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

[BobObob]

EmeraldWings,

Regardless of whether or not Our Lardy was referring to the fashion of women wearing pants, I don’t see how that would go against what I’ve been trying to say.

Regarding women wearing pants, I believe that wearing “trousers”, as they were originally called, was a masculine thing, while wearing dresses was a feminine thing. Thus, the offensiveness with women wearing pants would be a fashion that would not respect the differences of the sexes. It is well known that cross dressing is a sin (against modesty I assert) because one is impersonating the opposite sex. It would, I think, offend God for man to try to eradicate every difference between the sexes. I’m not saying that I think it is a sin for a woman to wear pants, but that that overall trend to eradicate differences between the sexes in dress may be very offensive to God.

Or Mary may have been referring to something else, such as using one’s dress in titillating ways to arouse others.

Those are just my thoughts on what Mary said…

it was a prediction of warning, because what we wear does matter, there is a standard of modesty that is pleasing to Our Lord, otherwise Our Blessed Lady would not have said that He would be offended by certain fashion,

I’m not saying that how we are dressed doesn’t matter or that there are no standards. I just hold that those standards are principles regarding respect of the body, rather than legalistic decrees such as “x, y, and z must be covered.”

as far as studies go, there was a study done on men, in which they discovered that men, when exposed to various pictures of woman, instinctively looked at the woman’s particular body parts,
and of course instinct is not something learned or influenced, it is something inborn, and in this case, a natural tendency which is normal in all average men,
so, if the average man, and i’m sure even the less than average man, instinctively look at woman in those places, then it is not something that can be taken away,

Regarding the study, that finding doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m guessing that the participants in that study are grown men from this culture, which would mean that they’ve already gone through sexual development. Even if they were not grown men (which would probably be illegal), that fact that they probably haven’t seen or rarely see certain parts of the body would influence the result of the study. So basically, the fact that these participants automatically looked at certain areas of the body would neither mean that it is inborn nor mean that it isn’t learned.

BTW, if you find this study I’d be interested in looking at it.

Also, when I say “learned” in this context, what I roughly mean is “conditioned”.

of course in your example of men being uncomfortable around other men in the nude? that is not the same, men should be able to see other men naked and not care, and the same for woman, but men and woman seeing each other naked and not caring?

I agree with you that men should be able to see other men naked and not care. However, I guess what I was trying to say was that casual exposure to human bodies one is attracted to can (at least for some with SSA) get rid of the sexualized component of it.

you may not think that a man being turned on by what he sees is an important part of the marriage act, but then why did God make it that way? i believe it is an important thing, and if it is seen as a sexual thing? well that’s the point, that’s what sex is supposed to be, sexual does not mean dirty, it’s simply something that is good in and of itself, and bad when misused.

As someone who is not an expert by any means in this regard, I think that there can be different components of conjugal relations. It seems that when one aspect, such as touch, is further emphasized in the sexual act, other things are de-emphasized. I think that as one aspect of sex (such as the visual) is de-emphasized, the other aspects are further emphasized. I don’t think that God made the visual aspect of the marriage act such that to de-emphasize it and instead emphasize other parts of it would take away from it.

I don’t think that one can simply choose to get turned on by other aspects than what already turns him/her on. However, I think that if mere nudity were de-sexualized that other aspects would be further emphasized. People in cultures with lots of nudity seem to procreate just as much, and (although it is impossible to know for sure) experience just as much joy in the marriage act.

Even if de-sexualizing nudity partially took away from the marriage act, I think that if it greatly reduced sin the tradeoff would be well worth it. I think you would agree.

 

[seanflynn]

There may be only four people reading this thread, but I’ve got to go back to this:

Sure, I wouldn’t have a glass of wine at dinner in the company of someone I knew was an alcoholic out of respect and consideration for that person. I wouldn’t want to tempt them. However, at a public beach, it is not up to me to go around to each person asking them if they have problems with lust as to whether I will go swimming or not. Ridiculous.

You don’t have to ask each person if they have problems with lust. If a person is a male human over 13, then he either *has *struggled with, *currently *struggles with, or shamelessly *accepts *“problems with lust.” In the analogy of the glass of wine, we men are *all *either recovered alcoholics, recovering alcoholics, or drunks, respectively.

Also, the analogy breaks down on the side of dressing more modestly: Looking longingly at another’s drink can not actually intoxicate an alcoholic. Looking lustfully at another’s body is already comitting adultery with her in one’s heart.

