C
Curious11
Guest
In any case, semper ubi sub ubi
To avoid pulling a Basic Instinct Sharon Stone moment
The definition changes depending on where you are, though. Iām in South Korea, and no one bats an eye at ladies in short-shorts and miniskirts.Modesty should be the norm of behaviour.
Interesting point: just because something is revealing, that doesnāt automatically make it a turn-on.Iām a guy and I donāt normally lust just at short skirts, I just think they can look good
YES.It becomes, well, if a man expresses lust towards you, you must have been immodest. Sometimes, that just means you appeared in public while female.
I wish my knees were sexy enough to warrant that.nothing above the knees.
Judging from CAF, it varies within culture too. I think I could talk to 5 different Catholics and get 10 different opinions.Much better to forgo the attention and just wear what your culture considers modest clothing. What is considered modest clothing varies by region and culture, so it is complicated.
Yes, itās very complicated and with regional bias. Modest clothing in Florida would likely be provocative in the mid west.Judging from CAF, it varies within culture too. I think I could talk to 5 different Catholics and get 10 different opinions.
Yes, itās a fine line because we donāt want to say women donāt have any responsibility in how they choose to dress but we also donāt want to say that if a man lusts, itās not his fault, itās hers. The greater responsibility always lies with the man in his determination to avoid sin. But women have a responsibility to not intentionally dress in a way to incite lust. It should be made more clear though that she need not hide her God-given form under bulky clothes (or ugly denim jumpers, ugh.) so as to take all the responsibility upon herself. If sheās dressed modesty but looks pretty and attractive, and a man still lusts, then thatās his responsibility alone.The concern many of us have is that, once you start making women responsible for not causing men to lust, it can be very hard to get off that track
Yes. Because most modesty discussions and articles fall short of explaining the above and donāt point out where her responsibility ends and where his begins and they arenāt necessarily even at the same point. Like I said in the OP, (in the extreme example to make a point) if he sees a naked woman, he still has a responsibility to avoid lust even though he may fall due to his own personal weakness. Itās still his sin. The naked woman would have her own sin (if she wasnāt mentally ill) but her being naked still doesnāt take away any of his responsibility.It becomes, well, if a man expresses lust towards you, you must have been immodest. Sometimes, that just means you appeared in public while female.