Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmullins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nate13 said:
You get what they are trying to say here right? They are saying no body part by itself should be called “sexual”.

The same document says this in the paragraph right above where you quoted. The document is arguing that our bodies are oriented not towards sex, but towards procreation. In other words they would say it would also be wrong to call a penis or vagina “sexual”. They should be called “procreative”.

I thank you for providing this document that shows that whether a body part is “sexual” or not has nothing to do with whether its immodest to show it.
Click to expand...
I am confused. Should we all then fully cover up with ear guards or go around as God made us ??
 
severus68 said:
I am confused. Should we all then fully cover up with ear guards or go around as God made us ??
Click to expand...
Haha no, but whether a part of the body should be covered or not has nothing to do with whether its “sexual” or not.
 
Nate13 said:
This kind of statement gets you in trouble. How do you know we are the ones who have sexualized breasts and the opposite is not true and others have just desexualized breasts? I believe many in this thread are operating from an unproven assumption, and allowing it to influence their opinions. If you lean towards believing breasts are not sexual and have been sexualized over time thats, great but be upfront about the assumption you are making.

Has anyone argued this here or are you just preaching to the choir?
Click to expand...
How do you know that our society has desexualized the pinky toe? You are using a logical fallacy. The fact is that all organs, even our sex organs (like the penis or vagina) are not necessarily sexually arousing to see if it is commonplace in a society or culture. The culture attaches taboos to viewing the certain body parts and are then provoke lust or arousal. When a tribes man sees bare breasts in a tribe that all women go topless, he does not get aroused at seeing them, because it is so commonplace and it means nothing of the sort in their society.

I am not saying that this has been argued in his particular thread, but as many others can attest to, it is very commonplace in this site in threads about modesty. Frankly I am getting tired of seeing women getting all the blame and men getting off scott free.

I have seen women called trash for their immodesty (and how can you liken a person created in God’s image to an inanimate object that should be thrown away and counted as useless?). I have seen men make the argument that the only reason that there is lust is due to immodesty of women. When that is not true. It may contribute to the problem, but there is an issue with men’s hearts as well. (there was lust in the Victorian times where the only skin you saw on a woman was her hands occasionally and her head. I have also seen men blame rape victims for being raped because the “must have” been dressed immodestly. That one is particularly disgusting and sickening.
 
Nate13 said:
You get what they are trying to say here right? They are saying no body part by itself should be called “sexual”.

The same document says this in the paragraph right above where you quoted. **The document is arguing that our bodies are oriented not towards sex, but towards procreation. In other words they would say it would also be wrong to call a penis or vagina “sexual”. They should be called “procreative”.
**
I thank you for providing this document that shows that whether a body part is “sexual” or not has nothing to do with whether its immodest to show it.
Click to expand...
What is it that you are disputing. Prior – you were making the argument that breasts and even hips are “sexual” – I provided evidence that they are not. And yes – the penis or vagina are not “sexual” – but procreative.

Oh-- and to your last statement-- I most certainly disagree. You see – the basis of arguments made for “modesty” – have been made on the body parts being “sexual” – which they are not.
 
JoArtist said:
How do you know that our society has desexualized the pinky toe? You are using a logical fallacy. The fact is that all organs, even our sex organs (like the penis or vagina) are not necessarily sexually arousing to see if it is commonplace in a society or culture. The culture attaches taboos to viewing the certain body parts and are then provoke lust or arousal. When a tribes man sees bare breasts in a tribe that all women go topless, he does not get aroused at seeing them, because it is so commonplace and it means nothing of the sort in their society.
Click to expand...
Your correct. Walking_Home’s link shows that no part of the body should be considered “sexual”. Our bodies are ordered towards procreation, not sex.
I am not saying that this has been argued in his particular thread, but as many others can attest to, it is very commonplace in this site in threads about modesty. Frankly I am getting tired of seeing women getting all the blame and men getting off scott free.
Click to expand...
That is all well and good and if they come here with such arguments I would gladly tell them off with you. However it seems counter productive to start arguments across threads, or criticize people that are not here.
 