Also, who knew modesty was so closely related to papal infallability?

 

[BobObob]

You don’t have to ask each person if they have problems with lust. If a person is a male human over 13, then he either *has *struggled with, *currently *struggles with, or shamelessly *accepts *“problems with lust.” In the analogy of the glass of wine, we men are *all *either recovered alcoholics, recovering alcoholics, or drunks, respectively.

Regarding the analogy of the glass of wine, my position of modesty would be somewhat like saying that a moderate amount of drinking alcohol under parental supervision as a kid would later on prevent him from abusing the alcohol as an adult. Of course, that analogy breaks down in many ways.

This is a bit off-topic, but in one of my psychology classes I learned that those who are best “adjusted” regarding the use of drugs like alcohol, are those who have used them in moderation and under supervision early on in life. They were better “adjusted” than those who completely abstained from alcohol.

Also, in Europe, where in many countries it isn’t unusual for children to have a little bit of wine each day at dinner (in quantities small enough to not harm their vulnerable bodies), they have far fewer drinking problems than in the US. In the US, with few legal exceptions, people are legally mandated to abstain from alcohol until 21, but yet we have astronomically higher rates of DUIs than those countries where moderate drinking is done by kids.

Also, who knew modesty was so closely related to papal infallability?

It seems that so many issues are closely related to papal infallibility, which is why I think it is crucial for Catholics to properly understand papal infallibility, including its meaning and scope.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Regardless of whether or not Our Lardy was referring to the fashion of women wearing pants, I don’t see how that would go against what I’ve been trying to say.

Regarding women wearing pants, I believe that wearing “trousers”, as they were originally called, was a masculine thing, while wearing dresses was a feminine thing. Thus, the offensiveness with women wearing pants would be a fashion that would not respect the differences of the sexes. It is well known that cross dressing is a sin (against modesty I assert) because one is impersonating the opposite sex. It would, I think, offend God for man to try to eradicate every difference between the sexes. I’m not saying that I think it is a sin for a woman to wear pants, but that that overall trend to eradicate differences between the sexes in dress may be very offensive to God.

Or Mary may have been referring to something else, such as using one’s dress in titillating ways to arouse others.

Those are just my thoughts on what Mary said…

wearing pants is one thing, but she specifically said “fashions”, and she was also specific in saying they would be “introduced”, which means “presented”, meaning they would be fashions actually put out for us, not things we manipulate in our clothes, but the clothes themselves.
in the past 100 years, the fashions have changed so dramatically and so very far from what was considered modest, that it is just obvious that this is what Our Lady was referring to,
you said “I don’t see how that would go against what I’ve been trying to say”, but i will tell you how,
if certain fashions can be offensive to Our Lord, then how would He feel about casual nudity? why didn’t Our Blessed Mother say instead, that how we look at the human body offends Our Lord very much?
heaven knows what is going on better then we do, God knows better then anyone what will work, the church has been guiding us in the ways of modesty all along the way, and we know very well that the church is guided by the Holy Ghost,
so why did God take this route? we can’t be so bold as to say that He didn’t, because He told us He would guide His church,
lets not forget that the church isn’t there just to declare infallible teachings, she is also there as a teacher, that is what God wanted most of all, that is one of the reasons He came down for us, to be a teacher, His Apostles and Disciples called Him “teacher”, and He wanted that to stay with us even after He left,
you and I, we are not experts on this, not modesty or sexuality, but many now in the church and even many more in the past were and are the experts, they made it their life’s work to teach and save souls, they studied not just in their minds, but in their hearts, and God was there with them, because they were doing His work.
that is why i trust the church very much, not just in the infallible teachings, but also in everything else, especially in morality, which tends to be the most talked about.

I’m not saying that how we are dressed doesn’t matter or that there are no standards. I just hold that those standards are principles regarding respect of the body, rather than legalistic decrees such as “x, y, and z must be covered.”

what is modesty in dress for except to cover “x, y, and z”? dress is not for fashions sake, although we should dress nicely for Our Lord, and because we are temples of the Holy Ghost, but that doesn’t fall under modesty, that falls under honor due to God,
modesty in dress is specifically to cover what may be a cause of temptation to others, and there are many good things which come from that,

here is what we know, we are obligated to avoid the near occasion of sin, and right now(and always as far as i’m concerned) the way woman dress is a near occasion of sin,
and we also know that to willingly be an occasion of sin is a sin(a sin against charity to be more specific),
so, right now, people are committing mortal sins, woman for dressing immodestly, and men for willingly lusting after them “in their hearts”. of course we can’t say for sure whether someone knew what they were doing or not without good reason, but for us as Catholics, if we do not help and instruct others in these matters when we are able to, then that sin also falls on us.

