L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
How fitted we talking here? See through shirt? Tank top?
The outfit that I attached? I’m sorry.
Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.
- Status
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
How do you know what is going on in men’s minds? How do you know that men who see her are tempted to lust? NEWS FLASH… men can see beauty without lusting and choose not to be distracted by a lesser beauty at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. As such a man, I might be briefly distracted and sigh and then move to better be present at the Mass.
Please look up the Catholic definition of lust before you cavalierly equate looking with lusting.
R
RachelKH
Guest
i know that she tries her best to look very good – but does she know she is trying to look good ‘in that way’?? i can wear slacks and jeans that look good but don’t hug so tight – she may not know what she is doing, but she is later 40’s – usually you outgrow the public display of curves by that age – mostly teens and young adults still fall into that, but most leave it behind like pimples and gym class lockers. she is a wonderful, frienly, good woman, but she is careful always to dress to show off her physical attributes, rather than being discreet about them.
of course the guy was totally in the wrong to go craning and looking – i was shocked and repelled when i figured it out (it was distracting when he was right in front of me, bobbing and weaving!!) – but he finally moved to the front to avoid it and i felt for him – his wife died recently and he cared for her for years, as she was in a wheelchair for years, having suffered a stroke at a young age and having great trouble in doing anything for herself. i remember he had to bring his own ramp to wheel her in as there were no ramps up the two wide steps into the church. i watched him struggle with his lust and figure out a way to not give in.
of course the guy was totally in the wrong to go craning and looking – i was shocked and repelled when i figured it out (it was distracting when he was right in front of me, bobbing and weaving!!) – but he finally moved to the front to avoid it and i felt for him – his wife died recently and he cared for her for years, as she was in a wheelchair for years, having suffered a stroke at a young age and having great trouble in doing anything for herself. i remember he had to bring his own ramp to wheel her in as there were no ramps up the two wide steps into the church. i watched him struggle with his lust and figure out a way to not give in.
R
RachelKH
Guest
cspb – so you think he was craning to look at her behind to admire the beauty of it? you think he wasn’t lusting? hmm. really.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
Did you look up the Catolic definition of LUST? You still seem to be projecting your belief onto his actions.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Can’t we look without it being bad?
I’m a married woman, I was at a party with a former Miss “My State” I noticed that she was strikingly beautiful. No lust was involved at all, I assure you.
I actually saw Cindy Crawford once in person, and was amazed on how beautiful she was (she isn’t air brushed) again, no lust.
P
P_drum
Guest
Here’s a quote from an article:
"Modesty and beauty - the lost connection
by Regina Schmiedicke
In his book Man and Women, Dietrich von Hildebrand points to a particular “perfection” of the feminine nature: “We find in women a unity of personality by the fact that heart, intellect, and temperament are much more interwoven…This unity of the female type of human person displays itself also in a greater unity of inner and exterior life, in a unity of style embracing the soul itself as well as the exterior demeanor.”(1) In other words, women possess a special genius for harmonizing their outward appearance with their interior life-for incarnating their beliefs and ideas in concrete, visible ways.
Sadly, just as many women have forgotten what it means to be feminine, we have also forgotten how to attain this unity. In short, while many of us Catholic women believe strongly in chastity and purity, our dress does not always reflect our convictions. In order to correct this situation, we need to recover a sense of the reason why women in the past dressed modestly, and how modest dressing “befits” the dignity and vocation of women.
In our fragmented society, scanty clothing has somehow become associated with women’s social progress-as if the “right” to wear less indicated that we are moving up in the world. But my casual overview of history leads me to almost the opposite conclusion. It seems to me that in most cultures, the more clothing a person wears, the more important that person tends to be in society.
