Desensitized?

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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).

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

I am not comparing apples to oranges.

When common sense flies out the window and people fight for the ‘right’ to use dirty words, watch dirty shows, and dress like streetwalkers, desensitization has sunk in deep.

What are those sinful attachments compared to salvation?

I did not make up these laws. God did.

If people struggling to obey God had one-tenth the drive of those who gleefully and militantly disobey, we would not be swimming in this moral cesspit and calling it ‘normal.’

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I am not comparing apples to oranges.

When common sense flies out the window and people fight for the ‘right’ to use dirty words, watch dirty shows, and dress like streetwalkers, desensitization has sunk in deep.

What are those sinful attachments compared to salvation?

I did not make up these laws. God did.

If people struggling to obey God had one-tenth the drive of those who gleefully and militantly disobey, we would not be swimming in this moral cesspit and calling it ‘normal.’

Exactly. Just because a book uses a profanity or so does not disqualify it from having artistic value. So when reading/watching someone else’s work we must always use a Catholic perspective. If we’re talking about real life, then just because friends don’t dress modestly, we don’t have to disown them. But we always have to view everything with the proper angle.

Pax.

 

[Bluegoat]

There is a difference in desensitization and a change or difference in cultural norms. The one could, I suppose, over time affect the other.

Various cultures and societies have different ideas about what needs to be covered and what doesn’t, and what body parts are sexual, for both men and women. And you are quite right that in a culture where a certain body part is habitually exposed, it is usually not seen sexually.

Her in North America, for example, we don’t feel a woman with her head uncovered when outside of the family circle is immodest, and we do not see hair as a sexual signal in the same way that breasts are, for example. And many pious Catholic women wear skirts that show their ankles, which would have scandalized their great grandmothers. This reflects real cultural difference and change, not desensitization. In most cases it is morally neutral - the lady with her ankles showing is no less modest or pious than the Victorian lady.

Desensitization is something else. In the context of modern clothing and modesty, it doesn’t reflect the same kind of change. In this case, clothing that is purposfully immodest and provocative has become stylish. People do become desensitized to it - it doesn’t shock them to see it any more. In some cases it may not cause lust where it did ppreviously. (But this is hard to judge, some people never find provocative clothes that provocative, and why or why not can be very complex.) What hasn’t changed though, is that those styles are still intended to be provocative and immodest. A girl wearing a “napkin shirt” may no longer shock or arouse, but the designer still meant the item to be sexy, and in most cases the wearer does too.

So, it isn’t our understanding of what is provocative or modest that has changed, it is that we have become desensitized to fashion which considers being provocative normal.

 

[jjb5985]

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

You are misunderstanding my points.

I BELIEVE in modesty and I already figured you recognized that art and doctors are an exception to norms. It’s because of this that I disagreed with your quote “When a woman shows a lot of skin, that is considered immodest”. I say “When a woman shows a lot of skin, that it MAY be considered immodest” because there are exceptions like art and medical situations. That may vs. is is the key difference. You have to consider why they are showing a lot of skin and what the situation is. All I’m pointing out is that there aren’t absolutes “like showing a lot of skin = immodesty”.

Secondly, I didn’t say it was “hard to define”. I said it was “hard to OBJECTIVELY define” as in X article of clothing is objectively immodest. To really define immodesty, it usually involves a statement of intention like “to arouse sexual desire” and not defined by how much skin is showing. It’s these key points that are the basis of my entire arguement. It’s hard to have objective standards with modesty (X amount of leg showing, Y amount of arm showing, so on) as it is more or less subjective territory depending on all sorts of factors. What may be modest on the beach (even by your standards) may not be modest walking down the street. I’m sure we would ultimately come to many of the same subjective conclusions on what is or isn’t immodest however. So my arguement has more to do with principles than in the actual application of what is modest or immodest.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am not comparing apples to oranges.

When common sense flies out the window and people fight for the ‘right’ to use dirty words, watch dirty shows, and dress like streetwalkers, desensitization has sunk in deep.

What are those sinful attachments compared to salvation?

I did not make up these laws. God did.