we know that men have trouble being tempted around skimpily dressed woman, many men admit to it, it’s no secret,
but one thing not everyone knows is that men are much more comfortable around modestly dressed woman, they don’t have to fight the temptation to look or to let their mind wonder, i am a personal witness to this, as i said before, i have not always dressed modestly, but i have noticed where men’s eye’s look when i’ve talked to them, and when i’m dressed modestly, they look me in the face with no problems and can talk just fine, whereas when i use to dress immodestly, their eyes were all over the place, some men looked willingly, others i could tell were trying very hard not to look, and they just could not focus as well on the conversation,
i’ve even had men thank me for dressing modestly, and they also tend to be much more respectful and chivalrous(men who don’t even know me at all)

when i dress modestly, i am free, and so are men…or at least those who don’t actually want to look willingly…
modest dress does work, because if men can’t look, then there is no direct temptation.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Regarding the study, that finding doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m guessing that the participants in that study are grown men from this culture, which would mean that they’ve already gone through sexual development. Even if they were not grown men (which would probably be illegal), that fact that they probably haven’t seen or rarely see certain parts of the body would influence the result of the study. So basically, the fact that these participants automatically looked at certain areas of the body would neither mean that it is inborn nor mean that it isn’t learned.

BTW, if you find this study I’d be interested in looking at it.

Also, when I say “learned” in this context, what I roughly mean is “conditioned”.

well, the study was done for advertisement purposes, to see what men look at so advertisers know what to draw them in with,
the most i can remember from what i read was, they were testing to see where the mens eyes landed upon each picture, they showed pictures of woman in pants from behind, and immediately their eyes landed on her bottom,
then they showed pictures from the front, and likewise their eyes landed on the crotch.
these men, and also other men simply commenting on the study, said that they looked whether they wanted to or not, that it “just happens”

this is what is going on in society right now, and woman refusing to cover up, or people like you and me not encouraging them to, will not help the situation, Our Lady also said at Fatima, that sins of the flesh send more souls to hell then any other sin,
so with that in mind, i believe it is more important to fix this problem now to save souls right now, waiting however long it would take for your theory to kick in without aiding the situation by other means is only going to let many more souls go to hell when it could have been prevented…

I agree with you that men should be able to see other men naked and not care. However, I guess what I was trying to say was that casual exposure to human bodies one is attracted to can (at least for some with SSA) get rid of the sexualized component of it.

but how can that be true? no matter how many times a man sees his wife or girlfriend naked, does he ever stop getting aroused? generally not, perhaps in special cases, but not generally…even old men still get turned on by woman.

As someone who is not an expert by any means in this regard, I think that there can be different components of conjugal relations. It seems that when one aspect, such as touch, is further emphasized in the sexual act, other things are de-emphasized. I think that as one aspect of sex (such as the visual) is de-emphasized, the other aspects are further emphasized. I don’t think that God made the visual aspect of the marriage act such that to de-emphasize it and instead emphasize other parts of it would take away from it.

I don’t think that one can simply choose to get turned on by other aspects than what already turns him/her on. However, I think that if mere nudity were de-sexualized that other aspects would be further emphasized. People in cultures with lots of nudity seem to procreate just as much, and (although it is impossible to know for sure) experience just as much joy in the marriage act.

Even if de-sexualizing nudity partially took away from the marriage act, I think that if it greatly reduced sin the tradeoff would be well worth it. I think you would agree.

but since immodesty became so common and socially accepted(i think mainly around the 1960s/70s?) sin and immorality has shot through the roof, along with many other major problems,

you mentioned before that in the process of making casual nudity a normal thing, you would first start with a newer generation…but how can that even happen? first you would need permission from the parents, and then you have to take into consideration that you can’t expose the youth to those things without also exposing the adults as well,
in any process you choose to take, there would be many exposed to this casual nudity that would not be able to resist the temptation to look, and so i’d also like to ask, how many souls would you be willing to let go to hell for the sake of this “trade off”?, maybe it would reduce sin at some point…but before that point is reached, many would be lost.

and whatever process you choose, not everyone…and i would think, most, would not cooperate,
i wonder, have you talked this theory over with your priest? not just the concept, but the possibility of the actual process?
i mean like, on a large scale, what do you think it would take to make this theory a reality for everyone? how long would it take and how would you get everyone to cooperate?

ok that is all the time i have for now,
i am currently helping my sister out with her baby since her husband finally got a job, so i do not have as much time now to get on,
not that that changes anything, i will still get on when i can, but i just might be a little slower with more limited time to respond.