In history, slaves were often forced to go naked; royalty and other important personages were draped in robes. Peasant girls, slaves and concubines often wore short dresses (mini-skirts?), sometimes to show that they were sexually available. Women of rank were outfitted with long garments -queens of ancient Egypt, medieval France, and Victorian England all wore gowns that fell to their feet. My knowledge of anthropology is admittedly limited, but I believe this was the case in almost every culture until the advent of more effective and available birth control, when the situation changed to what we have now. Even in the debased symbolism of our modern culture we can find remnants of the association between clothing and human dignity. Judges still wear robes, as do priests, bishops and popes. On ceremonial occasions, professors and graduates wear them as well. In our society, only women are culturally permitted to wear “robes” at any time if they wish. I began exercising my “cultural prerogative” to wear robes (long skirts) as often as possible when I realized how crucial and valuable a woman’s role is to society. We’re meant to be much more than sex objects."
If you want the link to the article here it is: theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,4,2-5-1999/Schmiedicke.htm
"Modesty and beauty - the lost connection
by Regina Schmiedicke
In his book Man and Women, Dietrich von Hildebrand points to a particular “perfection” of the feminine nature: “We find in women a unity of personality by the fact that heart, intellect, and temperament are much more interwoven…This unity of the female type of human person displays itself also in a greater unity of inner and exterior life, in a unity of style embracing the soul itself as well as the exterior demeanor.”(1) In other words, women possess a special genius for harmonizing their outward appearance with their interior life-for incarnating their beliefs and ideas in concrete, visible ways.
Sadly, just as many women have forgotten what it means to be feminine, we have also forgotten how to attain this unity. In short, while many of us Catholic women believe strongly in chastity and purity, our dress does not always reflect our convictions. In order to correct this situation, we need to recover a sense of the reason why women in the past dressed modestly, and how modest dressing “befits” the dignity and vocation of women.
In our fragmented society, scanty clothing has somehow become associated with women’s social progress-as if the “right” to wear less indicated that we are moving up in the world. But my casual overview of history leads me to almost the opposite conclusion. It seems to me that in most cultures, the more clothing a person wears, the more important that person tends to be in society.
In history, slaves were often forced to go naked; royalty and other important personages were draped in robes. Peasant girls, slaves and concubines often wore short dresses (mini-skirts?), sometimes to show that they were sexually available. Women of rank were outfitted with long garments -queens of ancient Egypt, medieval France, and Victorian England all wore gowns that fell to their feet. My knowledge of anthropology is admittedly limited, but I believe this was the case in almost every culture until the advent of more effective and available birth control, when the situation changed to what we have now. Even in the debased symbolism of our modern culture we can find remnants of the association between clothing and human dignity. Judges still wear robes, as do priests, bishops and popes. On ceremonial occasions, professors and graduates wear them as well. In our society, only women are culturally permitted to wear “robes” at any time if they wish. I began exercising my “cultural prerogative” to wear robes (long skirts) as often as possible when I realized how crucial and valuable a woman’s role is to society. We’re meant to be much more than sex objects."
If you want the link to the article here it is: theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,4,2-5-1999/Schmiedicke.htm
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
You know, I think that sometimes people who feel that it is spiritually edifying to dress in a certain manner then jump to the conclusion that therefore everyone should dress in the same way. I have no problem with women who choose to wear long skirts or dresses everywhere they go, or choose to cover their heads during Mass or during everyday life. I have no problem with women who feel they have to put on makeup to leave the house for any reason, even to go out to the mailbox. I have no problem with women who don’t wear any makeup at all. I usually wear lip gloss and one of those tinted moisturizers or primers that aren’t technically foundation. Some would consider what I wear makeup, some wouldn’t.
What I do have a problem with, is people who think their personal choices should automatically apply to everyone else. For example, I personally don’t drink any alcohol, for a number of reasons. I understand that the Catholic Church doesn’t forbid alcohol, though it does consider drunkenness a sin. So I wouldn’t dream of pressuring others to not drink (unless, of course, I am personally concerned that they are developing a drinking problem). On the other hand, I wouldn’t want people to pressure me to drink by saying “but Jesus turned water into wine at Cana, there’s nothing wrong with it” or something like that. I don’t think, though, that the people who are, for lack of a better world, more “liberal” with their clothing choices are saying that those who dress more traditionally are wrong. I just wish the respect for clothing choices would go both ways.
