How do I explain to someone being 90% naked is immoral

[BobObob]

yes, and for that reason the church gives us the “do’s and don’ts” by other means,
here is a good article on modesty which has the teachings of popes and other church authorities,
catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm

This isn’t exactly a list of do’s and don’ts that’s authoritative (and it certainly isn’t infallible). I’m not saying there isn’t value in this article. This article however, which I skimmed through, bought into the idea that the norm of less clothing in a given culture will necessarily lead to more lust in that society. Also, it didn’t even mention an author.

I honestly think that if situational semi-nudity or even full nudity was gradually socially acceptable in this culture in a non-sexualized way, in the long run, people will have less, not more, problems with lust. What seems to be going on in our culture (which you are referring to) is different from this because the norms of the amount of skin women tend to show is going up in order to gain attention by means of sexually appealing to others. The fact that that the amount of skin is going up isn’t wrong* per se*, but it is the end (gaining attention), and the means to that end (sexualization of the body) are what makes it evil.

change does not mean good, and since the morality of our country has become lax, we have as a result become perverted, sex is everywhere, in our schools, on tv, in magazines, books, the internet, you can’t escape from it, and so is it any surprise that in this over sexed world of ours, that woman would be dressing immodestly?

I don’t equate a standard of less clothing as being morally lax unless the standard of less clothing is for the intent or has the affect of appealing to people sexually. I think in our culture nudity is over-sexed because nudity is only presented in this culture in a sexual context.

Here are a couple posts from a similar thread that I thought are noteworthy:

"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty…Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness…Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful …Shamelessness [just like shame and modesty] is a function of the interior of a person.’

                               ---Karol Cardinal Woytyla [Pope John Paul ll ]

                                                       'Love & responsibility', 1981

Yes, of course we should fight pornography, but we should use a new approach. Pope John Paul ll once said that the problem with pornography was not that it revealed too much, but that it revealed too little. In the past, this attitude was far from evident in our deportment as we crusaded against pornography. The impression we gave was that pornography, indeed, revealed too much. By so operating, we effectively threw the baby out with the bathwater. The end result was an abiding contempt for the body itself.
“Decency” necessarily meant keeping the body out of sight and out of mind.
Instead of denying the body altogether, we should have asserted it in its rightful place. By undressing Michelangelo’s figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel Pope John Paul ll did just that.

This is why we must begin to move in the opposite direction, opposing pornography with new tactics–tactics which do not negate the body but which elevate it to its rightful, God-given place.
GOD BLESS

To get more on topic, women in this particular culture in this particular age should be more conscious regarding how they may be tempting men. However, I think that viewing the mere exposure of the human body, regardless of context, as an inherently immoral thing, is dangerous because it is likely to cause people to over sexualize nudity, and thus struggle with lust.

 

[EmeraldWings]

(sorry i have to make this into two posts, just went slightly over the limit)

This isn’t exactly a list of do’s and don’ts that’s authoritative (and it certainly isn’t infallible). I’m not saying there isn’t value in this article. This article however, which I skimmed through, bought into the idea that the norm of less clothing in a given culture will necessarily lead to more lust in that society. Also, it didn’t even mention an author.

the authority in that article are the quotes from various popes, who’s infallibility lies in their teachings of faith and morals,
when the pope teaches publicly on faith and morals, he is infallible in those teachings,
and since you do not want to read the full article, i will quote mainly what i was hoping you would read -

"Several Popes have spoken out with authority on the subject of modesty. Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) and his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, have promoted modesty in dress. These are a few words of Pope Benedict XV: “One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindess of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault aginst Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Holy Altar, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity.” "

and here is another from Pope Pius XI -
"*On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by mandate of Pope Pius XI, issued emphatic instructions on modesty of dress to all
bishops, directing them to insist on these prescriptions: “We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth
under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knee. Furthermore, dresses of
transparent material are improper. “Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.” *”

that article may not list an author, but it is still very good and very true, just read it as if it was from someone on this forum, you don’t know any of us, so what difference does it make? the article is pretty much half of just quotes from popes and saints anyways, and the popes being quoted do have authority in what they are saying, which still holds true to today, the church has not made these teaching void, and neither you nor i have the authority to deny them.