 

[MikiBee]

So, you are saying I’m committing a moral sin by wearing jeans/shorts and a short sleeved top that doesn’t go all the way to the elbow and slightly more than 2" below my collar bone?

 

[Ponyguy]

So, you are saying I’m committing a moral sin by wearing jeans/shorts and a short sleeved top that doesn’t go all the way to the elbow and slightly more than 2" below my collar bone?

“Moral sin” or is that a typo?

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

wearing pants is one thing, but she specifically said “fashions”, and she was also specific in saying they would be “introduced”, which means “presented”, meaning they would be fashions actually put out for us, not things we manipulate in our clothes, but the clothes themselves. in the past 100 years, the fashions have changed so dramatically and so very far from what was considered modest, that it is just obvious that this is what Our Lady was referring to,

The move from feminine dresses to masculine pants for women would be a fashion that could reasonably be at least one thing that Our Lady was referring to. I don’t know for sure what exactly fashions she was referring to, and neither do you (or anyone else). It really isn’t super obvious.

Also, Mary’s statement isn’t likely condemning casual nudity (the “fashion” of no clothes at all), because casual nudity was probably more common before she made that statement than it is now. Thus, it is likely that whatever fashions she was referring to the type, rather than the amount, of clothing.

Just my fallible opinion…

you said “I don’t see how that would go against what I’ve been trying to say”, but i will tell you how,
if certain fashions can be offensive to Our Lord, then how would He feel about casual nudity? why didn’t Our Blessed Mother say instead, that how we look at the human body offends Our Lord very much?

Certain fashions may be intended to gain the attention of others by trying to sexually appeal to people. This would be dressing like a harlot.

Other fashions, like I indicated before, may eradicate differences between the genders.

Regarding how Our Lord would feel about casual nudity, it is not intended to do either of the above. Also, Our Lord did not condemn Peter for being casually naked when fishing.

heaven knows what is going on better then we do, God knows better then anyone what will work, the church has been guiding us…

Even when heaven tell us something, especially when it’s something regarding the future, it is only as accurate as our interpretation of it is accurate. There are many things that heaven has revealed, yet are unclear as to what exactly they mean.

When the CC says that we should dress according to certain specifications, that falls under “prudential admonitions and Church discipline” (lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/stjohnfisher/2007-January/000038.html ), which means that it is the advice of men, and thus may be misleading.

what is modesty in dress for except to cover “x, y, and z”? dress is not for fashions sake, although we should dress nicely for Our Lord, and because we are temples of the Holy Ghost, but that doesn’t fall under modesty, that falls under honor due to God,

For this thread, when I use the term “modesty”, I am referring to the moral virtue of modesty, as opposed to the word modesty as a synonym of “moderate” (these are two different meanings).

modesty in dress is specifically to cover what may be a cause of temptation to others, and there are many good things which come from that,

here is what we know, we are obligated to avoid the near occasion of sin, and right now(and always as far as i’m concerned) the way woman dress is a near occasion of sin,

Avoiding the near occasion of sin is primarily the responsibility of the person with the problem, and secondarily a responsibility of others.

Casual nudity in a public area where people don’t have the need to go to, and it is more likely to be expected there, would be OK. An example of a situation like this would be a beach in France, where beaches are clothes-optional by default. In such situations, the fault would be the person with the lust, rather than the person in the nude, because the person with the problem could have just avoided those areas, rather than choosing to put himself in a situation that is dangerous for him.

People shouldn’t, out in public where people need to go, wear clothing that is likely to tempt others. For example, people shouldn’t wear considerably revealing clothing in a grocery store.

There is a limit to how much people need to go out of their way to avoid other people’s near occasions of sin. This is because there are always people with extreme problems. This is also why you shouldn’t wear clothing in a particular situation that is LIKELY to avoid sin.