CSPB, your testimony as a man is very interesting, however I have heard from other men who pretty much tell me that if I could read the minds of most men around me, then I’d want to run home and put on not only a burka, but a chastity belt as well. What they imply about the propensity of the average man to lust is much different than what you have experienced and witnessed yourself. Why do you think this is so?
What I do have a problem with, is people who think their personal choices should automatically apply to everyone else. For example, I personally don’t drink any alcohol, for a number of reasons. I understand that the Catholic Church doesn’t forbid alcohol, though it does consider drunkenness a sin. So I wouldn’t dream of pressuring others to not drink (unless, of course, I am personally concerned that they are developing a drinking problem). On the other hand, I wouldn’t want people to pressure me to drink by saying “but Jesus turned water into wine at Cana, there’s nothing wrong with it” or something like that. I don’t think, though, that the people who are, for lack of a better world, more “liberal” with their clothing choices are saying that those who dress more traditionally are wrong. I just wish the respect for clothing choices would go both ways.
CSPB, your testimony as a man is very interesting, however I have heard from other men who pretty much tell me that if I could read the minds of most men around me, then I’d want to run home and put on not only a burka, but a chastity belt as well. What they imply about the propensity of the average man to lust is much different than what you have experienced and witnessed yourself. Why do you think this is so?
C
CountrySinger
Guest
Bravo!
And it took 39+ pages to get to this point. 
Live and let live. As long as body parts aren’t hanging out, I’m good.
P
P_drum
Guest
First of all you aren’t going to see old clothing in a clothing store, and neither are you going to see all skimpy clothing in stores, that we live in a secular state mean there are not laws for such clothing, I wouldn’t really respect immodest clothing because it doesn’t show them for who they are as a person, irregardless peole are going to wear it anyways.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
Men notice women. We are made this way. I also think that few people know what lust REALLY is and confuse it with attraction. In general men probably think about sex more often than women, but such is not necessarily lust. Lust includes an intension “to use” a woman as an “object of pleasure” rather than a seeing her as a “subject of beauty” or love.
This imprecision of definition leads many people to say they lust when they do not. For instance many think it is fine for a man to lust after his wife and just think it means a “strong desire.” Lust is never OK, and strong desire for marital union with a wife is not lust. The language of our time has been watered down to the point that many are confused. The clear definitions and concepts are rarely taught in the Catholic Church. When Catholics were segregated, then certain concepts and beliefs were culturally transmitted. Now this is not the case.
Do men sometimes lust? YES. Is it as common as women think? NO. Does merely looking and noticing a woman constitute lust? NO. Can a man be attracted to a woman and talk to her without lust? YES.
Also men tend to make crude comments amongst themselves, which contributes to the stereotype. Much of it is bravado. When it comes right down to it, most men find their integrity, but are a crass bunch. Often men have a rough exterior and demeanor but have good hearts that are not revealed. The best men may not be tame. Many men are good but not “nice.”
B
BlueSprite
Guest
Wow this is quite the thread! And I gotta say…I’m actually really surprised to read some of the replies here. I mean really? A lady in pants that are form-fitting…how is that a problem? I mean,* if *some guy is checking her out (and that’s a BIG IF because NONE of us are mind-readers), how is that HER problem? She’s got pants on! It’s not like she came to church in a bathing-suit! She’s well within the bounds of modesty in my book. Ok…and maybe they’re tight…fine. Maybe she didn’t “get the memo” and the rest of the parishioners are scolding her under their breath going :tsktsk: I dunno…every church is different. But personally I don’t see what the big deal is. The poor lady comes to church, and I highly doubt she’s aware of causing any scandal. I bet she’d be totally embarrassed to learn otherwise.But hey, that’s just the way I see it and I can only speak for myself. I just wish people would relax a little though. I feel like people who validly DO have a concern over modesty in church have now swung the pendulum too far to the other side and perhaps are being a bit harsh in their judgments of others.
