Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[bmullins]

In the recent thread on the Death of Pretty, I saw mentioned a few times that a females breasts were essentially an object that would cause lust and should be covered in all societies. So much so that at one point someone indicated that the Pope was probably offended that a native woman with her breasts bared was exposing herself to him but was just too nice to say anything.

Now there is rightly a big difference in a woman in Northern Maine going shirtless in a Catholic mass, a woman on a nude beach in Europe, and an African tribe where women never wear shirts sitting in their public ‘square’. Yet it seems that many people think that morality and modesty are directly tied together.

So I thought it would be good to have a discussion on the topic: Morality is concrete, but is modesty static, or dynamic?

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I’ve heard modesty called a relative virtue and not an absolute virtue, but I haven’t heard it called a static or dynamic virtue. I suppose that one could call it dynamic since it changes relative to the conditions. For instance, it would be immodest to go shirtless to Mass, if you’re male or female, but if you’re a man who works construction or for the public works department and it’s a hot day, going shirtless might be the difference between keeping cool or getting badly dehydrated. It would be immodest to go completely naked if you’re walking down the street, but it would be absurd to not take your clothes off if you’re taking a shower (read this one book on Christian virtue which I nearly pitched out the window, since it recommended trying to be modest, even in the privacy of one’s bedroom with the door shut and the blinds drawn, while one is undressing in order to change one’s clothes, since you don’t want to tempt your guardian angel. I’m not making that one up.)

 

[Debora123]

In the recent thread on the Death of Pretty, I saw mentioned a few times that a females breasts were essentially an object that would cause lust and should be covered in all societies. So much so that at one point someone indicated that the Pope was probably offended that a native woman with her breasts bared was exposing herself to him but was just too nice to say anything.

Now there is rightly a big difference in a woman in Northern Maine going shirtless in a Catholic mass, a woman on a nude beach in Europe, and an African tribe where women never wear shirts sitting in their public ‘square’. Yet it seems that many people think that morality and modesty are directly tied together.

So I thought it would be good to have a discussion on the topic: Morality is concrete, but is modesty static, or dynamic?

Modesty is dependent on culture, amongst other things.

 

[anp1215]

In the recent thread on the Death of Pretty, I saw mentioned a few times that a females breasts were essentially an object that would cause lust and should be covered in all societies. So much so that at one point someone indicated that the Pope was probably offended that a native woman with her breasts bared was exposing herself to him but was just too nice to say anything.

Now there is rightly a big difference in a woman in Northern Maine going shirtless in a Catholic mass, a woman on a nude beach in Europe, and an African tribe where women never wear shirts sitting in their public ‘square’. Yet it seems that many people think that morality and modesty are directly tied together.

So I thought it would be good to have a discussion on the topic: Morality is concrete, but is modesty static, or dynamic?

Modesty is dependent on culture. African tribeswomen who do not wear shirts are NOT being immodest. The Western culture is what sexualized breasts, not God. The African tribespeople see them as functioning body parts that feed their children, not something intended to inspire lust in men. Personally, I think the way Western culture sees breasts as really ridiculous, they are lumps of fat that produce milk for our babies, when and why did they become so “sexy?” It’s strange if you think about it.

 

[Debora123]

Modesty is dependent on culture. African tribeswomen who do not wear shirts are NOT being immodest. The Western culture is what sexualized breasts, not God. The African tribespeople see them as functioning body parts that feed their children, not something intended to inspire lust in men. Personally, I think the way Western culture sees breasts as really ridiculous, they are lumps of fat that produce milk for our babies, when and why did they become so “sexy?” It’s strange if you think about it.

 

[jilly4ski]

Modesty is dependent on culture. African tribeswomen who do not wear shirts are NOT being immodest. The Western culture is what sexualized breasts, not God. The African tribespeople see them as functioning body parts that feed their children, not something intended to inspire lust in men. Personally, I think the way Western culture sees breasts as really ridiculous, they are lumps of fat that produce milk for our babies, when and why did they become so “sexy?” It’s strange if you think about it.

Actually this is precisely why they are attractive to men. They are signs of fertility in women, (Along with wide hips), and men have been hardwired, in a sense, by evolution to be attracted to signs that a woman is fertile and able to bear and care for children.

 

[JoArtist]

I actually recall this story of a group of missionaries who went to Papua New Guinea. There the people that are in the primitive tribe wear very little clothing. The men wear penis sheaths and some jewelry and the women wear grass skirts and some jewelry. That is it.

