Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Going by Pope John Paul II — No – nudity is not objectively sinful.

Obviously, but can it ever be subjectively sinful

if there is no mal intent? A woman walking naked down the street in New York City is cause for scandal is it not? And above it did say scandal is wrong even if it is unintentional did it not?​

When you get down to subjectively – this I believe is a realm that only God can determine if there is a sin. A woman walking -covered from head to foot --even her eyes – like some Muslim form of dress – could also be scandal.

 

[LilyM]

St Francis of Assisi? He never walked down the street naked.

He took off his clothes to give them to his father, to whom they belonged and who was suing him for their return. And the bishop, who was present when he did so, immediately covered Francis’ nakedness with his own cloak.

It was an act deliberately intended to shame his father for the greed and avarice which led him to pursue his own son Francis at law. And so the furthest thing from scandal or sinful immodesty - or no more sInfully scandalous than Christ when he condemned the sins of others.

 

[severus68]

Haha I’m not! I’m just trying to figure out what makes culture worth listening to in the first place!

I’d also add that by your reasoning not only can we not tell women in another culture that they should cover up better for the sake of modesty, we can also not tell women in Muslim countries to have more freedom in what they wear. Their culture says they must be completely covered to be modest, thus they can’t try and change that.

I’m not willing to accept either of these notions at face value. So again I’ll ask, how does culture come up with its standard of what is modest and what isn’t?

On women in Muslim states, the using of burqas is about enforcement of so called religious rules. It is not even Islam. Let us take Iran, how did women dress before the take ober of Islamic extremists? If the Islamic party takes over in Turkey, women’s dress will change drastically. We cannot tell or persuade women in Saudi for instance, to take off their oppressive covers as if they do, they will be put in jail or worse. So this is not my or about my reasoning.

 

[Debora123]

St Francis of Assisi? He never walked down the street naked.

He took off his clothes to give them to his father, to whom they belonged and who was suing him for their return. And the bishop, who was present when he did so, immediately covered Francis’ nakedness with his own cloak.

It was an act deliberately intended to shame his father for the greed and avarice which led him to pursue his own son Francis at law. And so the furthest thing from scandal or sinful immodesty - or no more sInfully scandalous than Christ when he condemned the sins of others.

I know the story to be a bit different than that. From what I understand, he stripped naked in front of a whole crowd of people, not just 2 men. I know the bishop covered him with his cloak, but from what I understand of the story, St Francis then proceeded to take off the cloak, give it to some poor person on the street, and walk away naked.

 

[Nate13]

On women in Muslim states, the using of burqas is about enforcement of so called religious rules. It is not even Islam. Let us take Iran, how did women dress before the take ober of Islamic extremists? If the Islamic party takes over in Turkey, women’s dress will change drastically. We cannot tell or persuade women in Saudi for instance, to take off their oppressive covers as if they do, they will be put in jail or worse. So this is not my or about my reasoning.

So again I’ll ask, how does culture come up with its standard of what is modest and what isn’t?

If we can’t know how it does, how can we know whether a culture’s standard is unjust?

 

[Debora123]

It was an act deliberately intended to shame his father for the greed and avarice which led him to pursue his own son Francis at law. And so the furthest thing from scandal or sinful immodesty - or no more sInfully scandalous than Christ when he condemned the sins of others.

Also, I know it was not sinful or scandalous. That was my point. It was a response to an idea being presented that I did not fully agree with and gave this as an example.

 

[Nate13]

Nate13;8806029:

---

When you get down to subjectively – this I believe is a realm that only God can determine if there is a sin. A woman walking -covered from head to foot --even her eyes – like some Muslim form of dress – could also be scandal.

Alright I think we have reached an accord here. Now I’m just interested to know how a culture comes about to determining what is modest and what isn’t.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

When you get down to subjectively – this I believe is a realm that only God can determine if there is a sin. A woman walking -covered from head to foot --even her eyes – like some Muslim form of dress – could also be scandal.

Alright I think we have reached an accord here. ** Now I’m just interested to know how a culture comes about to determining what is modest and what isn’t**.