And I have 3 older brothers and grew up in a family with no sisters if that means anything at all…and we’re all very close. Soooo…I like to think I have some knowledge about men. Well, I only know my brothers
…but trust me, they’re not lusting after every girl that walks down the street…they’re not animals lol! Yeah they notice a good-looking woman on occasion (just like many women do too), but that doesn’t mean they’re lusting after them or thinking lustful thoughts 24-7. I mean come on!!!
B
BlueSprite
Guest
P.S…I think it’s right to notice trends in society (particularly negative trends) and to call attention to them and try to think 
“hmmm…what may have caused this or lead to this?” But when we start to pick out individuals and point to them as the “example” or “cause” we border very closely upon the lines of a “witch-hunt”…and that can be a very bad, very negative, thing.
Work to address a problem; study it, look for causation and if possible, solutions…but don’t nitpick.
And especially, don’t accuse!
“hmmm…what may have caused this or lead to this?” But when we start to pick out individuals and point to them as the “example” or “cause” we border very closely upon the lines of a “witch-hunt”…and that can be a very bad, very negative, thing.Work to address a problem; study it, look for causation and if possible, solutions…but don’t nitpick.
And especially, don’t accuse!
P
P_drum
Guest
If you love you wife you can’t have lust, because love and lust are opposed.
B
BlueSprite
Guest
Yep I agree! Because love encompasses so much more than lust…so once you have achieved love, lust goes out the window!
Ahhh love…'tis what makes the world go 'round.
Ahhh love…'tis what makes the world go 'round.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
There is always a lot of talk about attraction, desire, arousal, love, lust, sex and modesty. These things are intertwined along with concupiscence. People think they know what these things are, but the definitions are often confused. Matters of the heart cannot easily be reduced to rules, rather understanding of the heart is necessary. Rules can help people to act Morally but Values also come in to play.
Blind application of rules can lead to as many errors as ignoring all rules. Someone once said that you can fall out of the boat either on the left side or the right side, either way you get all wet.
Values are based on cultural beliefs and change over time. Also Morals are often overlap with Values. But since Values change over time. Different people have different Values. Thus the concept of what is Moral tends to change. A better way to define Morals is based on Principles. But Principles must be applied according to our culture while keeping in mind that application has been different in other historical periods. People living in other periods of history had different Values.
It gets very confusing and a consensus is rarely reached. On this thread there are now 40 pages of discussion and opinion, but only now has lust been somewhat defined, which is the entire reason that modesty is necessary. People argue and disagree for a long time because they have different mental definitions of words and different beliefs of what happens in their own minds and hearts and those of others.
I certainly have stepped on a few toes and was trying to encourage others to do a bit more thinking and study on matters of the heart and human sexuality. Love and lust are seen as simple things but to just begin to understand, a person must take into account biology and delve into the realm of philosophy.
John Paul II’s Love & Responsibility and Theology of the Body are based on Phenomenology, a philosophical movement founded in the early 1900s by Edmund Husserl. As reflected in the previous link, some do have issues with how this is applied to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Marriage. Dietrich von Hildebrand, a Catholic convert, was one of the first to apply phenomenology to Marriage and Love. von Hildebrand was a student of Husserl and friends with Pope Pius XII.
Controversies about sexuality have existed for a very long time, so it is not surprising at all that this thread just keeps going and going and going, like the Energizer Bunny.
A online document that is quite good on Theology of the Body is John Paul II’s New Vision of Human Sexuality, Marriage and Family Life - By Fr. Richard Hogan
Blind application of rules can lead to as many errors as ignoring all rules. Someone once said that you can fall out of the boat either on the left side or the right side, either way you get all wet.
Values are based on cultural beliefs and change over time. Also Morals are often overlap with Values. But since Values change over time. Different people have different Values. Thus the concept of what is Moral tends to change. A better way to define Morals is based on Principles. But Principles must be applied according to our culture while keeping in mind that application has been different in other historical periods. People living in other periods of history had different Values.