I’ll gladly cover up everything and wear ear guards if it will help you ladies resist the temptation that is my pinky toe. :rolleyes:

Anything can be a sexual part of the body, and nothing. To one person the hip can be very sexual. To another the foot. (There are many people out there with those sorts of fetishes.) So where do we go from there? If nothing is sexual then there is no need to cover anything. If everything is sexual then even the burqa isn’t enough, as it exposes the eye!
 
Walking_Home said:
What is it that you are disputing. Prior – you were making the argument that breasts and even hips are “sexual” – I provided evidence that they are not. And yes – the penis or vagina are not “sexual” – but procreative.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I was responding to Debora’s point that breasts were not sexual, but our sexual organs were which is why those must be covered. I admit I did not fully understand the idea the document you presented put forward. I did however realize that it did not make sense to say it was ok to go topless if your culture allowed it purely just because breasts are not sexual.
Oh-- and to your last statement-- I most certainly disagree. You see – the basis of arguments made for “modesty” – have been made on the body parts being “sexual” – which they are not.
Click to expand...
Statements in defense of going topless have also been made on this premise. Both were wrong. This still leaves a problem though because what is the criteria then if not whether something is “sexual” or not?

If you base the criteria on whether it causes men to lust, that is wrong since your basing the sin of a woman on whether a man sins. We all know this is wrong. What is the criteria though then? Or could it be that we are our brother’s keeper and the sin of one can be linked to the sin of another leaving both equally culpable for their actions?

This is in some ways the same as the story of Adam and Eve.

Adam sinned in first place by not objecting to his wife eating the apple. He sinned in not doing anything. Eve then sinned by eating the apple after being tricked by the snake and disobeyed God herself. Then she sinned again through scandal when she offered the apple to her husband as well and tempted him. Adam then sinned again though in taking the apple, even though he had been given the same the command not to eat from the tree.

Is one more guilty than the other or are they both equally guilty?
 
bmullins said:
I’ll gladly cover up everything and wear ear guards if it will help you ladies resist the temptation that is my pinky toe. :rolleyes:

Anything can be a sexual part of the body, and nothing. To one person the hip can be very sexual. To another the foot. (There are many people out there with those sorts of fetishes.) So where do we go from there? If nothing is sexual then there is no need to cover anything. If everything is sexual then even the burqa isn’t enough, as it exposes the eye!
Click to expand...
Easy answer. It is we just have to set up reasonable boundaries for ourselves according to our culture. There is no way to dress that will keep everyone from lusting. I know that sometimes I will be in a big winter coat, a beanie, scarf, snow boots and snow pants and still get cat-called. lol. We just have to take into account cultural modesty standards and climate/weather and use our best judgement.
 
JoArtist said:
Easy answer. It is we just have to set up reasonable boundaries for ourselves according to our culture. There is no way to dress that will keep everyone from lusting. I know that sometimes I will be in a big winter coat, a beanie, scarf, snow boots and snow pants and still get cat-called. lol. We just have to take into account cultural modesty standards and climate/weather and use our best judgement.
Click to expand...
Yes but culture is entirely subjective. If culture did not exists what standard of dress should be employed? By saying its subjective your basically saying that a standard of women’s dress is set by their culture which in turn is set by what causes men to lust. In other words your connecting what women wear back to what causes men to lust.
 
Nate13 said:
Yes but culture is entirely subjective. If culture did not exists what standard of dress should be employed? By saying its subjective your basically saying that a standard of women’s dress is set by their culture which in turn is set by what causes men to lust. In other words your connecting what women wear back to what causes men to lust.
Click to expand...
That is where using your judgement comes in. If you see that men in that culture tend to lust after seeing women in mini shorts and tube tops, then you shouldn’t wear those. I would say in most cultures, most women dress in a way that usually isn’t in a way to incite lust in men according to cultural standards. I know I have lived in L.A. and in New England and there is really only that select few older women and of course teenage girls looking for attention who dress in a way that is looking to incite lust or sexual interest. That is why I said you have to use judgement. This issue is not that hard.

For instance, I try to wear things that only hit a few inches above the knee and I wear tank tops in summer that aren’t low cut to keep cool and are reasonable to wear within our culture. If I were in another country with stricter standards I would cover up more accordingly. Use you brain, use reasoning! It really isn’t as difficult as you are making it out to be.Also when in doubt err on the side of caution.

