Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[Nate13]

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.

No, I presented a subjective particular case to show that being naked in public could sometimes be subjectively sinful in that particular case regardless of intent.

 

[Debora123]

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

We’ve had this modesty discussion for quite some time now that I’ve put all the effort I could into explaining what my view is on the subject. If you don’t get it now (which you don’t seem to) then you probably never will.

 

[Debora123]

No, I presented a subjective particular case to show that being naked in public could sometimes be subjectively sinful in that particular case regardless of intent.

I seemed to recall you saying it would somehow always be sinful, period. Which is exactly why WH and I stepped up and said that is incorrect. It could or could not be sinful depending on multiple factors. That is why I gave the St Francis example.

But if I misunderstood you, then I apologize and we are on the same page in that regard.

 

[Nate13]

We’ve had this modesty discussion for quite some time now that I’ve put all the effort I could into explaining what my view is on the subject. If you don’t get it now (which you don’t seem to) then you probably never will.

Your right. Your view is attached to culture, which you and I have both admitted to not being able to explain how culture comes up with its idea of what is immodest. If you cannot explain it, even if you understand it, I don’t see how you can expect anyone to understand your position.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nate13:

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.

---

You are right Debora. Even here in the U.S. – hot temperatures/humidity/ weeks(months) of high temperatures— varies from region to region. What may be considered hot by northern standards --may not compare – to areas with heat – that hovers around 100 or more – with humidity – for an extended period of time.

 

[Debora123]

Your right. Your view is attached to culture, which you and I have both admitted to not being able to explain how culture comes up with its idea of what is immodest. If you cannot explain it, even if you understand it, I don’t see how you can expect anyone to understand your position.

Understanding exactly WHY a culture dresses the way they do has very little to do with believing that forms of modesty change depending on cultures (which is written in the ccc, by the way).

And besides, I thought I gave you a pretty credible, logical, common sense theory based on first hand, personal experience/observation. Of course, I am no expert so I cannot say “here is the 100% proven truth taken from 16 different studies across the world throughout the course of 200 years,” but I thought it was a pretty common sense sort of thing.

You don’t have to agree with me, but saying that my views on modesty have absolutely no credibility just because I can’t give you the above is completely illegitimate, imho. Especially after I’ve tried so hard and given so many examples to explain what I mean and to back up my point.

But we will never see eye to eye on this anyway, so whatever.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nate13:

Your right. Your view is attached to culture, which you and I have both admitted to not being able to explain how culture comes up with its idea of what is immodest. If you cannot explain it, even if you understand it, I don’t see how you can expect anyone to understand your position.

Understanding exactly WHY a culture dresses the way they do has very little to do with believing that forms of modesty change depending on cultures (which is written in the ccc, by the way).

And besides, I thought I gave you a pretty credible, logical, common sense theory based on first hand, personal experience/observation. Of course, I am no expert so I cannot say “here is the 100% proven truth taken from 16 different studies across the world throughout the course of 200 years,” but I thought it was a pretty common sense sort of thing.

You don’t have to agree with me, **but saying that my views on modesty have absolutely no credibility just because I can’t give you the above is completely illegitimate, imho. Especially after I’ve tried so hard and given so many examples to explain what I mean and to back up my point. **

But we will never see eye to eye on this anyway, so whatever.

---

I agree with you Debora.

 

[bmullins]

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.

He did indeed. It’s also recorded that he often did the same thing. He would often give his clothes to others who needed them more than himself, leaving himself exposed to the elements.

 

[Debora123]

He did indeed. It’s also recorded that he often did the same thing. He would often give his clothes to others who needed them more than himself, leaving himself exposed to the elements.

That’s what I’ve always known as well…

 

[LilyM]

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

Enlighten us poor ignorant slobs, Debora.

Under what circumstances, if any, would you deem that the wearing of, say, a really super-teeny-weeny thong bikini to the beach would be inappropriate for you personally, assuming

a) your culture (including you) accepts said swimsuit as OK, and
b) You are not wearing it with any intent to incite others to sin?

