Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[jilly4ski]

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.

I don’t think a group of reasonable people would have much to talk about.

Now, defiant liberal women, that’s a whole different story.

 

[Debora123]

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.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

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.

Or “heretical”, or “brainwashed by propaganda”, or my personal favorite, “confused”. I don’t think of myself as liberal, but I’ve been accused of being liberal by conservative types, and been accused of being conservative by liberal types.

 

[JoArtist]

Or “heretical”, or “brainwashed by propaganda”, or my personal favorite, “confused”. I don’t think of myself as liberal, but I’ve been accused of being liberal by conservative types, and been accused of being conservative by liberal types.

I get the same thing…lol. Liberals think I am conservative and conservatives think I am liberal. I think I am pretty moderate. I have been told so many time by the conservative types that I am brainwashed by the world or whatever, when in fact I came from being in a super ultra conservative group and used to be way more conservative, but the more I learned the more moderate I became.

 

[bbentrup]

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?

The result of a modesty analysis can change based on several factors like age or culture, but there is a certain inherent ethos which does not change. No matter what culture you are in, you should not dress in a way that is likely to entice your neighbor into lust. Sexuality is a gift from God (procreation, sacrament, love, beauty, pleasure, etc.). There is good reason to protect that gift from senseless violation like objectification (i.e., depersonalization) on up to rape so that it can be utilized in the proper contexts. One way to protect the gift is through modesty. Therefore, there is a positive dynamic of modesty which should pervade all cultures as well, at least on the tendency level. By learning to protect the gift from inappropriate attacks, we learn to more highly esteem it, which in turn makes us better people in myriad ways, e.g. Christian chivalry, humility, joy, prudence, etc.

When a person is exposed (innocently or otherwise), there is an opportunity to recall the gift more concretely and glorify God, which we can hope will be our response. Under no circumstance should we think of the body itself as defiled - that is an old heresy. Prudence through the knowledge of our fallen nature and societal norms probably dictates that we should not seek out such an experience (exposure) purposefully, but even here there are probably exceptions.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Those breasts out in the open are not out in the open in a sexual matter…

Then what about a case in, say, Rio De Janeiro, where women typically go topless on the beaches? It might be so common that it is considered “normal” by local standards.

Would that be considered immodesty?

 

[severus68]

… 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.

Great post.

 

[Walking_Home]

Suni Moon:

… 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.

Great post.

---

Fully agree — great post Suni Moon.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.

2527 "The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ."315

---

Compendium

1. How does one reach purity of heart?

2520

In the battle against disordered desires the baptised person is able, by the grace of God, to achieve purity of heart through the virtue and gift of chastity, through purity of intention, purity of vision (both exterior and interior), discipline of the imagination and of feelings and by prayer.

1. What are the other requirements for purity?

2521-2527
2533

Purity requires modesty which, while protecting the intimate center of the person, expresses the sensitivity of chastity. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their communion. Purity frees one from wide-spread eroticism and avoids those things which foster morbid curiosity. Purity also requires a purification of the social climate by means of a constant struggle against moral permissiveness which is founded on an erroneous conception of human freedom.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

I believe Christianity has created an unhealthy view of the human body – that even God’s design of breast feeding --has ended as something “unpalatable” to be “hidden”. I’ve read of women in restaurants – told to go to the restroom or go outside “out of view” – to nurse. I think also read --some states have enacted laws – to protect nursing mothers – from being told to get up and leave.

 

[Bookcat]

---

I believe Christianity has created an unhealthy view of the human body

Christianity in terms of that the Catholic Faith --thankfully has a wonderfully healthy view of the body. A very sacred view. The Theology of the Body by Bl. Pope John Paul II is a good read.

There can be of course various groups within Christianity which have a less healthy view of course.

 

[Walking_Home]

Christianity in terms of that the Catholic Faith --thankfully has a wonderfully healthy view of the body. A very sacred view. The Theology of the Body by Bl. Pope John Paul II is a good read.

There can be of course various groups within Christianity which have a less healthy view of course.

---

Frankly – I believe Catholicism has also fueled this unhealthy view --and Bl. Pope John Paul II made a step to guide towards a healthier direction. But there is still a long way to go.

 

[Bookcat]

---

Frankly – I believe Catholicism has also fueled this unhealthy view .

I disagree.

Gnositicism, Manichenism and Jansenism were condemned long ago.

Marital relations and the human body are sacred.

 

[Walking_Home]

I disagree.

Gnositicism, Manichenism and Jansenism were condemned long ago.

Marital relations and the human body are sacred.

---

Condemning something – does not necessarily mean-- it was totally eradicated and/or that remnants of such errors attached themselves to beliefs.

 

[Bookcat]

---

Condemning something – does not necessarily mean-- it was totally eradicated and/or that remnants of such errors attached themselves to beliefs.

Beliefs held by individuals…not the Catholic Faith per se.

The Catholic Faith has a splendid and beautiful view of the human person and of marital relations. The Church is the guardian of such. She proposes to man the authentic, joyous and sacred understanding of such.

Of course there have been persons over the years who have retained personally some errors in thinking and acting. Heck such happens in many areas of the Faith. Superstitions enter into some individual Christians practice of prayer…etc. The Church works to correct such …but with billions of Christians such is not going to always be absent.

 

[Walking_Home]

Beliefs held by individuals…not the Catholic Faith per se.

The Catholic Faith has a splendid and beautiful view of the human person and of marital relations. The Church is the guardian of such. She proposes to man the authentic, joyous and sacred understanding of such.

Of course there have been persons over the years who have retained personally some errors in thinking and acting. Heck such happens in many areas of the Faith. Superstitions enter into some individual Christians practice of prayer…etc. The Church works to correct such …but with billions of Christians such is not going to always be absent.

---

Yes – but depending on who those persons were in the past and those who now carry such beliefs ----their influence/positions–the remnants of such errors–can be made to seem like part of the Faith.

 

[Bookcat]

---

Yes – but depending on who those persons were in the past and those who now carry such beliefs ----their influence/positions–the remnants of such errors–can be made to seem like part of the Faith.

The Catholic Faith is quite clear as to the sacredness and beauty of chaste Marital relations and the human person -body and soul. Any personal misunderstanding to the contrary is just that.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Yes – but depending on who those persons were in the past and those who now carry such beliefs ----their influence/positions–the remnants of such errors–can be made to seem like part of the Faith.

The Catholic Faith is quite clear as to the sacredness and beauty of chaste Marital relations and the human person -body and soul. Any personal misunderstanding to the contrary is just that.

---

I’ve read of Jansenism being associate with some “Traditionalist” groups. And Pope John Paul II did speak of the danger of the internalizing an Manichelian anti-value – as a result of transferring the negative character of a man’s lust to a woman. So this may be the heads up that such errors are still in existence.

 

[jilly4ski]

---

Yes – but depending on who those persons were in the past and those who now carry such beliefs ----their influence/positions–the remnants of such errors–can be made to seem like part of the Faith.

I think you are being too influenced by “American” brand Catholicism, which unfortunately is influenced by the puritan and protestant founding of this nation. If you look in South America and continental Europe, you don’t see the severe reactions against the human body like you do here. Countries which had their culture shaped by the church have a much healthier view of the human body and breastfeeding, than Americans do.

 

[severus68]

I think you are being too influenced by “American” brand Catholicism, which unfortunately is influenced by the puritan and protestant founding of this nation. If you look in South America and continental Europe, you don’t see the severe reactions against the human body like you do here. Countries which had their culture shaped by the church have a much healthier view of the human body and breastfeeding, than Americans do.

I think WH is saying the same thing.