The missionaries were trying to get them to be more modest and gave them t-shirts. All the tribes people wore their t-shirts with pride. Then a storm hit (it rains very often here) and all of their t-shirts got wet. A whole bunch of the tribes people sat in their wet shirts and many got pneumonia and a few even died. When they went without t-shirts their skin dried way faster and they didn’t stay soaked for long periods of time. I would say that although the missionaries were trying to do good, they ended up making a very large error that costed lives. I think in tribes it is not fine to modestly go around without a top, but obviously practical when you live in small houses up in the trees without places to store extra clothing.

Modesty does depend on culture. In the Victorian era it was immodest and scandalous for a woman to show her ankles. Today that is obviously not true. No matter what time it is there will always be lust around. There was in the Victorian era when women were covered from their necks to their wrists to their feet. In tribes people walk around topless all the time because that is just the cultural garb. Everyone’s breasts are showing, so no one gives it a second thought. It is not immodest.

Now in our society I think it is perfectly fine to wear things that hit a little above the knee (within a few inches or so depending on leg length) and wearing tank tops or shirts is fine as long as they aren’t low cut and are worn in the appropriate setting. Like not wearing a tank top , shorts, and flip flops to church.

If you have such bad lust problems that seeing shoulders or knees, then you probably need to get help through counseling. You can’t spend all your time blaming women, because even if all women were dressed in Victorian style clothing (which is hot and uncomfortable especially in 100 degree + weather) you may still have problems with lust. Men did in the Victorian era and women were totally covered back then.

There is a reasonable level of modesty we should all dress in to help protect those struggling with lust, but when we start having double standards or asking people to sweat to death, we go too far. We need to not pass off our sins onto other people like Adam did in the Garden (the woman made me do it!), but instead teach our children to take responsibility for their own actions and short-comings. When they see us blaming our sins on everyone but ourselves, they will not learn personal responsibility.

 

[Khalid]

Modesty is static to a point, and then dynamic. It is static to the point of “basic” or “civilized” modesty: covering the pelvis for men, and the pelvis and chest for women. I’ve never attempted to formulate a systematic analysis of the situation (which I may now do).

I say this, because, in my experience and from my knowledge, in a society such as America, a woman clad in a hijab or niqab (Muslim head- and face-scarves, respectively) is less modest in the fact that she will (and, if even decently aware) knowingly draw more attention to herself, than a less theoretically-modestly dressed woman: it’s an “exotic” factor, and “exotic” often equals lust.

For those who would contend that it would draw attention for a barbarian woman to wear a shirt at all, I would argue something along the lines of that a basic standard of culture and civilization is needed before modesty is even conceived of: barbaric peoples can no more understand this than can the ape (outside of basic “this is fertile”, instinctual lust or attraction: this has not been reduced or sublimated in civilization, just refined), nor they the aeroplane (cf. cargo cults): it is a duty to bring culture to such people, so that they may understand not just modesty, but even the basic tenets of Religion. Otherwise, one gets religious war and/or horrendous, animistic syncretism of “Chrislam with totems”.

 

[JoArtist]

I pretty much agree with everyone so far. The reasonable group is posting in this thread today.

 

[anp1215]

Actually this is precisely why they are attractive to men. They are signs of fertility in women, (Along with wide hips), and men have been hardwired, in a sense, by evolution to be attracted to signs that a woman is fertile and able to bear and care for children.

True, but the Western culture has over-sexualized them to a bizarre degree.

 

[Nate13]

books.google.com/books?id=TNRY9HkssDQC&q=concupiscence&source=gbs_word_cloud_r&cad=6#v=snippet&q=concupiscence&f=false

minimum read pages 188-192.

I give up trying to speak more clearly on the issue than JPII himself did and so should we all.

 

[CB_Catholic]

True, but the Western culture has over-sexualized them to a bizarre degree.

Yeah, I can remember when I had my first child in the early 70’s, my mother-in-law was horrified that I chose to breastfeed, because it was “dirty” (not in the sense of cleanliness, but in the sexual sense). Apparently, many women in her generation in which bottle feeding was the norm in this culture felt the same.

 

[Suni_Moon]

"I pretty much agree with everyone so far. The reasonable group is posting in this thread today. "

… I haven’t even read all the responses in this thread, but I applaud anyone who realizes that CAF DOES have an “unreasonable” side.