If people struggling to obey God had one-tenth the drive of those who gleefully and militantly disobey, we would not be swimming in this moral cesspit and calling it ‘normal.’

Yes you are. Abortion and other depravities in the world are considered intrinsically evil by their own right. You cannot say the same about what you deem “immodest”. The problem with so-called “immodesty” is that is never the same from place to place, from culture to culture, from time to time etc. Furthermore, the danger that so-called “immodest” clothes is because such clothes have the potential to arouse sexual temptation.

The question is, what if it doesn’t turn out that way? I tire of repeating this question to you. Why do you still strive for the need to condemn those who are immune to what you find “immodest”? Why the need to label them “desensitized” for being immune to temptation and sin, instead of trying to discover the psychology behind this phenomenon or perhaps even praising it?

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.

I’m the OP, I’m the one asking questions, therefore I’m afraid if you wish to constrain this discussion with only regards to the “Western world” (which isn’t the only culture on this planet in case you haven’t noticed), it would be best if you do so on another thread.

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?

Again, I ask you, what are you trying to prove with this? Adam and Eve were naked yet unashamed. Then you go and say they realized it after they sinned and were ashamed, your point please?

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.

This barely even answers my question. You keep ranting about prostitutes and sexual immorality. The danger in “immodesty” (by your definition) is that it can arouse sexual sin. My question is what if it isn’t like that anymore? What if my female friends “dress like prostitutes” to you yet nobody around them is acting horny? You call them desensitized? Why? There is no lust in the atmosphere. Nobody is making lewd comments. A scenario like that is only reflective of a culture at best.

What hasn’t changed though, is that those styles are still intended to be provocative and immodest. A girl wearing a “napkin shirt” may no longer shock or arouse, but the designer still meant the item to be sexy, and in most cases the wearer does too.

So, it isn’t our understanding of what is provocative or modest that has changed, it is that we have become desensitized to fashion which considers being provocative normal.

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. :\

 

[tjm190]

I suspect very similar discussions were being had in the 1910’s, when women were beginning to occasionally show more than just their ankles.
Fun Fact- A woman showing any of her leg in public was so unheard of at that time, that “leg” was a “dirty word.”

Cultural norms change. That doesn’t make it desensitization anymore than we’re desensitized to the legs.

 

[Portrait]

The prevailing culture in every generation has always sought to get the Church to move with the times, today is no different.

Since the great cultural revolution of the 1960’s we have been going dowhill at an alarming rate. Protestantism has essentially buckled under the pressure and now boasts of being non-judgemental and socially liberal when it comes to ethical issues. The Catholic Church alone is remaining faithful and giving our age the much needed moral guidance it so urgently requires.

Yes people have become desensitized in the sense that for so many immorality is not a vice and chastity is not a virtue. They see no harm whatsoever in unbridled lust, unnatural relationships and abortion. For them pleasure is the only standard of conduct and what seems right in their own eyes. This of course is reflected in the way men and woman dress. Where there is moral degeneracy you will inevitably find women (and men) revealing more of their bodies for the purpose of enticing one another, or at least to draw attention to themselves It is most unfortunate that even Catholic women and girls see nothing wrong in wearing short skirts sometimes even to Holy Mass. Do they not realize that their dress and deportment are not matters of indifference; ostentation and extravagance in clothing hardly point to a mind set on heavenly things (Col. 3:2). Christians should dress modestly with decency and propriety and not worry about being thought of as singular or weird. God Himself has implanted in human nature a particularly strong sense of shyness and delicacy concerning sexual issues, and, indeed, shame in sins against virtue. This sense of decency, which appears to be diminishing fast, is one of the strongest preservatives against moral depravity. Thus as Christians we have an obligation in these matters to set a good example in our morally bankrupt society and dare to be a Daniel, dare to be different.

It is true that fashions change and what was unacceptable yesterday is accepted today. However, Sacred Scipture and the Church’s teaching deal with unchanging principles, so women should still “adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2:9).