I await your answer.

 

[Debora123]

Enlighten us poor ignorant slobs, Debora.

Under what circumstances, if any, would you deem that the wearing of, say, a really super-teeny-weeny thong bikini to the beach would be inappropriate for you personally, assuming

a) your culture (including you) accepts said swimsuit as OK, and
b) You are not wearing it with any intent to incite others to sin?

I await your answer.

I have never lived in a culture where a thong bikini was the norm. Everywhere I’ve lived has viewed thong bikinis as immodest and inappropriate, though few people do wear them. I think the only places in this world where wearing thongs is considered modest/normal is Asia when they are worn by sumo wrestlers, and certain tribes in Africa who wear little thong type bottoms with flaps to cover the front. In those circumstances, wearing a thong would not be immodest.

This is completely consistent with everything I’ve been saying about culture/modesty, so I’m not sure how my answer couldn’t have been a given, but perhaps it’s my fault for not making myself clear enough through all these pages and posts.

 

[severus68]

---

I agree with you Debora.

Me too. Anyone else notice how this thread was started off so well in a light hearted manner and has now been taken over?

 

[passer_by]

I have never lived in a culture where a thong bikini was the norm. Everywhere I’ve lived has viewed thong bikinis as immodest and inappropriate, though few people do wear them. I think the only places in this world where wearing thongs is considered modest/normal is Asia when they are worn by sumo wrestlers, and certain tribes in Africa who wear little thong type bottoms with flaps to cover the front. In those circumstances, wearing a thong would not be immodest.

This is completely consistent with everything I’ve been saying about culture/modesty, so I’m not sure how my answer couldn’t have been a given, but perhaps it’s my fault for not making myself clear enough through all these pages and posts.

This is a text book scenario of where someone confuses Modesty as being ENTIRELY dependent on culture.

The error here is that some cultures might have an inadequate view on dress. Bikini’s are not modest dresses. Period. It exposes female parts of the body that are sexually arousing to the average man. So if some cultures promote Bikinis whether it be Thong or which ever form, that culture would be a good example of a culture with an inadequate view.

But to say that since a culture supports it, its modest is incorrect teaching. Something which Debora, you seem to promote.

 

[passer_by]

---

Again – you are taking men down —to the level of animals and using concupiscence as a crutch–to defend lustful men’s “weakness”.

Whether you like it or not, MEN ARE AFFECTED BY CONCUPISCENCE.

That is the effect of ORIGINAL SIN.

If you want to deny that, you are wayyy outside Church Teaching. In that situation all I can say is you have cease to be Catholic in your understanding of this issue.

 

[passer_by]

We are fallen creatures because of the Fall when the first men disobeyed God.

And this defends your position, how exactly?

 

[passer_by]

Good question though. Perhaps that is one of those questions that only God can truly know the answer to, since He is the only one who knows the intention of those groups of people and what goes on in their heads and hearts. Thus the Church, in Her wisdom, remains silent on the issue.

So it appears that the way it works is that if Debora cannot comprehend the answer or teaching by the church regarding any matter, it is most likely only God that knows

 

[passer_by]

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.

If someone is going nude in public BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL, then YES, that person is committing a MORAL sin by leading others to temptation.

It does not depend on the situation.

What St. Francis said was speaking about nudity in general. Nudity is ok when a husband and wife have sex for an example. But you are taking this quote out of context to try and justify public nudity. That is a logically incorrect usage of knowledge.

 

[severus68]

And this defends your position, how exactly?

Please read what I post in the context of my response.

 

[passer_by]

My view is that there is nothing sinful about that. It is never about sex. People with all sorts of bodies walk around without qawking. I would think it is also about accepting our bodies.

Very grave misunderstanding or perhaps a grave disregard for the effects of Original Sin as taught by the Church is present in the above comment.

While nudity is not sinful by it-self, exposing ones nudity in public is sinful because it leads others to sin.

 

[Debora123]

Please read what I post in the context of my response.

I would not bother, Severus.