 

[EmeraldWings]

I honestly think that if situational semi-nudity or even full nudity was gradually socially acceptable in this culture in a non-sexualized way, in the long run, people will have less, not more, problems with lust. What seems to be going on in our culture (which you are referring to) is different from this because the norms of the amount of skin women tend to show is going up in order to gain attention by means of sexually appealing to others. The fact that that the amount of skin is going up isn’t wrong* per se*, but it is the end (gaining attention), and the means to that end (sexualization of the body) are what makes it evil.

I don’t equate a standard of less clothing as being morally lax unless the standard of less clothing is for the intent or has the affect of appealing to people sexually. I think in our culture nudity is over-sexed because nudity is only presented in this culture in a sexual context.

i think that if you look at it plain and simple, right now men are very aroused by girls in bikinis (not to mention what they walk around in on a daily basis) and girls enjoy being looked at in that way,
it doesn’t matter what could be if we did this or that, because in reality, it’s just not going to happen, impurity is rampant in our society today(and has been for a long time) and people are not going to give that up easily,
and i believe quite the opposite will happen as a result from showing more and more skin, people aren’t going to become more moral as a result of showing more skin, they become more numb to it, in which case it will be just like the druggies, the more they have, the more they will become numb to it, and will keep wanting to up the dosage,
that is what’s going on with our fashions, as time goes on, the thrill dies down, and they have to reveal more and more to get the thrill back.

and here is another quote from that article which addresses this issue as well -
"The opinion which allows custom to dictate the question of modesty was refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence: “There always exists an
absolute norm to be preserved.” "

there is a problem here and now, and the immodesty in our society is only adding to the problem,
i know from talking to many people, that immodest dress causes terrible temptations in men, many men want to resist those temptations, but even more do not want to resist them,
the theory that implementing nudity into our culture gradually would fix the problem is really to far off and not even considered by most people, and if we tried taking up such an experiment, how many more souls would be lost in the process, as opposed to how many would be saved if we just went back to the way things were?
immodesty has always been a problem in the world, even in Jesus’ time it was a problem, and if you want to be charitable towards your neighbor as Jesus tells us to, then you should encourage others to dress in a way that would not outright temp others,

and if woman did start dressing more modestly, then perhaps men would not think so much that they have a right to look at woman lustfully.

To get more on topic, women in this particular culture in this particular age should be more conscious regarding how they may be tempting men. However, I think that viewing the mere exposure of the human body, regardless of context, as an inherently immoral thing, is dangerous because it is likely to cause people to over sexualize nudity, and thus struggle with lust.

i do not consider the human body sinful in itself, but i am aware of the overwhelming percentage of both men and woman who are slaves to these sins,
i know it is not nudity itself that is the sin, it is the lust,
and if anyone is over-sexualizing things, it’s the media.

well, one more thing i would like to add,
according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, modesty “protects the intimate center of the person,” keeping veiled what should be, “guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them”, “inspires one’s choice of clothing”, “keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity”, “[protests] against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things”, and “inspires a way of like which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies”

how does that all make bikinis and the fashions in our current culture here ok, which are clearly opposed to those teachings, inasmuch as how they effect others here and now.

 

[BobObob]

the authority in that article are the quotes from various popes, who’s infallibility lies in their teachings of faith and morals,
when the pope teaches publicly on faith and morals, he is infallible in those teachings,

I don’t mean to get off topic on this thread, but this isn’t exactly right. As a theology major, I know that the incidences of a teaching of a pope falling papal infallibility is extremely rare. Nothing in that article falls under papal infallibility, and most of the CCC isn’t infallible (some of the CCC is infallible because it way infallibly defined before the CCC existed). For more info, see the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

the article is pretty much half of just quotes from popes and saints anyways, and the popes being quoted do have authority in what they are saying, which still holds true to today, the church has not made these teaching void, and neither you nor i have the authority to deny them.