It gets very confusing and a consensus is rarely reached. On this thread there are now 40 pages of discussion and opinion, but only now has lust been somewhat defined, which is the entire reason that modesty is necessary. People argue and disagree for a long time because they have different mental definitions of words and different beliefs of what happens in their own minds and hearts and those of others.
I certainly have stepped on a few toes and was trying to encourage others to do a bit more thinking and study on matters of the heart and human sexuality. Love and lust are seen as simple things but to just begin to understand, a person must take into account biology and delve into the realm of philosophy.
John Paul II’s Love & Responsibility and Theology of the Body are based on Phenomenology, a philosophical movement founded in the early 1900s by Edmund Husserl. As reflected in the previous link, some do have issues with how this is applied to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Marriage. Dietrich von Hildebrand, a Catholic convert, was one of the first to apply phenomenology to Marriage and Love. von Hildebrand was a student of Husserl and friends with Pope Pius XII.
Controversies about sexuality have existed for a very long time, so it is not surprising at all that this thread just keeps going and going and going, like the Energizer Bunny.
A online document that is quite good on Theology of the Body is John Paul II’s New Vision of Human Sexuality, Marriage and Family Life - By Fr. Richard Hogan
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
Here are some of my favorite books on this complex subject. All are quite easy reads.
Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love by Dietrich von Hildebrand
Sex Is Holy by Mary Rousseau
We’re On a Mission from God: The Generation X Guide to John Paul II, The Catholic Church and the Real Meaning of Life by Mary Beth Bonacci
Men, Women and the Mystery of Love: Practical Insights from John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility by Edward P Sri
Pope John Paul II is often difficult to read because of the density of his language. He was a genius and it takes supreme concentration to extract the meanings because of his brilliance and precise use of words. Concepts are very well explored. JPII writes in a spiral style with each turn going deeper, rather than a linear manner to get to the point. Still this is a good book for reference.
Love and Responsibility by Pope John Paul II
Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love by Dietrich von Hildebrand
Sex Is Holy by Mary Rousseau
We’re On a Mission from God: The Generation X Guide to John Paul II, The Catholic Church and the Real Meaning of Life by Mary Beth Bonacci
Men, Women and the Mystery of Love: Practical Insights from John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility by Edward P Sri
Pope John Paul II is often difficult to read because of the density of his language. He was a genius and it takes supreme concentration to extract the meanings because of his brilliance and precise use of words. Concepts are very well explored. JPII writes in a spiral style with each turn going deeper, rather than a linear manner to get to the point. Still this is a good book for reference.
Love and Responsibility by Pope John Paul II
B
BlueSprite
Guest
Thank you for your comments - I found them very insightful! And thank you for those links! This is great!
S
Serap
Guest
Hey Shin,
How come you never responded to this? She’s absolutely right!!!
Edited: ahh ok now that I’ve read a couple of pages I understand. Shin is perhaps a traditionalist - doesn’t agree with Vatican II. I get it. This makes a lot of sense now.
B
BingoBoy
Guest
I think you hit the nail on the head with this, Serap, thank you. I think what is going on here, and the reason why I was so confused, is because there are a lot of people on this thread (including the OP), who have not moved beyond Vatican I and don’t accept Vatican II and JPII’s views. Vatican I was very very conservative about sex and the beauty of the human body - they saw it as something dirty. JPII came along with the changes of Vatican II and gave us a different message and a whole new perspective on human sexuality. Us women don’t need to cover up 80% of our bodies. Our bodies are beautiful, and as long as we keep it classy, we don’t need to constantly be wearing the types of clothes a few of you here have described. Not only does it restrict our lives (by keeping us from as much as going for a run on a hot day, or swimming), but it gives us the impression that our bodies are nothing but occasions of sin, and it gives men the impression that looking at a woman and being attracted to her God given beauty is lustful, when in reality, it isn’t lustful at all. It is the first step to the process of bringing new life into the world. And it is a great thing. At least that’s how JPII describes it, and it makes sense to me.
- Status