Is toplessness sinfull

[Sky_River]

I want to say that **a woman who is wearing a midriff or low-cut shirt intentionally flaunting it is worse than a topless EU girl at a culturally accepted beach. **

I think we’re losing the idea on this threat about how intention relates to morality.

1-How so?

2-Explain what you mean by that.

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

Hee hee hee! ВOOBIЕS!

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

. The two most probable explanations for this is that either Europe has achieved a pre-Fall state of remarkable holiness,

and public nudity is not a cause of scandal, or it’s something that has accompanied an overall trend where fidelity has been butchered in the name of false enlightenment. I’m going with #2.

Thanks that was a good one.

Also, whenever we talk about proper modesty in church, someone will invariably say that women in the USA should be allowed to attend Holy Mass with half of their breasts hanging out, because you see, women in Papua New Guinea attend church topless.

I don’t know much about Papua New Guinea, but I lived for 30 years in Europe, and somehow I missed it when Europe attained that remarkable degree of pre-fall holiness!

Also the idea that toplessness is somehow universally accepted now in Europe, is total bunk. Lots of Europeans feel uncomfortable and offended by such things, just like lots of Americans do.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have been wondering is it a sin for women to expose their breasts and/or a sin for me (as a guy) to look at them… So I’m wondering since breasts have no sexual purpose (therefor not likely to temp men to sexual thoughts) they should not have to be covered. (same as a mans chest) Now you could argue that is does temp men, but why is that as breast have no sexual purpose?
should/ could we adopt the European train of thought?

rotcguy are you still with us?!
You’ve prob got more than you asked for - seeing this is your first post here and all .

The stimulation and excitement your question has provoked obviously demonstrates that breasts certainly do have “sexual purpose” - I am guessing you must be a late-starter if your own body hasn’t communicated that to you yet (and thats OK).

So given this is true for most of us males (and most females know that) even if it is not true for you … do you have any further questions?

 

[ClearWater]

I want to say that a woman who is wearing a midriff or low-cut shirt intentionally flaunting it is worse than a topless EU girl at a culturally accepted beach.

I think we’re losing the idea on this threat about how intention relates to morality.

Okay, I was responding to that, but yes, absolutely, let’s return to the issue of dress as it relates to morality.

I don’t care for anyone’s dressing immodestly, either the topless one or the bare midriff case, because the Bible, the saints, the popes, and the Catechism have said it’s not okay. Besides getting us into hell, it can cause others to fall, and leading them into hell, as well… If there were even any doubt, best to err on the side of caution.

What do the saints also say about this matter?

catholicmodesty.com/Chrysostom.html

Further, do you know there are 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit…

Chastity, faithfulness, generosity, gentleness, goodness, joy, kindness, love, patience, peace, self-control, and MODESTY

 

[billcu1]

Okay, I was responding to that, but yes, absolutely, let’s return to the issue of dress as it relates to morality.

I don’t care for anyone’s dressing immodestly, either the topless one or the bare midriff case, because the Bible, the saints, the popes, and the Catechism have said it’s not okay. Besides getting us into hell, it can cause others to fall, and leading them into hell, as well… If there were even any doubt, best to err on the side of caution.

What do the saints also say about this matter?

catholicmodesty.com/Chrysostom.html

Great link! Thanks. God bless

 

[ClearWater]

If the fruit of the Holy Spirit is modesty, what would be its counter?

Immodesty.

 

[Rau]

Okay, I was responding to that, but yes, absolutely, let’s return to the issue of dress as it relates to morality.

I don’t care for anyone’s dressing immodestly, either the topless one or the bare midriff case, because the Bible, the saints, the popes, and the Catechism have said it’s not okay. Besides getting us into hell, it can cause others to fall, and leading them into hell, as well… If there were even any doubt, best to err on the side of caution.

What do the saints also say about this matter?

catholicmodesty.com/Chrysostom.html

Further, do you know there are 12 fruits of the Holy Spirit…

Chastity, faithfulness, generosity, gentleness, goodness, joy, kindness, love, patience, peace, self-control, and MODESTY

The challenge I find in this discussion is not the idea of modesty, but how it is should be manifest.

The standard of modesty changes with time, culture and individual. Two persons may wear the same attire and one may be viewed as modest and the other not due their personal differences. It is also a continuum, be that reflected in neckline, hemline or whatever it might be that applies to men (tightness of fit of pants?).

And lastly, it is often forgotten that the relevant sins against purity (eg. lust) involve (at least) 2 persons, call them the woman and the man for sake of easy expression, and discussion may presume to allocate responsibility to the woman, when the man must always bare some responsibility - sometimes the lesser, sometimes the greater (or all of it).

 

[ClearWater]

The challenge I find in this discussion is not the idea of modesty, but how it is should be manifest.

The standard of modesty changes with time, culture and individual. Two persons may wear the same attire and one may be viewed as modest and the other not due their personal differences. It is also a continuum, be that reflected in neckline, hemline or whatever it might be that applies to men (tightness of fit of pants?).

And lastly, it is often forgotten that the relevant sins against purity (eg. lust) involve (at least) 2 persons, call them the woman and the man for sake of easy expression, and discussion may presume to allocate responsibility to the woman, when the man must always bare some responsibility - sometimes the lesser, sometimes the greater (or all of it).

One definition of modesty online is:

(Clothing & Fashion) (modifier) designed to prevent inadvertent exposure of part of the body

Tight fitting clothings as also not acceptable, same reason, immodesty.

Both are at fault the man and the woman, but with immodesty, the woman is actually MORE at fault than the man.