Overall, it depends on the situation…

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

we know that men have trouble being tempted around skimpily dressed woman, many men admit to it, it’s no secret,
but one thing not everyone knows is that men are much more comfortable around modestly dressed woman…

This is definitely the case in this culture, however I think that this is significantly so true, or even not so at all, in many cultures. Perhaps I’ve stated this too much, but this is pretty much a non-issue for men looking at topless women in culture where women go topless.

well, the study was done for advertisement purposes, to see what men look at so advertisers know what to draw them in with,
…
they looked whether they wanted to or not, that it “just happens”.

Again, this probably varies by culture.

Also, since these are (presumably) all men who are fully sexually developed, it doesn’t really test whether it is inborn or developed (or both).

BobObob;6673286:

I agree with you that men should be able to see other men naked and not care. However, I guess what I was trying to say was that casual exposure to human bodies one is attracted to can (at least for some with SSA) get rid of the sexualized component of it.

but how can that be true? no matter how many times a man sees his wife or girlfriend naked, does he ever stop getting aroused? generally not, perhaps in special cases, but not generally…even old men still get turned on by woman.

This would be a lot more possible for someone whose sexuality is more plastic (changeable) such as a developing adolescent, a pre-pubescent child (whose sexuality doesn’t exist yet), or a young adult who has abstained from sex, as opposed to others whose sexuality is less plastic, which could be due to reinforcement through sexual experiences. Thus, it is a lot less likely to happen for men with their spouses, and especially men who are addicted to sex (with the exception of many with SSA).

This could be true because the sexualization of mere nudity could be something that’s learned (as the differences between some African cultures and this culture supports).

The following article indicates that eroticism is NOT stimulated by nudism (which seems shocking):
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1933-02865-001&CFID=9249663&CFTOKEN=16651498

Like I mentioned with the medical students, I’m sure that male surgeons, when having a view of exposed female breasts during surgery, is not turned on, but rather de-sexualized over time to mere nudity. These same surgeons may still be turned on by their wives in much different contexts.

I also believe that NOT being sexually attracted to family members is also a learned thing, because as children, they grew up around each other in non-sexual contexts.

but since immodesty became so common and socially accepted(i think mainly around the 1960s/70s?) sin and immorality has shot through the roof, along with many other major problems,

I think what you’re talking about is much different from what I’m talking about.

you mentioned before that in the process of making casual nudity a normal thing, you would first start with a newer generation…but how can that even happen?

There are a few thing parent can do.

Americans are often shocked by the nudity in many European movies, and often criticize Europeans on that basis. Conversely, Europeans are often shocked by the violence in many American movies, and often criticize Americans on that basis. My father was freaking out when American Airlines was showing a movie with lots of nudity (about 15% of the movie contained nudity) on our flight to Rome many years ago. Regarding this, parents IMHO can do their children a favor by not holding them back on viewing content due merely to non-sexual nudity.

Also, children, from a young age, learn what to wear in what situations. They usually learn that it’s OK to be naked in the bathtub, but not in public. Parents, IMHO, would do well to allow greater exposure of their own bodies to each other at home. It can be OK to have much greater exposure of the human body in this context because before puberty, this wouldn’t cause lust, and because since they’re family members, it is much less likely to be a problem. I’m not necessarily saying that parents should encourage full nudity at home (although I think full nudity among the siblings could work out), but at least to be OK with at least partial nudity. Doing this at home could make the children to have a better body when they grow up, and may eradicate any general curiosities about the body in a way that’s secure (doesn’t have the threat of being sexualized) before they become lusts in puberty. I know many parents get a little bit weird with the issue of partial or full nudity.

I’m speculating that those who had almost no (healthy) exposure to the human body at home have much greater problems with porn later in life. It seems to be true that children who grow up in nudist families have fewer problems with porn.

I think that avoiding making nudity into a shameful thing would also help.

These tips that I have given are things that would not cause others to sin and would do good even if others don’t do the same. I’m sure I could think of a lot more things with more time. A lot of it is on the parents, and how they condition their children over time to view the human body.

 

[MikiBee]

“Moral sin” or is that a typo?

Yes, that was a typo. I meant “mortal.”

 

[Ponyguy]

Yes, that was a typo. I meant “mortal.”

Kinda thought so…

MikiBee, assuming that you’re a woman, I think your jeans/shorts and a short sleeved top] outfit would be perfectly fine.