Given the fact that it doesn’t fall under papal infallibility, a Catholic may, in good conscience, disagree with some particular in the article. I’m not saying that that article doesn’t have good principles, but the exact rules that Pius XI laid out certainly aren’t rules that have to be universally adhered to in all cultures in all ages.

"The opinion which allows custom to dictate the question of modesty was refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence: “There always exists an
absolute norm to be preserved.” "

Whoever wrote this article seems to have made the mistake of taking Pius XII’s words as falling under papal infallibility. They don’t. I’d agree that absolute norms should be preserved if you’re referring to absolute norms regarding how the body should be treated and viewed (as a temple of the Holy Spirit), but not if you mean that every culture and age should use the same quality and quantity of dress.

the theory that implementing nudity into our culture gradually would fix the problem is really to far off and not even considered by most people, and if we tried taking up such an experiment, how many more souls would be lost in the process, as opposed to how many would be saved if we just went back to the way things were?

I’m not suggesting that we try to push for public nudity by trying to introduce more nudity into our society. I do think, however, that if moral crusaders who think they need to go out of their way to oppose all forms of nudity were more permissive of non-sexual nudity, and linked nudity less to sex, then over time we can be able to look at the human body in less degrading ways and have displaying more of the human body, for the right reasons, to not be a near occasion of sin. I recommend you read the following research article:

versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf

 

[MikiBee]

I just had a big ol’ post written up discussing Papal Infallibility, but when I went to quote, I noticed Bob beat me to it, and did a much better job than I would have!

No swimming, no gymnastics. What about track? What about a run around the block? No tank tops, no T-shirts, no shorts above the knee? Wow… this is getting worse and worse.

I’m all about being charitable-- but wow, women seem to really get the short end of the stick, wouldn’t you say? I live in Texas and it gets HOT-- for about 6 months out of the year. I can’t imagine wearing shorts to the knee and 3/4 length sleeves ALL the time. I’m sorry, I can’t imagine men look at women running track and find that exciting because she’s wearing shorts and a tank top. Really?

 

[anode]

Do you still *have *a girlfriend? I am surprised she’s still dating you.

Unless a girl is topless with a thong on US beaches, or she’s* unusually* good-looking, no one is going to notice her. Women go around everywhere skimpily dressed or wearing very clingy garments. Most don’t have the figures for it, by a long shot. Nobody notices.

Get over it.

 

[EmeraldWings]

I don’t mean to get off topic on this thread, but this isn’t exactly right. As a theology major, I know that the incidences of a teaching of a pope falling papal infallibility is extremely rare. Nothing in that article falls under papal infallibility, and most of the CCC isn’t infallible (some of the CCC is infallible because it way infallibly defined before the CCC existed). For more info, see the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Given the fact that it doesn’t fall under papal infallibility, a Catholic may, in good conscience, disagree with some particular in the article. I’m not saying that that article doesn’t have good principles, but the exact rules that Pius XI laid out certainly aren’t rules that have to be universally adhered to in all cultures in all ages.

Whoever wrote this article seems to have made the mistake of taking Pius XII’s words as falling under papal infallibility. They don’t. I’d agree that absolute norms should be preserved if you’re referring to absolute norms regarding how the body should be treated and viewed (as a temple of the Holy Spirit), but not if you mean that every culture and age should use the same quality and quantity of dress.

I’m not suggesting that we try to push for public nudity by trying to introduce more nudity into our society. I do think, however, that if moral crusaders who think they need to go out of their way to oppose all forms of nudity were more permissive of non-sexual nudity, and linked nudity less to sex, then over time we can be able to look at the human body in less degrading ways and have displaying more of the human body, for the right reasons, to not be a near occasion of sin. I recommend you read the following research article:

versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf

although you may be right on the infallibility(which i am going to look into more), does that mean all these teachings from popes and saints are wrong? and what about the last part of my post?
even if many of the popes teachings are not officially infallible, the Holy Ghost is still working and teaching through Him, we need to listen to the church more, especially in matters of morality, when people listened to the church way back when, we weren’t to bad off(Catholics) but now look at it, everything is twisted and perverted, things are more worse now then ever, and i’m not saying immodesty is a cause, although it is for some things, but it is more of a result…
and besides, even if these teachings i’ve shown to you are not infallible, they still have authority in them, and they are still guided by the Holy Ghost,