And yes, modesty applies to BOTH genders!

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Both sexes have hands and feet, so covering them will not result in a perversion or fetish. I’ll also bet that those who spend time in strip clubs or viewing pornography do indeed have reduced perversion and fetishes towards breasts.

What about Chinese foot binding?

 

[billcu1]

What about Chinese foot binding?

That’s terrible. That’s deforming and I would think the church on you comment supra would go so far as to call that mutilation. Maybe even intrinsic evil.

 

[TK421]

Both sexes have hands and feet, so covering them will not result in a perversion or fetish. I’ll also bet that those who spend time in strip clubs or viewing pornography do indeed have reduced perversion and fetishes towards breasts.

What about Chinese foot binding?

What about it?

There are a peppering of fetishes acquired from culture to culture and from niche group to niche group. Wealthy Europeans liked women in corsets because it made them thin in the belly area. Wealthy Chinese liked women with very small feet. Some cultures like women with heavy jewelry that make their ear lobes really long. What is not a fetish, and what you will find universally, is that men like women’s breasts, a lot. Even in equatorial cultures where toplessness might be common, a man is still going to enjoy a woman’s breast. Which goes back to the point that you’re going to have a very hard time pitching the notion that women covering their breasts is allegedly a subjective social construct, and - through extraordinary coincidence - it is something that just so happened to be common in almost every culture on Earth.

 

[ClearWater]

‘Either we must speak as we dress, or dress as we speak. Why do we profess one thing and display another? The tongue talks of chastity, but the whole body reveals impurity.’

St. Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church

 

[edwest2]

The Europe train of though is 'moral permissiveness. Just because people do it doesn’t make it right… Their behavior against the ninth commandment, means that they need to educate their conscience to what is right in God’s sight.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

“2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.”

2528 “Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). Whether it makes sense to some people or not, naked breasts do tend to insight men to lust, as do skimpy and revealing dress.

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. "

Amen. Thank you.

Ed

 

[ClearWater]

Proverbs 11:22

Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.

 

[Rau]

One definition of modesty online is:

(Clothing & Fashion) (modifier) designed to prevent inadvertent exposure of part of the body

Tight fitting clothings as also not acceptable, same reason, immodesty.

Both are at fault the man and the woman, but with immodesty, the woman is actually MORE at fault than the man.

And yes, modesty applies to BOTH genders!

I don’t think that definition works (IMO). Note that you may feel a dress that intentionally exposes cleavage is immodest, but it would not be by the above definition. So, you’d need to replace “inadvertent” with. perhaps, “inappropriate”, but that suffers from lack of objective precision.

How tight is tight? Should a woman’s dress not include a belt at the waist, for that reveals too much shape?

And I disagree with the **Bolded ** text as a general statement, other than perhaps in a circumstance where the woman set about to solicit an immoral response. And that probably required more than simply dress. But for women who dress in accordance with their own good conscience (which may include a girl at the beach in beachwear), I cannot attach fault to them.

There is no objective definition to be found. This is an issue for each individual to think about and make good conscientious decisions.

 

[billcu1]

Where does one draw the line here at immodesty? If you can’t look at a woman’s upper parts I might as well pull my eyes out. Where is one lusting and enjoying beauty and there’s the trick word “beauty”. The trichotomy of wholeness, harmony, and radiance as it’s been said that is beauty. To me there is nothing like a woman’s breasts and is that lust or a fetish? This is my problem isn’t it.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Both sexes have hands and feet, so covering them will not result in a perversion or fetish. I’ll also bet that those who spend time in strip clubs or viewing pornography do indeed have reduced perversion and fetishes towards breasts.

Coming back to this - I disagree that simple increased exposure will reduce perversion or fetishes. On a different internet forum I’ve followed for over a decade used to have several “sex positive” members. I didn’t see any reduction of perversion there. In fact, on a recent thread about breast issues (bras, support, changes after pregnancy, etc… one guy posted a comment that came across as nearly giddy about all the breast talk. I think he thought he sounded like he was just appreciating all “shapes and sizes” but was taken to task by a mod. The back pedaling was hilarious as he said he meant nothing bad and in fact, at his age, might need a bra of his own. The mod suggested a brand that offered excellent back support. And that was that.

There are places that breasts are not eroticized but it’s something that is regulated by the whole community. Even at beach where women being topless is allowed, anyone behaving rudely would get a smack-down by the regulars.

 

[ClearWater]

I don’t think that definition works (IMO). Note that you may feel a dress that intentionally exposes cleavage is immodest, but it would not be by the above definition. So, you’d need to replace “inadvertent” with. perhaps, “inappropriate”, but that suffers from lack of objective precision.

How tight is tight? Should a woman’s dress not include a belt at the waist, for that reveals too much shape?

And I disagree with the **Bolded ** text as a general statement, other than perhaps in a circumstance where the woman set about to solicit an immoral response. And that probably required more than simply dress. But for women who dress in accordance with their own good conscience (which may include a girl at the beach in beachwear), I cannot attach fault to them.

There is no objective definition to be found. This is an issue for each individual to think about and make good conscientious decisions.

They will ridicule Christian simplicity; they will call it folly and nonsense, but they will have the highest regard for advanced knowledge, and for the skill by which the axioms of law, the precepts of morality, the Holy Canons and religious dogmas are clouded by senseless questions and elaborate arguments.

Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser (17th Century)

 

[ClearWater]

“More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” Our Lady of Fatima.

“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.” (Matt 18:7-9)

“Every tree that yielded not good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the the fire.” (Matthew 7: 19)