Scrupulosity is also wrong…

 

[RachelKH]

it depends on how form fitting, how revealing, how your clothing draws the eyes. some shorts, like i like to wear, fit at the waistband, but are looser at the butt and thighs areas so as to be modest and comfortable, not revealing. tops that are loose yet lowcut can be very revealing if you lean over! so you need to move and watch yourself in the mirror to see how much is seen in your normal movements every day – more than you probably think! some jeans have pockets with decoration that are intended to draw eyes to look at your butt. some tops are made just to draw eyes to the shape of your breasts.

 

[EmeraldWings]

So, you are saying I’m committing a moral sin by wearing jeans/shorts and a short sleeved top that doesn’t go all the way to the elbow and slightly more than 2" below my collar bone?

if you’re talking about my last post, no i was not saying that, i was talking about the near occasion of sin, and that those who are willingly and knowingly(and purposely) a near occasion of sin to others, that they are sinning.

like i said before, temperance does not mean perfection, it means neither going from one extreme or to another, so there is breathing room,
although i do believe wearing pants for woman is a sin, but there are exceptions, such as those who are required to wear them at their job, in which case it’s recommended to wear a longer shirt to cover past the hips.

 

[EmeraldWings]

The move from feminine dresses to masculine pants for women would be a fashion that could reasonably be at least one thing that Our Lady was referring to. I don’t know for sure what exactly fashions she was referring to, and neither do you (or anyone else). It really isn’t super obvious.

Also, Mary’s statement isn’t likely condemning casual nudity (the “fashion” of no clothes at all), because casual nudity was probably more common before she made that statement than it is now. Thus, it is likely that whatever fashions she was referring to the type, rather than the amount, of clothing.

Just my fallible opinion…

casual nudity was not common at all back then, people were much more careful in the way they dressed and acted around others, even at home, just look at the clothes and underclothes of that time, they didn’t dress that way by accident.

and why would Our Blessed Mother warn us about something that we would never have any hope of knowing? that doesn’t make sense, i’m sure if she was going to give us a message, she would make sure we would beable to understand it, and she has, the Fatima crusades have very much to say on all of this and, in my opinion, are the experts on all of the messages given.

Also, Our Lord did not condemn Peter for being casually naked when fishing.

like i said before, that was done around other men, not woman, and he could very well have been wearing a loin cloth, we don’t know.

Even when heaven tell us something, especially when it’s something regarding the future, it is only as accurate as our interpretation of it is accurate. There are many things that heaven has revealed, yet are unclear as to what exactly they mean.

When the CC says that we should dress according to certain specifications, that falls under “prudential admonitions and Church discipline” (lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/s…ry/000038.html ), which means that it is the advice of men, and thus may be misleading.

when Jesus told His Apostles things they did not understand, He told them that they would understand in time,
and although i would not say that every message from heaven is vague, the ones that are vague are understood also when the time comes,

an ordinary mans advice may be much more misleading, but a man of God has the extra graces in that area,
and of course not all advice given is perfectly sound, but that doesn’t mean there is no truth to it at all,

For this thread, when I use the term “modesty”, I am referring to the moral virtue of modesty, as opposed to the word modesty as a synonym of “moderate” (these are two different meanings).

the virtue of modesty does include dress, here is a catholic definition of the word modesty…
“The virtue that moderates all the internal and external movements and appearance of a person according to his or her endowments, possessions, and station in life. Four virtues are commonly included under modesty: humility, studiousness, and two kinds of external modesty, namely in dress and general behavior.”

the virtue of modesty does come from the word moderation, and moderation comes from the word mode meaning “fashion or style in manners, dress, etc” and mode, if i can remember correctly, is originated from the word modus(German i think) which means “way in which anything is done”,
and also as i said before, modesty is closely related to temperance,
the difference is simply that temperance is the virtue dealing with moderation in all the desires(temperance is also the correlative of fortitude), and modesty is moderation of appearance,

i’m not sure what part of the virtue of modesty you are referring to, but if you could make it more clear, maybe that would help me understand what you’re saying.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Avoiding the near occasion of sin is primarily the responsibility of the person with the problem, and secondarily a responsibility of others.

Casual nudity in a public area where people don’t have the need to go to, and it is more likely to be expected there, would be OK. An example of a situation like this would be a beach in France, where beaches are clothes-optional by default. In such situations, the fault would be the person with the lust, rather than the person in the nude, because the person with the problem could have just avoided those areas, rather than choosing to put himself in a situation that is dangerous for him.

People shouldn’t, out in public where people need to go, wear clothing that is likely to tempt others. For example, people shouldn’t wear considerably revealing clothing in a grocery store.