We also need to ask if the TV, films and type of music we are watching and listening to are deadening are moral sensitivity to sin and vice. This is not about being prudish or puritanical (not that that was always such a bad thing), but about striving to be the people that are all-holy God wants us to be “…blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom (we) shine as lights in the world” (Philip 2:15).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[edwest2]

I suspect very similar discussions were being had in the 1910’s, when women were beginning to occasionally show more than just their ankles.
Fun Fact- A woman showing any of her leg in public was so unheard of at that time, that “leg” was a “dirty word.”

Cultural norms change. That doesn’t make it desensitization anymore than we’re desensitized to the legs.

Cultural norms should not change. When those who do make changes call it “pushing the envelope of what people find acceptable,” they are not doing it for a good purpose.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

For them pleasure is the only standard of conduct and what seems right in their own eyes. This of course is reflected in the way men and woman dress. Where there is moral degeneracy you will inevitably find women (and men) revealing more of their bodies for the purpose of enticing one another, or at least to draw attention to themselves It is most unfortunate that even Catholic women and girls see nothing wrong in wearing short skirts sometimes even to Holy Mass. Do they not realize that their dress and deportment are not matters of indifference; ostentation and extravagance in clothing hardly point to a mind set on heavenly things (Col. 3:2). Christians should dress modestly with decency and propriety and not worry about being thought of as singular or weird.

What makes you assume that every girl who dresses “immodestly” does so for the reasons you cited? While it is true that Christians should care less about how people view them, we also should never judge by mere external appearances.

Furthermore, my question is with regards to what if short skirts cease to no longer inciting lust. What then? Do we continue to judge girls who wear them and label the ones who have grown accustomed as desensitized or do we try to learn more about this phenomenon and see if there is more to it than what’s on the surface?

 

[tjm190]

Cultural norms should not change. When those who do make changes call it “pushing the envelope of what people find acceptable,” they are not doing it for a good purpose.

Peace,
Ed

But this is exactly what people who decided that clothes showing a woman’s shins should be produced did- do you object to the lower leg?

 

[edwest2]

But this is exactly what people who decided that clothes showing a woman’s shins should be produced did- do you object to the lower leg?

I object to any outside influence that decides to slowly, gradually introduce other people to every form of depravity and immodesty and then say, Hey, What’s the big deal? or Hey, nobody complained. I’m complaining.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I object to any outside influence that decides to slowly, gradually introduce other people to every form of depravity and immodesty and then say, Hey, What’s the big deal? or Hey, nobody complained. I’m complaining.

Peace,
Ed

I assume then that your answer to his question is yes?
If so, good luck dragging the world back into the 19th century.

 

[Portrait]

What makes you assume that every girl who dresses “immodestly” does so for the reasons you cited? While it is true that Christians should care less about how people view them, we also should never judge by mere external appearances.

Furthermore, my question is with regards to what if short skirts cease to no longer inciting lust. What then? Do we continue to judge girls who wear them and label the ones who have grown accustomed as desensitized or do we try to learn more about this phenomenon and see if there is more to it than what’s on the surface?

Dear Lost Wanderer,

I am pleased that you appear to acknowledge that women who wear mini-skirts are dressing immodestly. Surely that per se implies a certain impropriety and indecorum on the part of the woman who wears them, especially a woman informed by Christian concience and teaching.

Perhaps there are reasons in addition to the ones that I mentioned, fashion for instance.
However, as I’m sure you would concede fashions can be influenced by our fallen, godless world and should be rejected if they do not conform with Christian standards.

Whatever the reasons for wearing such attire, the fact remains that the woman is dressing in a seductive manner and causing men to focus upon her legs (not her skirt) instead of the woman herself and her own persona. This is to say nothing of inflaming impure thoughts in members of the opposite sex and possibly causing them to sin with their eyes (see St. Matt. 5:28). We have to reckon with fallen human nature and the consequent propensity to sin that is in all of us, so let us not go out of our way to excite sinful desires - we have enough difficulty with temptation as it already is!

warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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

Exactly. We are all called to be saints, not to make excuses for sin.

As for what another poster said about dragging the world back into the 19th century, that is both impossible and incorrect as to our aims.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We have to reckon with fallen human nature and the consequent propensity to sin that is in all of us, so let us not go out of our way to excite sinful desires - we have enough difficulty with temptation as it already is!

