Modesty for women and men

[johnnyjones]

There are no standards of dress for Catholic men and women. We as Christians should be like the world and blend in whenever possible.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Of course sex is not used to sell everything, but where it it used, it is effective. And for that matter it would not be chosen at all if it had no effect.

Again, the fact that its area of ‘effectiveness’ is limited to certain areas (diminishing areas by the way) is already an argument against such effectiveness in of itself. It’s quite clear that you’re now being driven into corner and grasping at straws. You make bold declarations about the use of sex in advertising and marketing. Now you’re admitting it’s not always the case but it works in some areas? That’s quite a shift and tells me how shaky the ground is where you’re at.

I also think you may have a misplaced view of my perspective. I don’t see how one could argue that clothes are not an influencing factor in the area of stimilation. Many outfits are designed to amplify the male or female body. I spoke more of females because I am a male and by nature a woman is beautiful. I’m sure a thread could be started that more often critiques male attire.

Right just as there are many clothes are designed to portray a certain archetype in mind. Following your logic, designers shouldn’t make clothes that are indicative of: nerds, hipsters, emos, goths, and anything else that’s not reminiscent of the A-crowd. They have in an influencing in the area of stimulation too. They just stimulate feelings of hostility instead of desire.

f the analogy you gave indicates your age you lack speaking as a parent. Fathers and mothers are concerned about their daughter and sons. Many know there is a corrolation between dress, which is expression, and how one is perceived, whether right or wrong. These have been long held traditions that our present culture has watered down.

My mother didn’t study literary theory and wasn’t told the truth of such correlations and perceptions. I’m as just as much an adult as she is. You’re just appealing to authority to here.

Furthermore, what good have those correlations and perceptions have done? They’ve done nothing but justify a shallow society where looks and covers are more valued than what lies within. I find it interesting that you admit that how one perceives appearances can be right or wrong. You doubt now perhaps? Why then place so much value on how you dress? God Himself both in the Old and the New has chastised those who relied so much on keeping up appearances. And yet, here you are justifying it.

 

[severus68]

It is a futile endeavor. Portrait never responds to anything specifically, every single post is a general tirade against modernism and a paean to traditional values, or at least the arbitrary ones he feels are worth upholding. It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who repeats the exact same thing over and over again, so do not even bother. And they are about four or five times as long as they need to be.

If you do not believe me, read through his posts on this thread.

I have to agree.

 

[johnnyjones]

Again, the fact that its area of ‘effectiveness’ is limited to certain areas (diminishing areas by the way) is already an argument against such effectiveness in of itself. It’s quite clear that you’re now being driven into corner and grasping at straws. You make bold declarations about the use of sex in advertising and marketing. Now you’re admitting it’s not always the case but it works in some areas? That’s quite a shift and tells me how shaky the ground is where you’re at.

Right just as there are many clothes are designed to portray a certain archetype in mind. Following your logic, designers shouldn’t make clothes that are indicative of: nerds, hipsters, emos, goths, and anything else that’s not reminiscent of the A-crowd. They have in an influencing in the area of stimulation too. They just stimulate feelings of hostility instead of desire.

My mother didn’t study literary theory and wasn’t told the truth of such correlations and perceptions. I’m as just as much an adult as she is. You’re just appealing to authority to here.

Furthermore, what good have those correlations and perceptions have done? They’ve done nothing but justify a shallow society where looks and covers are more valued than what lies within. I find it interesting that you admit that how one perceives appearances can be right or wrong. You doubt now perhaps? Why then place so much value on how you dress? God Himself both in the Old and the New has chastised those who relied so much on keeping up appearances. And yet, here you are justifying it.

Yet in your responses the real quest for authority lies. One who can not effectively debate resorts to offensive statements like you have towards me. These are your words from your prior post to me. I will put it in bold so that all readers will not miss it and see your style.** “How this surprises YOU and at the same time the SEXUALLY DEPRAVED tells me YOUR TYPES HAVE A LOT IN COMMON WITH THEM THEN YOU LET ON”**. This is offensive to me and all those Catholics who support a conservative view of dress. Being associated with the sexually depraved is the most vile thing one could say to another especially on a Catholic forum. In your prior post as well was the “religious types.” who have concerns about dress. I pray to God I am the “religious type.” This is disgraceful talk.

