further doesn’t it? Original sin entered and corrupted everything. That still doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t mind being nude only until after they ate the forbidden truth.

I for one used to read a lot because of the nudity:banghead: but then I realized my sins. Even still, I couldn’t give up on the characters I had read so much about… So I developed a new technique of reading, when I come to a scene I know is gonna involve nudity, I just kind of skip over it… you know?

I don’t know man… whether skipping over it or not minding it. I don’t see a difference. You’re not being aroused either way. In the end, what’s the problem?

One thing I like to do you see when I read is I actually try to imagine myself in similar scenarios. Say I’m in a highschool shounen and my partner is a girl in a sera-fuku. When I truly think about what it would be like, constantly fighting, having adventures, and doing all that intense stuff… it kinda just makes the outfits part of the background now. I mean, I wouldn’t really care for it anymore.

However, instead of trying to think deeply of what that means, people instantly say I’m just being desensitized. Great.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Just another tchnicality, traditionalists don’t necessarily view pants on women as immodest, but rather disordered. Slight difference in terminology…

Pax.

Yet treated with the same disdain as far as what I’ve seen on this site. :\

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Yeah but that pretty much proves my point further doesn’t it? Original sin entered and corrupted everything. That still doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t mind being nude only until after they ate the forbidden truth.

True. I wasn’t arguing against you, just correcting a technicality.

I don’t know man… whether skipping over it or not minding it. I don’t see a difference. You’re not being aroused either way. In the end, what’s the problem?

Hmmm… I think the difference is that in “not minding it” you come to accept it as normal, which it is not and shouldn’t be. Just because divorce is widespread in society, that doesn’t make it okay. See if you skip over it, you are purposefully avoiding it as an occasion to sin, but in not minding it you come to see it as normal. See what I’m saying or am I still just blabbing?

So, in the end the problem is not in arousal or not. As a priest once told me, don’t entertain the thought. It’s natural for all types of thoughts to enter the mind. So the sin is there, just don’t invite it to dinner.

The problem is the desensitization, which means that you view said “scantily cladness” as not a problem. And that is a problem. You have to mind it see. Whether you decide to cooperate with it and read for the story i.e. the principle of double effect, still viewing the scantiness as a sin. To go back to the divorce example, when people start viewing it as not a problem it becomes even more of a problem. “The worst thing that the devil can do to someone is make that person think the devil does not exist.”

There is a slight difference: skipping over it is avoiding something potentially sinful - thus inevitably minding it, while not minding it is desensitivity.

One thing I like to do you see when I read is I actually try to imagine myself in similar scenarios. Say I’m in a highschool shounen and my partner is a girl in a sera-fuku. When I truly think about what it would be like, constantly fighting, having adventures, and doing all that intense stuff… it kinda just makes the outfits part of the background now. I mean, I wouldn’t really care for it anymore.

True. Most schoolgirls are just told to wear the sera fuku anyway, and you can treat it as part of the backround, that’s fine. The problem is when you start thinking, “maybe miniskirts aren’t so bad…” It’s like when you watch a film, say one in which divorce is portrayed positively or at least neutrally for about five minutes of the film and we watch the film to see what else it has. The problem is not watching the scene per say.

Proper ways to handle situation:

1. don’t watch it in the first place
2. watch it, but realize that the divorce is a sin and it is being portrayed incorrectly

Improper ways to handle situation:

1. watch it and accept the divorce as okay

Just substitute “divorce” for (semi)nudity.

Make sense or am I still spouting incoherent words?

However, instead of trying to think deeply of what that means, people instantly say I’m just being desensitized. Great.

Now, that is a problem. And I empathize with you.

Yet treated with the same disdain as far as what I’ve seen on this site. :\

True. Though most traditionalists will incorrectly use “immodest” as a blanket term…

Pax.

 

[jjb5985]

From reading some of the posts, I get the sense that things are getting a little off topic. I believe both sides agree that there SHOULD be modesty and that immodest dress will likely incite lust in some, but not all people.

The question is “what is immodest”?

So, it’s possible someone won’t arouse lust in you but still be considered immodest in their dress. Afterall, if we are devout Catholics, we should be able to control our thoughts. That doesn’t mean bad things won’t pop into our heads (happens even when no women are around much less immodest ones), but we can choose whether we entertain those thoughts.

Likewise, it is possible for someone to arouse lust that ISN’T being immodest. If someone were to say say someone wearing clothes that arouses lust in even a couple people is immodest, they might not be taking into account when male hormones are raging, it doesn’t always mean immodest dress. A woman can incite lust into certain people despite dressing modestly and we can’t blame her for that.