Well I would only say “immodest” by your standards. Mine aren’t as strict. If a girl is dressing up the way she does because she wants to and not because she wants to act like a skank, then that’s her right and I won’t judge her further.

However, as to the tendency to excite lust that has been the question many people who disagree with me here have yet to answer.

What if it doesn’t happen?

Despite how long the process may be, standards for what is “sexy” have been proven to change over time and has varied from culture to culture. In fact, some individuals (perhaps such as myself) are already experiencing that effect. We don’t see girls in “immodest” attire as temptresses or beacons that draw occasions of sin to the eyes. We see them as they are: People. They’re the people of this time. The people of this century. It’s just the same way the toga wearers were the people of ancient Greece. The fat dresses and corsets were of the ladies during 17th-18th century. The fedora and fancy suits of mobsters were of the 1930s.

In fact, when I view it all in perspective and compare the different trends over the centuries, I even feel little proud of how different people my age dress compared to more ancient generations.

P.S.

Fashion does not necessarily have to be a product of human corruption. To some people, fashion is just fashion. They just like the way they look.

For example, when I arrive home/my net cafe (the two are one and the same anyways), I always prefer to fully unbutton my school uniform and untuck the large, baggy shirt underneath. The end result makes me look like some laid-back slacker/gamer. Still, I like it. I don’t know why, but I do. See what I mean?

That’s why, perhaps the next time you see someone dressed in a certain way that displeases you, give them the benefit of the doubt (at least just a bit). Some people like to dress that way for the sake of dressing that way. There isn’t always a clear reason or some ulterior malice behind it. It’s just who they are.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Lost Wanderer,

Thankyou for your response to my response.

I understand the point you make about fashion in clothing changing over the centuries and would not basicly disagree with what you say. However whilst it is true that fashions change, the sight of naked flesh does not and it is this that stimulates sexual arousal, whether we are in the 19th. century or the 21st. century. Men and Women have the same sinful proclivities regardless of what age they happen to live in. This is why women of ill-repute have always dressed in the manner that they do because they know it is provocative and what their potential clientele desire and look for.

It is a sad reflection of the times in which we live that many formerly better principled people no longer find such alluring apparell offensive and shameful. To this extent we have most certainly been desensitized. The rot set in during the cultural revolution of the 1960’s with its anti-Christian moral relativism and its desire to dicard accepted norms of behaviour. We today are living with the legacy of the permissive sixties and the situation is getting increasingly worse. That is why we Catholics must dare to be different and be men and women of moral rectitude; a woman dressed seductively surely does not sit comfortably with moral uprightness by any stretch of the imagination. We instinctively know this is so because God has implanted in human nature a strong sense of what is morally decent and therefore acceptable.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

There are some who seem to be arguing for THEIR personal definition of right and wrong, and whether desensitization to dirty words and scandalous dress is ‘bad.’

Can you tell me who said this? And when? “The very nature of relativism separates both freedom and tolerance from the truth.”

 

[edwest2]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, and all men of good will,

Drawing from this document written by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

I ask everyone to consider the following. All of our actions should be done to please God. However, in the present, relativism is being presented as an idea that has full social and cultural legitimacy. There is confusion between good and evil. So, instead of Catholics seeking to know what is good and what is evil, especially through study of the Bible and the Catechism, we are tossed around by opinions that may even sound reasonable. We hear things like, “What’s the big deal? It’s (some particular act) not hurting anyone.”

We need to know what is right and what is wrong. Otherwise, our conscience becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin. Even in a pluralistic society, we must know that natural law and Divine law both flow from God. Man does have certain inalienable rights that are universal.

In this particular case, sensitivity to the dignity of the human person is important. And this sensitivity should extend to the entire culture. It is not up to the individual but is intrinsic to a right and proper consideration of the dignity of the other person and doing what is right to preserve that dignity.