i understand what you are saying, but what i am saying is that it’s not going to happen, we already know dressing modestly under the guidelines the church has given works, so why try something new that may not even work and which may make things worse? it is a gamble that is not necessary,
we already know dressing modestly works, so what’s wrong with that?
i know it’s hard telling people these kinds of things when you know most people will be against you in it…but i think that is how we got into this mess in the first place, by being afraid of what people will think and say of you…but we know as Catholics…we can’t be timid about the truth, we have to be loving about it and not push to hard, but we can’t back down just because we get yelled at and called all kinds of names…Jesus didn’t back down, and neither should we,

it’s clear that you do see a problem in all of this, even if we don’t agree on the cause or solution, there is clearly a problem, and my only advice is, seek the churches advice on the matter,
because even if this idea you’ve mentioned would work, the issue is not if it would work or not, it’s whether people would be willing to try it…and even God doesn’t have that much cooperation with us…

there are already alot of people going back to dressing the way the church told us years ago, the people in my church all dress modestly, and the men in our church as a result are very respectful of the woman, and(compared to other men i know) are like angels,
there has never been a divorce in my church as long as i’ve been there, i’ve never seen anyone acting perverted or lewd…so dressing modestly, along with the practice of chastity and purity, results in decent and moral people…and that is what we are trying to achieve right? well it works this way! why try something else that may not work and which will take a very long time? many souls being lost in the process…

well, all i can say is, whatever way God wants it, He will give us the means to do it…

i think i’ve said enough, so that’s all for now, take care.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Do you still *have *a girlfriend? I am surprised she’s still dating you.

Unless a girl is topless with a thong on US beaches, or she’s* unusually* good-looking, no one is going to notice her. Women go around everywhere skimpily dressed or wearing very clingy garments. Most don’t have the figures for it, by a long shot. Nobody notices.

Get over it.

are you just assuming that? because most guys i know, and even guys i don’t know but have talked to, all say quite the opposite,
and not only have i been told, but i see it with my own eyes how guys look at girls, it’s obvious…
a girl does not have to be topless to arouse a guy, i’ve been around long enough to notice, it really doesn’t take much at all for a guy to get aroused…

 

[BobObob]

although you may be right on the infallibility(which i am going to look into more), does that mean all these teachings from popes and saints are wrong?

It at least means they could be wrong.

and what about the last part of my post?

Do you mean about bikinis and current fashions?

If the current trend is being pushed by, in one way or another, appealing to people’s sexuality, than it is wrong. Otherwise, changes I think should be gradual so as to not cause problems for those who aren’t used to, and cannot control themselves, with different levels of clothing.

I’d say that if a change in the cultural trend toward less clothing is done appropriately, rather than for sexual reasons, and it is reasonably gradual, and yet some people still have a problem with lust regarding the situation, than it is not so much the problem of the person who is appropriately conforming to the culture so much as it is the beholder who has a problem.

i understand what you are saying, but what i am saying is that it’s not going to happen, we already know dressing modestly under the guidelines the church has given works, so why try something new that may not even work and which may make things worse?

By guidelines of the Church, are you referring to Pope Pius XI’s statements?

I’m not sure we can really say that Pius XI’s standards for dress really works. It’s hard to say though because I don’t think there have been any studies in this regard. Also, it seems that in most cultures and most ages people thought that their culture and their age had more moral decay than others, while that wasn’t always true. Thus, it’s hard to gauge if the customs “back then” necessarily lead to less sin or not.

It does seem to me that parts of the world where nudity has been more acceptable have not, as a whole, been more lustful and morally corrupt.