---

Like I said – that may be a question for professionals.

 

[Nate13]

---

Like I said – that may be a question for professionals.

Its a question of vital importance though if we are going to get anywhere. How can you tell a person to acknowledge or not acknowledge a culture’s idea of modesty if we do not know whether it is right? I’ll ask my priest, but this seems like a big thing for us to all not know.

 

[LilyM]

I know the story to be a bit different than that. From what I understand, he stripped naked in front of a whole crowd of people, not just 2 men. I know the bishop covered him with his cloak, but from what I understand of the story, St Francis then proceeded to take off the cloak, give it to some poor person on the street, and walk away naked.

I didn’t say it was only two people.

And I have never heard that he gave away the cloak. I HAVE heard that he exchanged it for a smock from the Bishop’s gardener. Which makes sense, the cloak was quite likely a fancy one, most bishops dressed well in those days.

And I’ve also heard a separate story where he was mugged by bandits and his clothes stolen.

In any case his intent was entirely different to that of someone who chooses skimpy clothing out of a desire to entice people of the opposite gender, or even simply to look good

 

[Debora123]

Alright I think we have reached an accord here. Now I’m just interested to know how a culture comes about to determining what is modest and what isn’t.

WH is correct in saying this would be a question for professionals. However, I would guess that time/place/situation would have a lot to do with it.

For example:

People who live on the equator are naturally going to wear less clothing while people in Canada are probably going to wear more - and thus the standards of what is too little clothing are going to be different. This has everything to do with adapting and molding to the environment around us.

Indigenous people who live away from civilization and don’t have factories that produce clothes, and on top of that live somewhere hot, are probably going to wear the least amount.

Where I used to live in Rio, a city where it’s summer all year round and the beaches are walking distance away from almost everyone, going to to beach is like the cultural hang out spot for everyone. I remember when I used to live there my mom took me and my little brother to the beach every single morning… And this was basically the norm. Being around water and sunshine so much, naturally will have people wearing less clothing than someone who lives in the midwestern USA, for example. Thus standards form from there.

A little bit of everything is contributory - where you are, what you do, what the climate is like, etc etc.

 

[Nate13]

WH is correct in saying this would be a question for professionals. However, I would guess that time/place/situation would have a lot to do with it.

For example:

People who live on the equator are naturally going to wear less clothing while people in Canada are probably going to wear more - and thus the standards of what is too little clothing are going to be different. This has everything to do with adapting and molding to the environment around us.

Indigenous people who live away from civilization and don’t have factories that produce clothes, and on top of that live somewhere hot, are probably going to wear the least amount.

Where I used to live in Rio, a city where it’s summer all year round and the beaches are almost walking distance away from everyone, going to to beach is like the cultural hang out spot for everyone. I remember when I used to live there my mom took me and my little brother to the beach every single morning… And this was basically the norm. Being around water and sunshine so much, naturally will have people wearing less clothing than someone who lives in the midwestern USA, for example. Thus standards form from there.

A little bit of everything is contributory - where you are, what you do, what the climate is like, etc etc.

Yes, but we have hot days here too sometimes Assuming we have the same means of obtaining clothing the standards should be the same if the heat is the same.

This would be something semi-objective to go by. The environment (hot or cold) definitely is an objective factor that plays into determining whether something is modest or not.

 

[Debora123]

I didn’t say it was only two people.

And I have never heard that he gave away the cloak. I HAVE heard that he exchanged it for a smock from the Bishop’s gardener. Which makes sense, the cloak was quite likely a fancy one, most bishops dressed well in those days.

And I’ve also heard a separate story where he was mugged by bandits and his clothes stolen.

In any case his intent was entirely different to that of someone who chooses skimpy clothing out of a desire to entice people of the opposite gender, or even simply to look good

I suppose there must be multiple little possibilities then. He’s my brother’s confirmation saint so I know a bit about him. I watched a movie called Brother Sun, Sister Moon ( imdb.com/title/tt0069824/ ) with my mom when I was a kid, and another little cartoon movie of his life when I was in grade school. They both depicted him walking away naked in the street.

