Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[Debora123]

There are so many who appear to be so concerned with the sins of others, surely Jo has the right to be concerned about the sin of men blamed on women? Why then are so many men so worried about the sins of women I could well ask you.

amen. i too noticed the double standard.

 

[Jordan719]

Modesty is dependent on culture, amongst other things.

I disagree.

 

[bmullins]

I think maybe we should be looking at it as ‘ignorance’ as well. Even for those of us who do not believe modesty is a cultural thing, do we not have to admit that being unaware that what you are wearing is immodest clears you of culpability? If your culture teaches that women don’t wear shirts, can you be expected to be held to the standard of our culture in which the breast must be covered at least partially?

 

[severus68]

I think maybe we should be looking at it as ‘ignorance’ as well. Even for those of us who do not believe modesty is a cultural thing, do we not have to admit that being unaware that what you are wearing is immodest clears you of culpability? If your culture teaches that women don’t wear shirts, can you be expected to be held to the standard of our culture in which the breast must be covered at least partially?

I know you are trying to ‘make peace’ but with respect that is not the way to see it at all. Why should they be held to the standards of our culture? The culture of the Church is the 'culture ’ of Christ, not human culture.

 

[bmullins]

I know you are trying to ‘make peace’ but with respect that is not the way to see it at all. Why should they be held to the standards of our culture? The culture of the Church is the 'culture ’ of Christ, not human culture.

I’m not saying they should be held to our standards. I am saying that we in our society should be realizing that our standard is not binding on them, because they have no idea of our standard. But on the same course, if they were to become a member of our society they should be aware of our standard… and then it would be a different story.

 

[severus68]

I’m not saying they should be held to our standards. I am saying that we in our society should be realizing that our standard is not binding on them, because they have no idea of our standard. But on the same course, if they were to become a member of our society they should be aware of our standard… and then it would be a different story.

Agreed, as in our societies women’s breasts have been sexualied and so going bare breasted in public would be immodest and a crime. Of course, even if they knew of our standards, it would make no difference.

 

[JoArtist]

There are so many who appear to be so concerned with the sins of others, surely Jo has the right to be concerned about the sin of men blamed on women? Why then are so many men so worried about the sins of women I could well ask you.

Precisely, I should be concerned when other women are being blamed for the sins of a man. I don’t think it should go the other way around either. No one should dismiss their own sin saying “so and so made me do it because they tempted me,” that is a cop out. We are all responsible for our own sins and should not blame others. Other’s sins may be an explanation in part for why you sinned, but should NEVER be used as an excuse.

 

[Nate13]

Agreed, as in our societies women’s breasts have been sexualied and so going bare breasted in public would be immodest and a crime. Of course, even if they knew of our standards, it would make no difference.

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.

Precisely, I should be concerned when other women are being blamed for the sins of a man. I don’t think it should go the other way around either. No one should dismiss their own sin saying “so and so made me do it because they tempted me,” that is a cop out. We are all responsible for our own sins and should not blame others. Other’s sins may be an explanation in part for why you sinned, but should NEVER be used as an excuse.

Has anyone argued this here or are you just preaching to the choir?

 

[Debora123]

I disagree.

Well then you disagree with our latest blessed pope, with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and ultimately with the Church’s teaching on modesty.

Disagree all you want, just as long as you are aware of what you’re actually disagreeing with.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not saying they should be held to our standards. I am saying that we in our society should be realizing that our standard is not binding on them, because they have no idea of our standard. But on the same course, if they were to become a member of our society they should be aware of our standard… and then it would be a different story.

IF they came to live in OUR culture, then you are absolutely correct. They would be expected to adhere to OUR culture’s definition of modesty. (obviously too, if a women around here were to walk around topless she’d be arrested to indecent exposure… no matter where she’s from.)

But being where they are, in their OWN culture, they have no obligation or reason whatsoever to adhere to OURS.

Hope that helps.

 

[Debora123]

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.

Breasts are not “sexual organs”… therefore they are not sexual parts.

They were not created for sex, they were created to feed children.

Our culture has sexualized them, just like we have once sexualized ankles. Unless we come from an indigenous tribal culture, we must cover up our breasts in order to remain modest.

 

[Nate13]

Breasts are not “sexual organs”… therefore they are not sexual parts.

They were not created for sex, they were created to feed children.

Our culture has sexualized them, just like we have once sexualized ankles. Unless we come from an indigenous tribal culture, we must cover up our breasts in order to remain modest.

