Modesty According to Who? (about Sin of Lust)

[francisca]

This thread is a branch of another thread I started on 13-Feb-2011 The way people dress to mass
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=535665

This issue was brought up by Archangel04 in relation to the previous thread above.

I agree, but as I stated before dress code is different from modest dress. Simple as that. One can wear simple polo shirt and jeans from walmart, and not cause scandal even though it might not be “your best”, but if someone wears clothes that leave little to the imagination or cause scandal it’s a little hard to ignore and even cause others to commit the sin of lust. It will also seem that the person causing the scandal is in competition with out Lord for attention.

I move this to philosophy forum because in this thread I hope to analyze the sin of Lust and it’s relation with the way of Modesty by checking and asking why this and why that. So Shin, Archangel, and all are welcome to join in and throw your opinions.

I’ll begin with asking one question: “Modesty according to who?”

I live in a city in Asia. Here I can go to market wearing Tshirt, simple skirt unto my knee, without having to worry about anything. But if I go to places where women are expected to wear burqa, then wait a minute. But if I go to the Amazon in south america or to many places in Africa, and live with native tribe there who doesn’t like clothes that much, I can wear my tiny skirt, and they wouldn’t mind.

And we are still talking about cultural relative modesty. How about individual subjectivity ? What’s modest for me not necessarily for you.

So if modesty is relative and subjective, doesn’t it mean that --assuming that there is relation between modesty and lust-- doesn’t it mean that Lust is fully under the subjectivity of the beholder, and not on the woman?

If that is so, we can’t say that man lust because the way woman dress.

God bless you all

 

[tonyrey]

If that is so, we can’t say that man lust because the way woman dress.

Men do lust - in the sense of physical desire - because of the way some women dress for the simple reason that sexual attraction is heightened by the sight of exposed parts of the female body!

 

[cemiller]

I see what you are saying about that. I would say though that men, in the American culture specifically, were raised with a strong sense of (possibly warped) sexuality. We have been blasted by images in magazines, TV, and the internet that relate a certain style of dress directly with sex. It’s used in marketing everything now. While a woman might not mean to dress in a way that could make a man lean towards sin, it’s still entirely possible for that to happen because of the way we have been taught to think about a woman and her clothes. Therefore it’s not the woman making a man feel lust, it’s our skewed views that do that for her. In the end though, if the woman knows that it will happen, she should feel some need to help prevent it, even if it’s not directly her fault. Just my thoughts on it anyway

 

[francisca]

I’d like to add H0 to the discussion so that you all can see better what we will be doing in this thread. We will be checking the common assumptions that is surrounding the sin of Lust. you can give any comment or pick and choose anything. I will read them all although I may not give comment to all of your postings.

The above posting I assume that “there is relationship between Modesty and the Sin of Lust”

But we can also assume that there isn’t any relation between the two :

Let’s see these two scenarios :

scenario 1.
An old lady put on a sexy blouse and a tiny shorty short.
Q: Do you think men would lust for her?

scenario 2.
The same blouse and short, but the lady is young sexy and beautiful
Q: Do you think men would lust for her?

If the answer for scenario1 is NO but YES for scenario2, while the sexy blouse and tiny shorty short they are wearing are the same, can we see that the reason for lust may not necessarily be the dress?

With God’s blessings let’s crack the code of LUST so we are slave no more !

 

[Carlan]

I’d like to add H0 to the discussion so that you all can see better what we will be doing in this thread. We will be checking the common assumptions that is surrounding the sin of Lust. you can give any comment or pick and choose anything. I will read them all although I may not give comment to all of your postings.

The above posting I assume that “there is relationship between Modesty and the Sin of Lust”

But we can also assume that there isn’t any relation between the two :

Let’s see these two scenarios :

scenario 1.
An old lady put on a sexy blouse and a tiny shorty short.
Q: Do you think men would lust for her?

scenario 2.
The same blouse and short, but the lady is young sexy and beautiful
Q: Do you think men would lust for her?

If the answer for scenario1 is NO but YES for scenario2, while the sexy blouse and tiny shorty short they are wearing are the same, can we see that the reason for lust may not necessarily be the dress?

With God’s blessings let’s crack the code of LUST so we are slave no more !

Not much of a comparison, The old gal looks ridiculous and the young beauty is a sex show off…
Peace,Carlan

 

[Shin]

'Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circumstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion.

These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality.’

Pope Pius XII

In other words, modesty is not relative or subjective, it is based on fundamental moral laws and principles, and God, Church and the Saints, and natural law all have proclaimed how to dress modestly for us to know.

Culture can only vary legitimately within the realm of what is modest universally, if it goes past this, the culture is corrupt, rather than an excuse.