I’d say one thing we should do is not view the mere exposure of human body as such as evil.

there are already alot of people going back to dressing the way the church told us years ago, the people in my church all dress modestly, and the men in our church as a result are very respectful of the woman, and(compared to other men i know) are like angels,
there has never been a divorce in my church as long as i’ve been there, i’ve never seen anyone acting perverted or lewd…so dressing modestly, along with the practice of chastity and purity, results in decent and moral people…and that is what we are trying to achieve right? well it works this way! why try something else that may not work and which will take a very long time? many souls being lost in the process…

Since covering the body more thoroughly in our culture is associated with chastity (while the opposite is associated with lust) it isn’t surprising that these people who have the discipline to be chaste also have the discipline to do what they think is modest.

 

[Bookcat]

I have only glanced at this thread (just in case some were immodestly dressed …)

But thought I would add what the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes (read the whole slowly…i highlighted parts but the whole is important0:

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.

 

[Orchids]

Hmm, not too be judgemental, but some of you should be a little nicer to Steave.

I personally wear long skirts that go to my ankles everyday, and sleeves that go about halfway to my elbow, or longer. It’s very modest, comfortable, and I don’t need to worry about guys thinking about me in a sexual way, because I’ve dressed as modest as possible, and it wouldn’t be partly my sin if any guy sinned over me. (Bah that sounds confusing!)
I have problems with bikinis because, even if they aren’t thongs, the bottom part, uh, tends to “crawl up” and it ends up looking just like a thong. I don’t even go to the beach anymore because I don’t want to see womens’ bottoms without covering. Besides, even if bikinis are acceptable in America, that doesn’t mean they are right. Being accepted doesn’t mean that any sexual stuff is removed from it. If it was, why would so many men pay money to look at women in revealing swimsuits?
You can’t dress however you like, even if it pleases other people. You have to think of what JESUS and MARY want. Didn’t Mary say at Fatima (Might be getting it confused with something else, lol) that some fashions offended The Lord very much?
Girls and women are supposed to shroud parts of their body in a mystery. Revealing those parts just open the door to sex crimes and all that stuff. Why should a guy get married if he can have his choice of plenty of revealing women? Do you even WANT guys like that looking at you on the beach, thinking about having sex with you? It owuld be better to hide yourself and wait for the right person, a good man who would not abuse you, wanting sex all the time.
Bikinis sexually excite a lot of men (And I guess a couple of women, too) and that can’t be avoided here. This isn’t the same culture as Africa. This is a sex obsessed culture. Sex is on the mind of a lot of people, and immodest clothing only makes the problem bigger.
I’ve always wondered if less women were raped in the olden times because the guy who might have commited it would have thought about ALL THAT CLOTHING on the women! (I’m going to stop right now. I don’t want to become too explicit.)

And if wearing a bikini at Mass is sinful, why isn’t sinful to wear it everywhere else? God IS everywhere, right? And chances are, a lot of bad guys are wherever the bikinis are.

I commend Steave on the fact that he is trying to stay away from becoming sexually excited or anything like that. If I had a boyfriend who told me he was uncomfortable with the bikinis, short skirts or revealing clothes I wore, (I don’t wear any of those, this is just some hypothetical thing) I would be very pleased with him for caring about it. Steave doesn’t sound like a abusive control freak. He sounds like a good guy who cares about protecting his girlfriend from sinful men.

 

[MikiBee]

I’ve always wondered if less women were raped in the olden times because the guy who might have commited it would have thought about ALL THAT CLOTHING on the women! (I’m going to stop right now. I don’t want to become too explicit.)

What makes you think less people were raped in the olden times? Have you not read the OT even? They even had rules and specific punishments for rape back then (like having to pay the father if the girl was unmarried). Don’t kid yourself. Rape has been around since the fall of man. It has nothing to do with clothing and everything to do with power.

 

[Orchids]

Oh, I knew it was around since the Fall. I wasn’t even saying that it was less. I posed that part partly as a question. I mostly was trying to say that I think immodest clothing tempts men more than modest clothing. Sometimes the things I type don’t come out as I intended them.

 

[mini_me640]

Words cannot express how much I disagree with the idea that immodest clothing has anything to do with rape. All studies on rape indicate that it is not a sexual act on part of the perpetrator, but an act of violence and power. Rapists don’t pick the hottest, most scantily dressed girl around, but the easiest target. Why do you think you hear about old ladies getting raped by 20 year old men? It isn’t because the men are sexually attracted to them. Also, rape is actually quite common in the Middle East, where women are covered from head to toe. It has nothing to do with sexual temptation.