Anyway, on to my response…

I would say that modesty, REAL, TRUE modesty has little do do what you’re wearing, and what you’re covering.

Some people would say tank tops are awful, and show too much skin… Most women in warm climates and are much comfier in them, and NOT whores, would beg to differ.

A person can cover themselves head to toe, and still be immodest, in the way they act… Likewise, a person can where a tank top and shorts, and still behave in a more modest fashion.

Any tribe that wears next to nothing? It isn’t sexualized. Those breasts out in the open are not out in the open in a sexual matter…

So, in regards to CLOTHING? Definitions of modesty as loose, and… silly, to be honest. You can’t claim something is “immodest” unless you understand the culture.

 

[JoArtist]

… I haven’t even read all the responses in this thread, but I applaud anyone who realizes that CAF DOES have an “unreasonable” side.

Anyway, on to my response…

I would say that modesty, REAL, TRUE modesty has little do do what you’re wearing, and what you’re covering.

Some people would say tank tops are awful, and show too much skin… Most women in warm climates and are much comfier in them, and NOT whores, would beg to differ.

A person can cover themselves head to toe, and still be immodest, in the way they act… Likewise, a person can where a tank top and shorts, and still behave in a more modest fashion.

Any tribe that wears next to nothing? It isn’t sexualized. Those breasts out in the open are not out in the open in a sexual matter…

So, in regards to CLOTHING? Definitions of modesty as loose, and… silly, to be honest. You can’t claim something is “immodest” unless you understand the culture.

Precisely. I wish more people were reasonable about these things.

 

[anp1215]

Yeah, I can remember when I had my first child in the early 70’s, my mother-in-law was horrified that I chose to breastfeed, because it was “dirty” (not in the sense of cleanliness, but in the sexual sense). Apparently, many women in her generation in which bottle feeding was the norm in this culture felt the same.

Yes, I think in that generation formula feeding was actually taught by doctors as better for the baby too. Don’t quote me, but I remember hearing that. Thankfully, it is getting better, but slowly. I saw some people on Facebook the other day complaining/being weirded out by a woman breastfeeding in public WITH a cover. I mean, come on. And these were college grads.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Yes, I think in that generation formula feeding was actually taught by doctors as better for the baby too. Don’t quote me, but I remember hearing that. Thankfully, it is getting better, but slowly. I saw some people on Facebook the other day complaining/being weirded out by a woman breastfeeding in public WITH a cover. I mean, come on. And these were college grads.

They are weirded out by that, but don’t blink an eye when they see a woman (or man) in a thong bikini, or when they watch people having sex in the movies, barely covered. It just does not make sense to me.

 

[bmullins]

I must admit that the breast feeding thing weirds me out. Not because it’s wrong or dirty. I believe women should breast feed and I don’t think they should have to hide in a room to do so. I think it’s a problem with me personally. I have no problem when my wife does it in front of me, but if say my sister in law does I normally leave the room. I would never presume to ask her not to do it in front of me, because I don’t think it’s wrong. I just… I dunno?

I think that it is definitely dynamic, though I guess the word could throw some. Modesty definitely changes from society to society, while virtue is tied to the cultural modesty of the person and not the cultural modesty of the observer.

 

[jilly4ski]

They are weirded out by that, but don’t blink an eye when they see a woman (or man) in a thong bikini, or when they watch people having sex in the movies, barely covered. It just does not make sense to me.

I always find the stories about mom’s getting harassed at the mall for breastfeeding hilarious. So seeing a centimeter of skin because the rest if covered by the babies head is bad, but picture on the Victoria Secret’s window down the hall, of the model with the bra barely holding in her breasts is fine?

 

[anp1215]

They are weirded out by that, but don’t blink an eye when they see a woman (or man) in a thong bikini, or when they watch people having sex in the movies, barely covered. It just does not make sense to me.

I always find the stories about mom’s getting harassed at the mall for breastfeeding hilarious. So seeing a centimeter of skin because the rest if covered by the babies head is bad, but picture on the Victoria Secret’s window down the hall, of the model with the bra barely holding in her breasts is fine?

Totally nonsensical.

 

[JoArtist]

Perhaps we can start a new CAF group?..

“The Defiant, Reasonable Ones!”

Yes. We should do this lol. Also we should have another group for the all of us defiant liberal women…lol. I really am not that liberal,but people on here seem to think so.