Many women cannot achieve orgasm or sexual arousal by means of their ankles…they can with breasts. Apples and oranges. Of course they are not sexual organs, but why is that the qualifier?

Where does it state that only sexual organs are inherently sexual? There are studies that show women’s hips are sexual in that men would see them as an indicator as to how well a woman could provide for a child in the womb.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

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?

Anyone? Anyone?.. Bueller?

 

[Nate13]

Anyone? Anyone?.. Bueller?

Haha are you saying breasts are not sexualized there and likely to cause concupiscence?

 

[francisca]

We should talk about the idea of “scandal” in general because modesty is just a specific type of scandal. The problem with talking about modesty is that it has much more of an impact on women in practice, at least in America. Thus the thread is by nature “sexist” and the entire thread is spent fighting that idea.

If we talk about scandal though in general, it is much more easily discussed without having to constantly fight about whether men or women get the blame.

I think it is a scandal to raise our daughters with a value systems that allows others to dispute their choices of modest dress and give others valid reasons to devalue them as a person based on their dress alone.

I would prefer to tell my daughter (if only I had one), to love and respect herself regardless what others say about her.

 

[Walking_Home]

Debra123:

Breasts are not “sexual organs”… therefore they are not sexual parts.

They were not created for sex, they were created to feed children.

Our culture has sexualized them, just like we have once sexualized ankles. Unless we come from an indigenous tribal culture, we must cover up our breasts in order to remain modest.

Many women cannot achieve orgasm or sexual arousal by means of their ankles…they can with breasts. Apples and oranges. Of course they are not sexual organs, but why is that the qualifier?

Where does it state that only sexual organs are inherently sexual? There are studies that show women’s hips are sexual in that men would see them as an indicator as to how well a woman could provide for a child in the womb.

---

Well lets start with — there is no such thing as sexual organs/parts. God create man and woman – with the necessary organs/parts to procreate – so the true view/understanding of the human body-- should be of procreative organs/parts.

The attraction a man may have towards a woman’s hips – is essentially procreative (not sexual) – since the hips may be indicative of the success of carrying a child in the womb.

Priestly celibacy in the light of medicine and psychology

Wanda Poltawska
Professor of Pastoral Medicine at the Pontifical Academy of Cracow

Endowed with all the organs needed for living,** the human body also possesses those, improperly called sexual**, which are however essentially procreative, their function being to pass on the gift of life. By endowing us with these organs, the Creator has granted us the opportunity of collaborating with him in the great work of creation.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_light_en.html

 

[severus68]

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.

 

[Nate13]

---

Well lets start with — there is no such thing as sexual organs/parts. God create man and woman – with the necessary organs/parts to procreate – so the true view/understanding of the human body-- should be of procreative organs/parts.

The attraction a man may have towards a woman’s hips – is essentially procreative (not sexual) – since the hips may be indicative of the success of carrying a child in the womb.

Quote:
Priestly celibacy in the light of medicine and psychology

Wanda Poltawska
Professor of Pastoral Medicine at the Pontifical Academy of Cracow

Endowed with all the organs needed for living, the human body also possesses those, improperly called sexual, which are however essentially procreative, their function being to pass on the gift of life. By endowing us with these organs, the Creator has granted us the opportunity of collaborating with him in the great work of creation.

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…_light_en.html
Reply With Quote

You get what they are trying to say here right? They are saying no body part by itself should be called “sexual”.

The whole human body bears the features of this innate sexuality and is subject to a complex nervous system and biological functions which are independent of our will.

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.

 

[severus68]

Many women cannot achieve orgasm or sexual arousal by means of their ankles…they can with breasts. Apples and oranges. Of course they are not sexual organs, but why is that the qualifier?

I think the interest in child bearing hips was more that of mother in laws to ensure grandchildren. Wide hips in reference to bearing children easily has nothing to do with arousing. Sexualisation with regard to a person is about seeing a person or parts of a person only as an object for sexual gratification.

 

[fix]

Well said. But the thing to keep in mind is that some cultures may indeed contain distorted values.

The usual pitfall many fall in to is assume that since the respective culture they grew up in or are living in the present time advocates a certain form of dress, then it must be MODEST.

That is far from what modesty is.

Indeed. That forms of modesty may vary does not mean that whatever is found in a particular culture is really modest.

We tend to only focus on one part of the catechism while ignoring the rest.