There is a limit to how much people need to go out of their way to avoid other people’s near occasions of sin. This is because there are always people with extreme problems. This is also why you shouldn’t wear clothing in a particular situation that is LIKELY to avoid sin.

Overall, it depends on the situation…

avoiding the near occasion of sin is not more on one person than another, not unless the occasion of sin is only due to the persons weakness and is no direct fault of any other,
to be more clear on this, there is the “near occasion of sin” and the “remote occasion of sin”
we have an obligation to both avoid and prevent(of ourselves) any near occasions of sin, because they can easily lead to mortal sin,
remote occasions of sin, however, are occasions of sin that do not lead to mortal sin, and which we are not obligated to avoid because it’s simply impossible to avoid them in this world.

the reason it’s just as bad for someone to be a near occasion of sin is because they are being the source of temptation for someone else in a manner that is not the fault of the one being tempted,
for example, it is in no way a near occasion of sin for someone to go shopping, but it is a near occasion of sin to dress in lewd fashions,
so, if woman go around stores dressing in lewd fashions, and men seeing them are tempted to grave sin, who does the sin fall more on?
of course i know you agree that lewd dress should not be in public, as you said in the quote, but basically what i’m saying is, it is just as much our responsibility to keep from temping others as it is for others to avoid temptation, atleast in more direct ways.

i agree that it depends on the situation, but we are certainly not lacking in teachings and guidelines from the church on this matter.

This is definitely the case in this culture, however I think that this is significantly so true, or even not so at all, in many cultures. Perhaps I’ve stated this too much, but this is pretty much a non-issue for men looking at topless women in culture where women go topless.

to explain this better, here is a “note on modesty in Tropical mission lands” taken from “dressing with dignity”,
“St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, admitting that a *limited *measure of immodest exposure can cease to be a grave snare to people who have grown use to it, adds that those who first introduce it when it is a grave snare, sin gravely, and he makes it clear that there are limits beyond which customariness does not remove the grave snare. The holy office under Pius IX favored this view, requiring the adoption of some body coverage, in the interest of modesty, of savages who wish to become Catholic.”

so even though it may become the norm, to introduce it is a grave sin, and it is only limitedly acceptable,
and even though it was the norm, they were still required to take on more modest dress if they wished to become Catholic.

I’m speculating that those who had almost no (healthy) exposure to the human body at home have much greater problems with porn later in life. It seems to be true that children who grow up in nudist families have fewer problems with porn.

well, it is common in Japan for families to bathe together, to see eachother naked, and it is done in a clean and casual manner,
however, Japan has more problems with porn then most others, and they also have high percentages of rape,
the idea of introducing nudity to a society in the way you are saying is really nothing new, it has been attempted, and failed miserably,
i think one place that tried was Poland, which as a result ended up only becoming more perverted and immoral then any other country.
…the proof is in the pudding…
i’m not saying your idea and theirs are exactly the same, but the general idea is the same, and i really don’t see any particularly good reason to even risk it whatsoever, it’s just not necessary, you don’t need to *see *nudity to have a healthy attitude about it.
and to introduce such a thing to a society is to force it onto those who don’t want it, because it will inevitably effect them…

here’s the basic facts - nudity can and does effect people in a negative way that can be and is deadly to the soul, whereas modesty does not effect anyone in a negative way, and is not a cause for temptation at all,
so in my humble opinion, modesty is the safer more reasonable route.

 

[MikiBee]

What are the rules of modesty for a man?

 

[Ponyguy]

like i said before, temperance does not mean perfection, it means neither going from one extreme or to another, so there is breathing room,
although i do believe wearing pants for woman is a sin, but there are exceptions, such as those who are required to wear them at their job, in which case it’s recommended to wear a longer shirt to cover past the hips.

This seems quite a little bit wild and “out in left field” to me…

Nobody can put a pair of jeans, shorts, cut-offs, capris, and misses/juniors/woman’s dressy pants all in the same category. Today, women in business wear a woman’s “pants-suit” as ordinary business attire. There is no way I could possibly conceive the usual woman’s “jacket/blazer, blouse, and pants outfit” as sexually revealing or suggestive in any way. A well-styled skirt or pair of pants are worn interchangeably, from my point of view. At our local Catholic hospital, even some of the nuns who work in administration routinely wear conservative pants suits at their jobs in their offices.