 

[k8e308]

I think modesty and a woman’s (or man’s) responsibility for another’s sin involves the intent more than anything. Yes, we should give thought to how another might react to our clothing, but we never know for sure.

Some men may be excited by a woman in a burka, because of the mystery. Some women may be excited by a man in a 3-piece suit or military uniform. In that case the woman in the burka or man in the suit is clearly not at fault, as long as his or her intent was not to induce lust.

Also as clearly, a woman who wears a short skirt and low-cut top (even without intent to excite) should be partially at fault for inducing lust. A man who goes without a shirt should be equally to blame. Their fault in this case may be mitigated by circumstances, but I do not believe it can be totally eradicated.

Another component of modesty is behavior. You can wear the most concealing clothes you own, but if you flirt without a care or constantly adjust your clothing to bring attention to yourself, you are guilty of being immodest. If you cause lust in another, then you are at fault for that as well.

 

[francisca]

Not much of a comparison, The old gal looks ridiculous and the young beauty is a sex show off…
Peace,Carlan

Hi Carlan,

You’re being honest! I like that…

So now let’s dress the old gal with something more modest, such as a long night dress, probably black or pearly white, cover all her legs and arms, but with a little bit of cleavage showing, not showing off, just a little bit showing the fulness of her feminine shape. Do you think she is now more “sexy” than before ?

if you agree then we can say, hei actually mini size of clothes does not always make woman looks sexy.

 

[francisca]

Next question,

Do you think sexy look always tend to invite lust? What do you all think?

 

[Tigg]

Modesty, quite simply, is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. I believe (as a woman,) it is an inner prompting that will not allow me to disrespect my own body nor go beyond the limits of common decency in concern for the good of others.

My favorite saying is one that I heard over and over again from a nun who had a very profound affect on me: “The outward appearance is indicative of the inward disposition.” Our heart and well-formed conscience will determine what we wear, and is scriptural as well. What is unclean does not enter a man, but comes from within.

For you ladies who wear provocative clothing it is well to examine your motives for doing so. Must we be so enslaved to fashion that we ignore virtue altogether, and when we show too much skin, (and you know in your heart of hearts just when that is,) just what does that say regarding our inner formation and feminine dignity?

Do you think sexy look always tend to invite lust? What do you all think?

I think sexy is antithetical to modesty.

 

[francisca]

Men do lust - in the sense of physical desire

hi tonyrey and all

What I know is men have “sexual desire”, God created mens’ sexuality. God has never created lust, so whatever God did not create is not really there. It is there to name a sin, but it’s not really there in the sense that when a baby boy was born, he did not have lust, but he has sexuality.

• because of the way some women dress for the simple reason that sexual attraction is heightened by the sight of exposed parts of the female body!

man has natural attraction to woman (we call it sexual attraction). If a woman pass by, it’s natural for man-- if he finds her attractive-- it’s natural for him to look. Is there lust in this context ? I don’t think so, is there?

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Here’s my suggestion: when in doubt, dress like Mary.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Maybe this will help: catholicmodesty.com/MarylikeStandardsofModestyinDress.html

 

[ignatius777]

Next question,

Do you think sexy look always tend to invite lust? What do you all think?

The whole thing revolves around the mind of the person who is viewing. Its not the clothes and not the person wearing the clothes. People have desires for all sorts of things. I suspect there are many men who would be lustful for the old woman dressed in the sexy blouse and shorts just like there are fetishes and many other things which feed lusts not create it.

 

[ignatius777]

Next question,

Do you think sexy look always tend to invite lust? What do you all think?

Lust is a battle we all fight. Lust doesnt have to be just sexual. Lust perpetuates that greed within us which we need God’s help to control

 

[TimothyH]

Lust is a battle we all fight. Lust doesnt have to be just sexual. Lust perpetuates that greed within us which we need God’s help to control

This is a very important point.

Lust is a disordered desire based on greed. It is not a self sacrificing love to which Jesus calls us, sets the example for us and gives us the means to achieve. It is not self-giving but appropriates the “Other” for the enjoyment of “Self”.

Lust is one way, toward the “Self” at the expense of the “Other.” This is not the way Adam and Even loved each other when they were naked yet without shame. They did not appropriate the other for their own enjoyment. They willingly gave themselves as a gift to each other, sacrificing all for the sake of the other’s enjoyment - the exact opposite of lust and the example which Christ set on the cross. Jesus was asked about divorce in Matthew 19 and he refers the Pharisees back to the way it was for Adam and Eve by saying “In the beginning it was not so” and then he gives us a way to get back to that state.

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28) Use of another individual for your own enjoyment - appropriating the “Other” for your “Self” - and the fact that it was not this way for Adam and Eve “In the beginning” before sin entered the world is why Jesus could teach that even looking at a woman the wrong way was equivalent to adultery. Lust is the reverse of self sacrificial love which loves others because they are chidren of God, for God’s sake.