 

[BobObob]

Besides, even if bikinis are acceptable in America, that doesn’t mean they are right. Being accepted doesn’t mean that any sexual stuff is removed from it. If it was, why would so many men pay money to look at women in revealing swimsuits?

Men in this country pay a lot to see women in revealing swimsuits because seeing women in revealing swimsuits in this culture is a sexual thing.

Nudity means different things in different cultures. In our culture it means sex, but that doesn’t have to be the case. For more info in this regard, read the following research article:

versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf

You have to think of what JESUS and MARY want. Didn’t Mary say at Fatima (Might be getting it confused with something else, lol) that some fashions offended The Lord very much?

I don’t mean to sound argumenitive, but it seems that most people have the idea in their mind that Jesus and Mary would oppose all nudity. Jesus didn’t rebuke Peter when he was naked in public in John 21:7 (blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#top ).

If the fashions are such that they appeal to people’s sexual appetites that they’re wrong.

Revealing those parts just open the door to sex crimes and all that stuff. Why should a guy get married if he can have his choice of plenty of revealing women?

First off, the rate of rape is astronomically high in the Middle East where women have to cover every square inch of their body.

Second, cultures where nudity is more often acceptable tend to sexualize mere nudity less, but they can, just as well as other cultures, have conjugal relations with their spouce.

This isn’t the same culture as Africa. This is a sex obsessed culture. Sex is on the mind of a lot of people, and immodest clothing only makes the problem bigger.

I think this is a sex obsessed culture in part because we view the human body as something that has to be covered up with the exception of the occasion of having sex.

My point with the African cultures is that having more nudity in cultures does not necessarily mean more sex craze. In fact, it could actually mean less.

And if wearing a bikini at Mass is sinful, why isn’t sinful to wear it everywhere else? God IS everywhere, right? And chances are, a lot of bad guys are wherever the bikinis are.

For the same reason it would be sinful to wear a tee-shirt and shorts to a wedding or funeral, but not at a park. It’s disrespectful in that context.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I just had a big ol’ post written up discussing Papal Infallibility, but when I went to quote, I noticed Bob beat me to it, and did a much better job than I would have!

No swimming, no gymnastics. What about track? What about a run around the block? No tank tops, no T-shirts, no shorts above the knee? Wow… this is getting worse and worse.

I’m all about being charitable-- but wow, women seem to really get the short end of the stick, wouldn’t you say? I live in Texas and it gets HOT-- for about 6 months out of the year. I can’t imagine wearing shorts to the knee and 3/4 length sleeves ALL the time. I’m sorry, I can’t imagine men look at women running track and find that exciting because she’s wearing shorts and a tank top. Really?

So in TX, for half the year everyone is running around in short-shorts and a tank top? Really? Men and women? I highly doubt that. I expect that even men when they are relaxing are wearing ordinary shorts and a t-shirt. Men’s shorts these days go down below the knee if you haven’t noticed. So if a woman, relaxing at the same bbq as the man, had on knee length shorts and a t-shirt type shirt, she’d be just a cool as he is and nicely modest. If she took her perogative and wore a knee-length skirt or sun-dress (with sleeves) she’d probably be cooler and would be considered even more modest.

Heat and humidity are no excuse for a woman to go around in the equivalent of her underwear or barely more. And in my opinion it’s also no excuse for a man to take his shirt off at any place other than a pool or beach (and really I’d rather he didn’t even then!)

 

[MikiBee]

So in TX, for half the year everyone is running around in short-shorts and a tank top? Really? Men and women? I highly doubt that. I expect that even men when they are relaxing are wearing ordinary shorts and a t-shirt. Men’s shorts these days go down below the knee if you haven’t noticed. So if a woman, relaxing at the same bbq as the man, had on knee length shorts and a t-shirt type shirt, she’d be just a cool as he is and nicely modest. If she took her perogative and wore a knee-length skirt or sun-dress (with sleeves) she’d probably be cooler and would be considered even more modest.