I would gladly have debated further but after re-reading your prior post and the hostility in your current one, I realized I was dealing something above and beyond the pale.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is offensive to me and all those Catholics who support a conservative view of dress. Being associated with the sexually depraved is the most vile thing one could say to another especially on a Catholic forum. In your prior post as well was the “religious types.” who have concerns about dress. I pray to God I am the “religious type.” This is disgraceful talk.

If you’re too emotional to handle logic, that’s not my problem. Anyone who can read my statement will see the reasoning is clear. You treat and view sex with the same exaggeration and attention as the people who glorify it.

To everyone else, just look at this guy. He rants about how sex is used as some big time marketing tool and affirms the reasoning of the same people who make the stupid assumption that using sex appeal can sell. Setting aside the fact that such reasoning by itself is short-sighted, it’s quite easy to see that they really do sprout from the same trunk.

Man, and they tell me secularists use emotional reasoning.

 

[OurBeloved]

OurBeloved,

It seems that you did not read my post. Let me repost it for you. Because it seems that you had problems understanding it, I have bolded salient parts and annotated it to help you out.

Now, I understand if your own experience has left you unable to determine the answer because you do not understand the traditional values, the consideration of which you advocate based on your personal observation.

So, in the case that you are forwarding a methodology to answer a question that you yourself are unable to answer given the methodology you advocate, perhaps you may answer the questions in a more general sense, i.e. how one may go about using traditional values to answer the questions I posted above.

Well, Baelor, you are escaping the point here. As I said before, the debate here is not about the content of traditional values. If interested, I have already told you how to access these traditional values and standards by reading or listening to the homilies of past Popes from a time where Modesty was still held as a core value of society. For one who wants to seek, the path is available.

But even if forget about that, for you to accuse of not being able to answer that question does not undermine the methodology. That is a logical error on your part. I might be fully aware of the methodology but unaware of how to obtain information on the methodology. To give you an analogy, I might know that I need to know physics to launch a rocket but unaware of which book to read. The fact that I don’t know which book to read does not mean the methodology is wrong.

So honestly, what this discussion came down to was you asking for validation of the development process of traditional values. You wanted GUARANTEES that people of the past understood modesty perfectly and did a good job at forming the traditional values.

However, as I pointed out, this suspicion that they might have not done a good job or might not have understood modesty accurately is symptom of perhaps a larger epistemological crisis that you are undergoing or simply a desperate defense to save yourself from conceding the matter.

But the fact remains that every single arrangement human society has established for the acquiring and propagation of knowledge consists of humans that operate in the same way as they do in forming and passing down traditional values.

So from a practical standpoint, when the average person is indeed interested in achieving salvation, and want to be modest, the place to turn to are traditional values from a time in which modesty has been a core value of society. Your line of thinking and argumentation is of no use to anyone since it deals with hypothetical experiments that no-one has performed and ironically, you yourself have not performed up until now. As far as the practical person is concerned, the traditional values have been successful at upholding modesty. So rather than abolish it all and start building values from scratch from ones own personal experience, which in the meantime might be the cause of temptation to many, it is better to simply turn to traditional values.

Therefore, while I appreciate the time you took to “bold the salient parts” for my assistance, I think it might do you well to really consider why you are having this discussion. Is it to provide a means for persons to live a modest a life, or for you to win another argument by suggesting hypothetical experiments that you and I both know nobody will care to perform, and doesn’t give a reasonable answer to the question as to how people should act in the meantime.

If one arranges their priorities accurately, with salvation at the top, it is clear that traditional values are a gold mine. But for someone who has other priorities mixed in and competing for the top position, traditional values are a burden.

 

[Baelor]

Well, Baelor, you are escaping the point here. As I said before, the debate here is not about the content of traditional values.

Actually, it is, because that is exactly what I asked, which you would realize if you read my posts. I was asking about what I would tell my hypothetical daughter and on what basis I would form my answer. That involves a level of specificity that in turn involves the “content of traditional values.”