Anything which anyone does to diminish the self-sacrificial love we all are supposed to show for each other - I’ll stop short of calling it a sin becuase I really don’t know - it is however a stubling block for those who are trying to live this Christ centered love. Immodesty is anything which places a stumbling block to this true Christian love in front of another child of God and it’s scandal.

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. (Luke 17:2)

-Tim-

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Men do lust - in the sense of physical desire - because of the way some women dress for the simple reason that sexual attraction is heightened by the sight of exposed parts of the female body!

What?: Like their face? If you want to lust, she can be in a sack with nothing showing.

 

[francisca]

I see what you are saying about that. I would say though that men, in the American culture specifically, were raised with a strong sense of (possibly warped) sexuality. We have been blasted by images in magazines, TV, and the internet that relate a certain style of dress directly with sex. It’s used in marketing everything now.

Yes. We’re in asia also watch american movies, surf the internet, things are not the same anymore. But sin of lust has been there since a long long time. We can read about it in the bible.

While a woman might not mean to dress in a way that could make a man lean towards sin, it’s still entirely possible for that to happen because of the way we have been taught to think about a woman and her clothes. Therefore it’s not the woman making a man feel lust, it’s our skewed views that do that for her.

So let’s unlearn our skewed views towards woman and her clothes, and start to see things in new light, to relearn our good sexuality, to see woman as God see her.

In the end though, if the woman knows that it will happen, she should feel some need to help prevent it, even if it’s not directly her fault. Just my thoughts on it anyway

To expect woman to prevent man’s lust is irrational expectation. The first step to unlearn the way of lust is to take away the blame from woman. It’s not woman’s fault that man-- regardless what she wear-- will always be attracted to her. It’s not man’s fault either. It’s just plain basic and innocent nature of sexuality.

So I will bring up a new thing for you and all here, to think about :

Before all the media frenzy, before the internet era, who taught us our skewed views toward woman and her clothes, so that man & woman fell into lust? I would say it was our prejudices toward woman and her clothes. Those prejudices hide inside our own rules of how to dress our woman. We create words such modest and immodest. Wrap it with cultural values that basically blaming woman for being sexy/ attractive. Religion and puritanism is guilty for this.

 

[francisca]

I think modesty and a woman’s (or man’s) responsibility for another’s sin involves the intent more than anything. Yes, we should give thought to how another might react to our clothing, but we never know for sure.

I do believe social consequence is always there, I mean “what would my ffriends think of me?”, or my husband or my family, etc. So I do not believe there are people who don’t really care about modesty, it’s just as you say above “we never really know for sure of what others might react”. So no matter how well I dress, there may be some people still lust for me, simply because I’m a beautiful woman. And because of their own lust, they try to impose their own thinking of modesty on everyone, but with their own and each subjectivity and preferences in their own and each heart which corner all woman into a responsibility to prevent OTHERS lust.

From this kind of thinking then some may conclude “It’s OK to rape woman if she run around nakend”, which actually giving oneself excuse to lust.

Some men may be excited by a woman in a burka, because of the mystery. Some women may be excited by a man in a 3-piece suit or military uniform. In that case the woman in the burka or man in the suit is clearly not at fault, as long as his or her intent was not to induce lust.

Here you clearly being linient towards men, but having prejudice against “woman’s intention”. Many and most people have this kind of thinking, even among women. This is something the world teach so we hate woman, and think of her as “sex object”, “the cause of sin of lust”

Also as clearly, a woman who wears a short skirt and low-cut top (even without intent to excite) should be partially at fault for inducing lust. A man who goes without a shirt should be equally to blame. Their fault in this case may be mitigated by circumstances, but I do not believe it can be totally eradicated.

it’s the woman inside the clothes, never the clothes. To say that woman should cover her flesh otherwise men fall, is to suggest that men are powerless. The truth is men should not rape any woman even if she run around naked. In those amazon and african native tribes : men do not rape their women even though they run around naked. So the assumption that “man is powerless”, “woman need to dress modesty” actually is a set of sophisticated excuse to lust.

So we need to break that kind of game, especially in the church.

Another component of modesty is behavior. You can wear the most concealing clothes you own, but if you flirt without a care or constantly adjust your clothing to bring attention to yourself, you are guilty of being immodest. If you cause lust in another, then you are at fault for that as well.

The church should teach men that they are in control of their own body. And that women are SUBJECT not object of sex and certainly not the cause of man’s sin : A woman is allowed to adjust her own clothes in order to keep her appearance (her sexual appeal), because she is a SUBJECT not an OBJECT which people impose their standard on.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Has anyone on here watched The Science of Lust on the Discovery channel?