Lol I know it’s odd for me to remember this specific detail, but I did because it was very strange to me at the time and left an impressing.

PS- I also found the scene online, if it matters: youtube.com/watch?v=h5NK-zqHZp8 (warning - brief nudity)

 

[Debora123]

Yes, but we have hot days here too sometimes Assuming we have the same means of obtaining clothing the standards should be the same if the heat is the same.

This would be something semi-objective to go by. The environment (hot or cold) definitely is an objective factor that plays into determining whether something is modest or not.

I understand you have hot days there too sometimes, but SOMETIMES is the key word here. When you live in a country that is hot and sticky and humid all year round, some things about the culture are going to be different. It’s a tropical place versus a temperate place versus an arctic place. Some things about the culture in those areas are going to be different, because they are different places with different climates and a different environment.

From my personal experience in living in South America and then moving to the US, this is what I can tell you and this is what I have learned/observed.

Take it for what you think it’s worth.

 

[Debora123]

In any case his intent was entirely different to that of someone who chooses skimpy clothing out of a desire to entice people of the opposite gender, or even simply to look good

Lol, but this is EXACTLY what we’re tying to say. The it all depends on intent, as well as a number of other factors. That’s the whole reason why I even brought up this example. What you’re saying here about his intent is preaching to the choir because this whole modesty thing depends on several factors - intent being one of them.

 

[LilyM]

Lol, but this is EXACTLY what we’re tying to say. The it all depends on intent, as well as a number of other factors. That’s the whole reason why I even brought up this example. What you’re saying here about his intent is preaching to the choir because this whole modesty thing depends on several factors - intent being one of them.

Not really.

I’m saying ‘if someone is literally suing you for the shirt off your back, who happens to be doing so out of greed, and to make it worse they happen to be your own family, you MIGHT be OK to strip naked as a one-off, to bring home to them how unreasonable and sinful they’re being.’

You’re basically saying ‘it’s OK to wear whatever you like, whenever you like, if it’s common custom. Pretty much the only thing that would make it wrong would be if you are deliberately trying to be sexually provocative.’

See the difference? My attitude is ‘cover up (within reason) unless you have serious cause to expose.’ Yours is ‘expose if you want, unless you have SUPER serious cause to cover up.’ Quite a big difference, really.

 

[Nate13]

See the difference? My attitude is ‘cover up (within reason) unless you have serious cause to expose.’ Yours is ‘expose if you want, unless you have SUPER serious cause to cover up.’ Quite a big difference, really.

That is a good way of putting it. I’m getting that same vibe as well.

 

[Debora123]

Not really.

I’m saying ‘if someone is literally suing you for the shirt off your back, who happens to be doing so out of greed, and to make it worse they happen to be your own family, you MIGHT be OK to strip naked as a one-off, to bring home to them how unreasonable and sinful they’re being.’

You’re basically saying ‘it’s OK to wear whatever you like, whenever you like, if it’s common custom. Pretty much the only thing that would make it wrong would be if you are deliberately trying to be sexually provocative.’

See the difference? My attitude is ‘cover up (within reason) unless you have serious cause to expose.’ Yours is ‘expose if you want, unless you have SUPER serious cause to cover up.’

I’m not saying “it’s ok to wear whatever you like if it’s common custom” (though common custom would suggest it is modest and therefore perfectly ok to wear, but that is not what I’m saying when I brought up St Francis.)

I brought him up to back up the claim that nudity in itself is not sinful. Another poster here seemed to be of the opinion that if someone is naked in public they are automatically sinning. My response was, no they are not automatically sinning. It depends on intent and several other factors. I used St Francis as an example to back up my claim.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by LilyM
See the difference? My attitude is ‘cover up (within reason) unless you have serious cause to expose.’ Yours is ‘expose if you want, unless you have SUPER serious cause to cover up.’ Quite a big difference, really.

I would appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth, Lily, and your vibe would be incorrect, Nate.

 

[Nate13]

I would appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth, Lily, and your vibe would be incorrect, Nate.

Would you agree with something similar to how Lily described her opinion then?