Heat and humidity are no excuse for a woman to go around in the equivalent of her underwear or barely more. And in my opinion it’s also no excuse for a man to take his shirt off at any place other than a pool or beach (and really I’d rather he didn’t even then!)

No, not everyone does wears shorts and a tank top all the time. But the majority of people who are relaxing outside (not at work) do wear shorts and tank tops or Ts. A lot of people hang out around the lakes around where I live. Most of them are in bathing suits of various styles. I’m not a man, but I rarely take notice. I guess if a woman wore something extremely skimpy people notice, but by and large, everyone knows what kinds of women they are and don’t pay her any mind anyway.

Right now I am wearing shorts that come halfway to my knee, not short shorts, but not to my knee either, and a nice top that is about halfway between my elbows and shoulder. It has sort of a V-neck to it, but in no way showing anything that shouldn’t be seen… not even a hint of cleavage, but lower than the 2" that article says it must meet to be modest. I can’t imagine ANYONE would think I am dressed immodestly.

So, how does wearing a dress equal more modesty? I would tend to think that would make men think “things” were much more easily accessible. Even little boys tend to look up little girls’ skirts.

 

[anode]

are you just assuming that? because most guys i know, and even guys i don’t know but have talked to, all say quite the opposite,
and not only have i been told, but i see it with my own eyes how guys look at girls, it’s obvious…
a girl does not have to be topless to arouse a guy, i’ve been around long enough to notice, it really doesn’t take much at all for a guy to get aroused…

Most women really don’t want to be told by their male companions what they should wear. If there is a disagreement on this issue, the parties should reconsider their commitments. Most men who try to control *their *women’s clothing habits are very controlling or have real problems with roving eyes.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Most women really don’t want to be told by their male companions what they should wear. If there is a disagreement on this issue, the parties should reconsider their commitments. Most men who try to control *their *women’s clothing habits are very controlling or have real problems with roving eyes.

yes, i know, that is why i said earlier, it has to be done lovingly, the reason for helping someone with their dress(men and woman both) would be out of love for them and for others.

if someone has control issues then that’s another problem altogether and really doesn’t have anything to do with whether dressing skimpily is immodest or not.

i’ve been meaning to post this -
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=128b51adc0ab33dc&mt=application%2Fpdf&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D9e2ddec213%26view%3Datt%26th%3D128b51adc0ab33dc%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTy1O39QxntnJFVk99avE7X3rdniQ

that is something i was looking for and finally found it…i hope it comes up, that explains on things you are saying, plus much much more.

it contains doctrinal teachings on modesty, authoritative and infallible teachings, and alot of very good advice and explanations on modesty and purity,

it might take just an hour to read the whole thing, and i would like to ask if it’s not to much to please read it all(not just you but anyone who sees this post)

it explains way more and way better any of the things i’ve tried to explain, and it also has the churches approval.

 

[BobObob]

yes, i know, that is why i said earlier, it has to be done lovingly, the reason for helping someone with their dress(men and woman both) would be out of love for them and for others.

if someone has control issues then that’s another problem altogether and really doesn’t have anything to do with whether dressing skimpily is immodest or not.

i’ve been meaning to post this -
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=128b51adc0ab33dc&mt=application%2Fpdf&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F%3Fui%3D2%26ik%3D9e2ddec213%26view%3Datt%26th%3D128b51adc0ab33dc%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTy1O39QxntnJFVk99avE7X3rdniQ

that is something i was looking for and finally found it…i hope it comes up, that explains on things you are saying, plus much much more.

it contains doctrinal teachings on modesty, authoritative and infallible teachings, and alot of very good advice and explanations on modesty and purity,

it might take just an hour to read the whole thing, and i would like to ask if it’s not to much to please read it all(not just you but anyone who sees this post)

it explains way more and way better any of the things i’ve tried to explain, and it also has the churches approval.

Unfortunateltly, the computers at the place I’m staying at (I’m travelling) cannot open the document you gave a link to. However, be careful about what you think is infallible! Only a few Church teachings fall under papal infallibility.