The only way a girl could dress to virtually guarantee no one will lust after her would be fully covered like those in Islamic countries.

I will stand by my belief that immodesty has a lot to do with the circumstance and intention and less to do with stating that “X” article of clothing or “Y” amount of skin shown is always inherently immodest.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Hmmm… I think the difference is that in “not minding it” you come to accept it as normal, which it is not and shouldn’t be. Just because divorce is widespread in society, that doesn’t make it okay. See if you skip over it, you are purposefully avoiding it as an occasion to sin, but in not minding it you come to see it as normal. See what I’m saying or am I still just blabbing?

So, in the end the problem is not in arousal or not. As a priest once told me, don’t entertain the thought. It’s natural for all types of thoughts to enter the mind. So the sin is there, just don’t invite it to dinner.

The problem is the desensitization, which means that you view said “scantily cladness” as not a problem. And that is a problem. You have to mind it see. Whether you decide to cooperate with it and read for the story i.e. the principle of double effect, still viewing the scantiness as a sin. To go back to the divorce example, when people start viewing it as not a problem it becomes even more of a problem. “The worst thing that the devil can do to someone is make that person think the devil does not exist.”

There is a slight difference: skipping over it is avoiding something potentially sinful - thus inevitably minding it, while not minding it is desensitivity.

Well the thing is, I see a huge difference between divorce and nudity as well. The problem with divorce is that its effects are destructive. I am very aware of the effect it has on the family (especially children) and I know that it’s just wrong. Its effects are something you can never justify or get rid of. Plus, it is already in of itself a violation of God’s law with regards to the family.

When it comes to nudity or immodest dress however, the danger it presents is not necessarily inherent. The issue with it is that it can be a temptation to lust. The question is, what if it doesn’t turn out that way? What if the form of dress is generally not turning people on? Why is there still a need to condemn it and label the ones being immune as “desensitized”?

The only way a girl could dress to virtually guarantee no one will lust after her would be fully covered like those in Islamic countries.

I will stand by my belief that immodesty has a lot to do with the circumstance and intention and less to do with stating that “X” article of clothing or “Y” amount of skin shown is always inherently immodest.

That’s pretty much is more in line with what I’ve been trying to say actually. Different societies and civilizations have had different forms of dress that were not considered sexual or immodest yet immodest by the standards of those here in favor of traditional “modesty”. I really can’t understand why they have to constantly condemn and cry out “desensitization” over such things when they aren’t even sexually arousing the society/culture they are placed in.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Well the thing is, I see a huge difference between divorce and nudity as well. The problem with divorce is that its effects are destructive. I am very aware of the effect it has on the family (especially children) and I know that it’s just wrong. Its effects are something you can never justify or get rid of. Plus, it is already in of itself a violation of God’s law with regards to the family.

When it comes to nudity or immodest dress however, the danger it presents is not necessarily inherent. The issue with it is that it can be a temptation to lust. The question is, what if it doesn’t turn out that way? What if the form of dress is generally not turning people on? Why is there still a need to condemn it and label the ones being immune as “desensitized”?

I see more what you are saying now…
It’s a really difficult question and I’m not going to pretend to be articulate enough to express the answer. If you want, we could take it to “Ask an Apologist”.

Pax.

 

[jjb5985]

That’s pretty much is more in line with what I’ve been trying to say actually. Different societies and civilizations have had different forms of dress that were not considered sexual or immodest yet immodest by the standards of those here in favor of traditional “modesty”. I really can’t understand why they have to constantly condemn and cry out “desensitization” over such things when they aren’t even sexually arousing the society/culture they are placed in.

I came into this thread because I can relate very much to the same questions you have. Modesty is a legitimate issue and I absolutely believe in the Church that we should be modest, but its definition is something that has to take into account multiple factors of the culture, circumstance, intention, and so on.

Just like we are to avoid scandal, but what constitutes scandal isn’t black and white all the time.

 

[edwest2]

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

This is an old saying and I believe that everyone knows the answer. I think you and everyone reading this knows the answer. Have you read in the Bible where Jesus says that if we look at a woman and lust after her that we have already committed adultery in our hearts? That is the answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

In the United States, I think few of us will be exposed to the examples you mention. All you have to do is be honest with yourself, and the same for everyone else reading this.

You are not correct about Adam and Eve. The Bible tells us that after they sinned, they became aware of their nakedness and covered themselves.