Also, if there are people there is culture. No there is no constant rule of modesty in dress. It can’t exist when there is no culture. Simple as that.
 
JoArtist said:
That is where using your judgement comes in. If you see that men in that culture tend to lust after seeing women in mini shorts and tube tops, then you shouldn’t wear those. I would say in most cultures, most women dress in a way that usually isn’t in a way to incite lust in men according to cultural standards. I know I have lived in L.A. and in New England and there is really only that select few older women and of course teenage girls looking for attention who dress in a way that is looking to incite lust or sexual interest. That is why I said you have to use judgement. This issue is not that hard.

For instance, I try to wear things that only hit a few inches above the knee and I wear tank tops in summer that aren’t low cut to keep cool and are reasonable to wear within our culture. If I were in another country with stricter standards I would cover up more accordingly. Use you brain, use reasoning! It really isn’t as difficult as you are making it out to be.Also when in doubt err on the side of caution.

Also, if there are people there is culture. No there is no constant rule of modesty in dress. It can’t exist when there is no culture. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
In general I agree. Read the Catechism. Read Love and Responsibility. Inform yourself and then use that thing called a conscience that God gave us. Dress to the point necessary to get the respect and dignity you deserve. Those are standards we can all live by.
 
Nate13 said:

In general I agree. Read the Catechism. Read Love and Responsibility. Inform yourself and then use that thing called a conscience that God gave us. Dress to the point necessary to get the respect and dignity you deserve. Those are standards we can all live by.​

My conscience tells me – that a human being never loses their dignity – and are to be given the same respect – no matter what they wear.
Click to expand...
 
Walking_Home said:
My conscience tells me – that a human being never loses their dignity – and are to be given the same respect – no matter what they wear.
Click to expand...
Never loses their dignity in the eyes of God - true
Never loses their dignity in the eyes of others - false.
 
JoArtist said:
Easy answer. It is we just have to set up reasonable boundaries for ourselves according to our culture. There is no way to dress that will keep everyone from lusting. I know that sometimes I will be in a big winter coat, a beanie, scarf, snow boots and snow pants and still get cat-called. lol. We just have to take into account cultural modesty standards and climate/weather and use our best judgement.
Click to expand...
I hear yah. On a below-zero I was similarly bundled up – knit hat, scarf wrapped around my face, heavy wool coat down to my ankles, gloves, snow boots, even my eyes were technically covered since I wear eyeglasses – and I still had guys half my age (I’m in my thirties) whoo-hooing at me to get my attention. It was surreal and amusing!
 
Nate13 said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
My conscience tells me – that a human being never loses their dignity – and are to be given the same respect – no matter what they wear.
Click to expand...
Never loses their dignity in the eyes of God - true
Never loses their dignity in the eyes of others - false
Click to expand...
Those others would need to work on their Christian attitude.
 
Nate13 said:
Never loses their dignity in the eyes of God - true
Never loses their dignity in the eyes of others - false.
Click to expand...
Your dignity is your dignity, no one can take it away whatever they think or say.
 
Nate13 said:
Yes but culture is entirely subjective. If culture did not exists what standard of dress should be employed? By saying its subjective your basically saying that a standard of women’s dress is set by their culture which in turn is set by what causes men to lust. In other words your connecting what women wear back to what causes men to lust.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is more accurate to say culture differs from place to place.
 
severus68 said:
Perhaps it is more accurate to say culture differs from place to place.
Click to expand...
What makes a person’s culture the ultimate authority worth listening to on the concept of modesty? Especially when that culture’s idea of modesty is based a lot on what causes men to lust?
 
severus68 said:
Your dignity is your dignity, no one can take it away whatever they think or say.
Click to expand...
never loses dignity in God’s - true
never loses dignity in your own eyes - false, but as you said you have complete control over this. Only I can lower the dignity I see in myself.
never loses dignity in the eyes of others - false

Just because someone does not see the dignity in you that you deserve does not mean that dignity is not present. It simply means as I said they don’t see it. You guys are finding more in my words than is there…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top