 

[MikiBee]

if you’re talking about my last post, no i was not saying that, i was talking about the near occasion of sin, and that those who are willingly and knowingly(and purposely) a near occasion of sin to others, that they are sinning.

like i said before, temperance does not mean perfection, it means neither going from one extreme or to another, so there is breathing room,
although i do believe wearing pants for woman is a sin, but there are exceptions, such as those who are required to wear them at their job, in which case it’s recommended to wear a longer shirt to cover past the hips.

So are women not supposed to exercise? Have you ever tried exercising in a long skirt? Women are never allowed to swim? Never allowed to go camping or hiking? Women shouldn’t participate in sports? Women shouldn’t be police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, in the military?

 

[EmeraldWings]

like i said, there are exceptions, yes woman can wear pants for some of those things, but we just have to take into consideration why they are wrong in the first place,
since pants have become much more normal for woman, it is not quite as black and white as it use to be, when woman first started wearing pants, yes it was mortally sinful, because it was woman wearing mens attire, which of course the bible warns against,
but now that they are much more common, i would only say there are exceptions, and at the least, wearing tight or to short of pants would be morally endangering,
i’m not completely clear on where the church stands right now with pants in general, but if they’re not outright condemning wearing them as mortally sinful, then i personally can’t condemn them as mortally sinful myself, but nevertheless, i just don’t believe they should be our everyday normal attire. especially the more tight form fitting pants, or really short shorts…it’s about modesty, not wearing mens clothes, and having respect for our bodies…it’s not all black and white, but there is a line to be drawn.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

casual nudity was not common at all back then, people were much more careful in the way they dressed and acted around others, even at home, just look at the clothes and underclothes of that time, they didn’t dress that way by accident.

I think casual nudity was a lot more common back then than it is now. I don’t know for sure because I wasn’t alive back then. I do know that a while ago, before women were allowed, boys had to swim naked in YMCA’s. It seems to me like back then when a kid went swimming, it wasn’t taboo for him to do it in the nude.

and why would Our Blessed Mother warn us about something that we would never have any hope of knowing? that doesn’t make sense, i’m sure if she was going to give us a message, she would make sure we would beable to understand it, and she has, the Fatima crusades have very much to say on all of this and, in my opinion, are the experts on all of the messages given.

The warnings could be to encourage us to keep our eyes open. It has always baffled my why much of what’s in the Boob of Revelation is in there, since it probably won’t be until the final judgment that we’ll understand the prophesies in Revelation. I’ve heard that prophesies are not there so much to warn us, but to glorify God during and after their occurrence. Also, prophesies that have ambiguous meaning would serve the purpose of reminding us to stay vigilant.

like i said before, that was done around other men, not woman, and he could very well have been wearing a loin cloth, we don’t know.

He was not wearing anything. John 21:7 uses the words “gar ēn gymnos,” which means, “for he was naked”. There probably were no women around though.

BobObob;6677167:

For this thread, when I use the term “modesty”, I am referring to the moral virtue of modesty, as opposed to the word modesty as a synonym of “moderate” (these are two different meanings).

i’m not sure what part of the virtue of modesty you are referring to, but if you could make it more clear, maybe that would help me understand what you’re saying.

My above statement is not what I meant to say. It was a mistake, disregard it.

I am referring to modesty in dress. I think what I meant to say in the other post was that by modesty, I understand that one aught to regulate or restrict one’s dress to that which is appropriate, rather than staying away from an extreme. Obviously, what is appropriate can greatly vary though, even to the extreme of no clothes being appropriate in some situations.

avoiding the near occasion of sin is not more on one person than another, not unless the occasion of sin is only due to the persons weakness and is no direct fault of any other,
…
the reason it’s just as bad for someone to be a near occasion of sin is because they are being the source of temptation for someone else in a manner that is not the fault of the one being tempted,
…
i agree that it depends on the situation, but we are certainly not lacking in teachings and guidelines from the church on this matter.

One has an obligation to reasonably avoid being a near occasion of sin in areas where people would be at no fault for being tempted. However, in areas where semi-nudity or full nudity is to be expected, the fault would lie on the person experiencing the temptation so long as that’s an avoidable area.

As an weird analogy, if you go handing out alcohol to everyone you know, and some of them are alcoholics, you are responsible for being a source of temptation for them. If, on the other hand, you invite these same friends to a large party you are having, in which there is plenty of alcohol, than it is for the individuals to be prudent regarding whether or not he could handle the situation, and if he comes despite the fact that it would be a near occasion of sin, it’s his fault.