The average man shows a lustful reaction to a partially nude or nude woman. That’s why there are strip bars and the like.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

It’s sad that the Sistine Chapel and Islam are brought into this. I am referring to the Western world and modern dress or lack thereof. I have covered art class and doctors before. These are specialized situations with rules. I have worked in health care and went to life drawing classes.

Hard to define? Not at all. Just be honest with yourself. Strip clubs would not exist if the partial or full nudity involved did not create lust. The same is true for bikinis and mini-skirts. I knew one woman who told me: :If I had legs like that I’d wear mini-skirts all the time." So it concerns vanity and modesty.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JSSebastianoP]

It’s sad that the Sistine Chapel and Islam are brought into this. I am referring to the Western world and modern dress or lack thereof. I have covered art class and doctors before. These are specialized situations with rules. I have worked in health care and went to life drawing classes.

Hard to define? Not at all. Just be honest with yourself. Strip clubs would not exist if the partial or full nudity involved did not create lust. The same is true for bikinis and mini-skirts. I knew one woman who told me: :If I had legs like that I’d wear mini-skirts all the time." So it concerns vanity and modesty.

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed! I think that the problem here isn’t the definition of modesty for which I guess I’d go for the no skirts above the knee and up to the sleeves, no collar bone etc.

The problem is how far can we go in interacting or not with the outside world? Just because we don’t like what others are doing sexually, should we shut ourself off and become hermits? Now, we all agree about not walking into a strip club, but just about every teenage girl that walks around town of whick there are plenty is dressed immodestly. Does that mean I should not ever leave my house? No; it means I should repudiate the sins for what they are but I have to learn to live with them somehow.

I mean, for example, the USCCB gives a rating of “limited” to the new film (funny people, which it says contains “Brief graphic nonmarital sexual activity, adultery, upper female nudity, pervasive rough and crude language, and a half-dozen uses of profanity.” The site says of the limited rating:

This is an extremely restrictive classification, suggesting a far narrower allowance than may sometimes be realized, and therefore excluding even most adult viewers. It had originally been the A-IV category. That had been defined as “certain movies that require some analysis and explanation in order to avoid mistaken interpretations and false conclusions.” The L, like the A-IV before it, is generally for those quality films that have more challenging material than an A-III in terms of nudity, sex, violence, or language, but are still worthy, if viewed in the appropriate Catholic context. In the 1960s, for instance, those increasingly permissive European films (from Bergman, DeSica, Fellini, and so on) which – at that time – far eclipsed what was allowed by the Hollywood production code, but were nonetheless works of great aesthetic value, were given the A-IV. To these, we would add some films that, if not necessarily worthy artistically, nonetheless are too strong for an A-III but not offensive enough to merit an O.

So, if we are exposed to such immodesty - as I am almost every single day of the school year, but always view them in the proper Catholic context, we should be alright, no?

 

[edwest2]

I suggest you pick up a good book about sex addiction or one to free yourself from pornography. God knows I’m not perfect, but I was taught, growing up, that it was impolite to stare, how to be polite to girls and young women, what was appropriate to say or do.

For some people, just like an alcoholic has to avoid situations and places where he knows from past experience he will be tempted, so do we have to avoid similar situations. It’s not about becomming a hermit but about showing proper respect for the other person. I was taught to open doors for ladies and other polite things to do to show my respect. When respect for the integrity and modesty of the other disappears, we see two people hopping into the sack like it’s no big deal. We need not go to the opposite extreme but we need to understand that it’s gone pretty far as far as exposed skin is concerned.

I will not go to a public beach again. I think that is a small price to pay to avoid seeing women in their underwear.

Examine yourself and see what steps you can take.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I suggest you pick up a good book about sex addiction or one to free yourself from pornography… …Examine yourself and see what steps you can take.

Peace,
Ed

To whom were these questions/advice given?

If to me, may I respectfully say that I’ve already fought that battle? Please see post #21.

Pax.

 

[edwest2]

To whom were these questions/advice given?

If to me, may I respectfully say that I’ve already fought that battle? Please see post #21.

Pax.

With all due respect, I know my posts are read by others. I was just offering a bit of advice for whoever might be reading. I’ve spoken to people who have said to me things like, “It’s been that way for 10, 20 or 30 years,” clearly suggesting that these things, like strip clubs and so-called adult bookstores, are permanent now, get used to it. Or cartoons that show a guy’s bare rear end – such a thing would never have been allowed in the past. I don’t have to get used to it. I am suggesting to my fellow Catholics in particular that things have indeed gone too far. That porn does not have to be on TV forever. That none of us have to get used to it. And that some of us may not realize how deeply we have gotten involved with it, partly because too many people we know have gotten used to it.