Our decisions need to be guided by knowing what is consistently right and doing it. Though all men have a conscience, we must know that our final end is the only one who is good, God. We attain our freedom by following and doing what Jesus Christ told us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

However whilst it is true that fashions change, the sight of naked flesh does not and it is this that stimulates sexual arousal, whether we are in the 19th. century or the 21st. century. Men and Women have the same sinful proclivities regardless of what age they happen to live in. This is why women of ill-repute have always dressed in the manner that they do because they know it is provocative and what their potential clientele desire and look for.

I’m afraid that’s where you might possibly be wrong and that is why I’m asking the question. My sister wears a mini-skirt. Her reason? None. She just wants to. I see girls wearing shorts and skirts all the time. My reaction? None. My question is why am I going to be called desensitized even though I have no lustful reaction at all (which is the reason why “immodest” clothing is looked down on in the first place)?

It is a sad reflection of the times in which we live that many formerly better principled people no longer find such alluring apparell offensive and shameful. To this extent we have most certainly been desensitized.

The problem is people such as myself hardly find such apparel alluring in the first place so why should it be even considered “immodest” and therefore “offensive and shameful”?

That is why we Catholics must dare to be different and be men and women of moral rectitude; a woman dressed seductively surely does not sit comfortably with moral uprightness by any stretch of the imagination. We instinctively know this is so because God has implanted in human nature a strong sense of what is morally decent and therefore acceptable.

I have a net pal and while she may not be Catholic or even Christian, she’s one of the staunchest conservatives I know and she draws herself like this (if you want the original source, just click the pic if you don’t believe me).

fc02.deviantart.com/fs19/f/2007/267/2/3/The_Marvelous_Mistress_Blood_by_Mistress_Blood.jpg

Once again, do not assume that every woman that dresses in certain ways that you deem “immodest” is out to tempt you. As I said before, some people dress in a certain way simply for the sake of it. They like the way they look. Period. There is no ulterior motive to seduce or whatnot.

There are some who seem to be arguing for THEIR personal definition of right and wrong, and whether desensitization to dirty words and scandalous dress is ‘bad.’

I couldn’t care less who it was you’re quoting for all I see from this post of yours is an attempt to sidetrack this thread. Unlike murder and fornication, there is no absolute standard for what is a “dirty” word. I could call you things such as “buang”, “tanga”, “gago” yet only here in my own country or when speaking around my fellow countrymen would I be accused of having a dirty mouth. Furthermore, tons of people here (male and female alike) dress really loosely when they’re at home or simply around the neighborhood. I see tons of girls wearing nothing but plain shirts and shorts as they come to my net cafe during the evenings to online chat. Late at night, I can see several guys drinking at the eateries with their buddies completely shirtless.

However, do I see the local parish priest railing against that during the homily? No.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I ask everyone to consider the following. All of our actions should be done to please God. However, in the present, relativism is being presented as an idea that has full social and cultural legitimacy. There is confusion between good and evil. So, instead of Catholics seeking to know what is good and what is evil, especially through study of the Bible and the Catechism, we are tossed around by opinions that may even sound reasonable. We hear things like, “What’s the big deal? It’s (some particular act) not hurting anyone.”

We need to know what is right and what is wrong. Otherwise, our conscience becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin. Even in a pluralistic society, we must know that natural law and Divine law both flow from God. Man does have certain inalienable rights that are universal.

What you still don’t get ed is that my question is simply derived from the very logic behind the attacks against “immodest” clothing. That logic being that it can arouse people. Again, I ask you, what if that doesn’t happen?

I have seen threads (threads that you yourself have discussed in) where there are individuals who are growing immune to such arousal. Instead of looking more into this or even praising their immunity to impure thoughts however, people like you slap the “desensitized” label on their backs.

Why?

In this particular case, sensitivity to the dignity of the human person is important. And this sensitivity should extend to the entire culture. It is not up to the individual but is intrinsic to a right and proper consideration of the dignity of the other person and doing what is right to preserve that dignity.

When a person dresses in a way that doesn’t draw out a lustful reaction, then in what way is that person’s dignity still being violated? If a culture no longer finds a certain attire enticing (as proven by the decline of many fashions throughout the centuries), then what’s to be sensitive about? The danger is gone. In such a culture, what you’re calling for sounds like an invitation to quarantine everyone in a bubble more than anything else.