And for some, the same is true for divorce, abortion, cohabitation and other things we know are sinful.

I encourage my fellow Catholics to believe that with God all things are possible. I hear “What are we going to do? or What can we do?” Be sensitive to sin, not numb. Speak up for the truth, and don’t be silent. Too many promoting this sort of thing believe that eventually, after a given time period, religious people will abandon their objections.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

In the United States, I think few of us will be exposed to the examples you mention. All you have to do is be honest with yourself, and the same for everyone else reading this.

You are not correct about Adam and Eve. The Bible tells us that after they sinned, they became aware of their nakedness and covered themselves.

The average man shows a lustful reaction to a partially nude or nude woman. That’s why there are strip bars and the like.

Peace,
Ed

You’re still missing the point. All throughout the ages and across different cultures, there has always been a different definition of what is “sexy”. I mean in my Arts Appreciation class, we were taught that fat women were considered attractive some time during the Renaissance. A certain tribe in Burma is known for practicing neck stretching for they believe it is a good way to attract husbands.

I do no understand then, why do we have to label people as “desensitized” when a certain from of dress that is “immodest” by your standards is not deemed arousing to them? They’re not having lustful thoughts.

The same with Adam and Eve. I do not understand how you can say the awareness of their nakedness was a sign that it was sinful. Are you saying that they were desensitized already prior to their corruption? ?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

With all due respect, I know my posts are read by others. I was just offering a bit of advice for whoever might be reading. I’ve spoken to people who have said to me things like, “It’s been that way for 10, 20 or 30 years,” clearly suggesting that these things, like strip clubs and so-called adult bookstores, are permanent now, get used to it. Or cartoons that show a guy’s bare rear end – such a thing would never have been allowed in the past. I don’t have to get used to it. I am suggesting to my fellow Catholics in particular that things have indeed gone too far. That porn does not have to be on TV forever. That none of us have to get used to it. And that some of us may not realize how deeply we have gotten involved with it, partly because too many people we know have gotten used to it.

And for some, the same is true for divorce, abortion, cohabitation and other things we know are sinful.

I encourage my fellow Catholics to believe that with God all things are possible. I hear “What are we going to do? or What can we do?” Be sensitive to sin, not numb. Speak up for the truth, and don’t be silent. Too many promoting this sort of thing believe that eventually, after a given time period, religious people will abandon their objections.

Peace,
Ed

Again, the problem with your examples is that prostitution, divorce, abortion etc… these are all intrinsically evil. If I do recall, someone asked you the simple question about whether not nudity in of itself is inherently sinful. You never answered. I ask you again that question.

The issue with nudity is that it has the potential to tempt one into lust. However, when it does not turn out that way, why cry out “desensitization”?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

With all due respect,… Too many promoting this sort of thing believe that eventually, after a given time period, religious people will abandon their objections.

Peace,
Ed

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[edwest2]

You’re still missing the point. All throughout the ages and across different cultures, there has always been a different definition of what is “sexy”. I mean in my Arts Appreciation class, we were taught that fat women were considered attractive some time during the Renaissance. A certain tribe in Burma is known for practicing neck stretching for they believe it is a good way to attract husbands.

I do no understand then, why do we have to label people as “desensitized” when a certain from of dress that is “immodest” by your standards is not deemed arousing to them? They’re not having lustful thoughts.

The same with Adam and Eve. I do not understand how you can say the awareness of their nakedness was a sign that it was sinful. Are you saying that they were desensitized already prior to their corruption? ?

I took Art Appreciation also. It took a while, but I soon realized it was a combination of truth and propaganda.

This discussion does not concern all cultures and all time periods, it concerns the present and the Western world.

You apparently enjoy rewriting what I write for some reason. I wrote that after they sinned, they realized they were naked. OK?

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3:10 And he [Adam] said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
3:11 And he [God] said, Who told thee thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded that thou shouldest not eat?

Once again, I’m talking about today, right now. Young women are dressing like prostitutes because no one has taught them otherwise or their parents have given up. Some let the media babysit them, educate them and lead them. A young relative of mine said this after I asked her why she dressed like she did, “All my friends dress like this.”

I do not set the standards but the media certainly does. If you are studying to be an artist, look into the fashion industry. A tiny group of elite designers decide, not the people. They then find the most beautiful women and brainwash them. Paying them money to wear shameful and scandalous clothing. The media is involved in promoting this. Recently, on a local news channel, an anchor woman spoke about a Britney Spears concert where she would be seen in various forms of “dress and undress.” As a woman, she should have been ashamed to be part of such a blatant exploitation of another woman.

Peace,
Ed