I care only about the specifics at the moment. If that does not interest you, let me know and we can end right here, leaving my question unanswered. But you said look to traditional values, and did not expand on that thought.

If interested, I have already told you how to access these traditional values and standards by reading or listening to the homilies of past Popes from a time where Modesty was still held as a core value of society. For one who wants to seek, the path is available.

“Past Popes from a time where Modesty was still held as a core value of society.” Yes, what a workable condition. I am sure that you will tell me to really think about this issue, but what you are asking is for someone to make a judgment about a culture and society involves millions upon millions of people and determining at what point that condition is met. Indeed, since you argue for a teleological account of modesty standards, I would need to determine precisely when modesty ceased to be held as a core value of society.

Yes, very easy, and the path is indeed available. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

But even if forget about that, for you to accuse of not being able to answer that question does not undermine the methodology. That is a logical error on your part. I might be fully aware of the methodology but unaware of how to obtain information on the methodology. To give you an analogy, I might know that I need to know physics to launch a rocket but unaware of which book to read. The fact that I don’t know which book to read does not mean the methodology is wrong.

You cannot know if you cannot describe the methodology at all. If you cannot explain in any way how a rocket requires physics, then you clearly cannot know that it involves physics.

And the problem is more fundamental: I challenged the notion that the methodology was right at all and asked for any evidence that it was. If you cannot answer at all, why should I believe you?

So honestly, what this discussion came down to was you asking for validation of the development process of traditional values. You wanted GUARANTEES that people of the past understood modesty perfectly and did a good job at forming the traditional values.

Among other things.

However, as I pointed out, this suspicion that they might have not done a good job or might not have understood modesty accurately is symptom of perhaps a larger epistemological crisis that you are undergoing or simply a desperate defense to save yourself from conceding the matter.

You have pointed out an incorrect assumption about the existence of some crisis on my end. You stake a claim to knowledge of society works, yet rely purely on your own observation and claim that challenges to this “knowledge” are predicated on not understanding how society works. Rephrased, “I am right and you are wrong because I believe X.”

If that is your standard for evidence, then we are done here.

But the fact remains that every single arrangement human society has established for the acquiring and propagation of knowledge consists of humans that operate in the same way as they do in forming and passing down traditional values.

Prove this.

Therefore, while I appreciate the time you took to “bold the salient parts” for my assistance, I think it might do you well to really consider why you are having this discussion. Is it to provide a means for persons to live a modest a life, or for you to win another argument by suggesting hypothetical experiments that you and I both know nobody will care to perform, and doesn’t give a reasonable answer to the question as to how people should act in the meantime.

Clearly the former. That is why I asked for an answer to my very reasonable question with the assumption that traditional values are true.

It is certainly noteworthy that you still have no provided an answer with the assumption that what you are saying is accurate.

 

[OurBeloved]

The only ‘traditional values’ I know of that dictated some absolute value in appearance were those based on sexism and white supremacy.

Thus you commit the genetic fallacy by assuming that these values must not reflect the truth simply because their origins are questionable.

You’re arguing for something that doesn’t exist. Human sight can never be fully trusted. Why do you think people have begun to question the reliability of eye-witnesses?

If you can’t trust your visual senses, then you can’t trust the taste that rises from them to be stable either. People have varying differences on what expresses an abstract concept because there really is nothing that will hold them down indefinitely.

This as I pointed out to Baelor, is an epistemological crisis that you two seem to be having.

If what you say is true, it still shouldn’t affect the fact that practically, the best we can do is trust the experiences of our culture.

Why? Because nearly every field of academia is based on collective knowledge that was approved by mere collective groups of humans and propagated forward.

Age is irrelevant to truth. Anyone who glances at the history of the world as a whole can easily see that whatever period or culture it is you look to, human tastes, human fashion are just as fickle and based on the non-existent. It’s human taste posing as morality.

Again, same branches of the same shallow tree.

So am I to understand that you are a person who believes that there is no such thing as morality then? Because one could make the same argument you do against moral values of any sort.

Way to dodge the point. Honestly, consider yourself lucky I’m once again wasting my time lecturing somebody on the basics of critique.

I am all for being lectured but it really doesn’t look like you have a good grasp of what you are saying. For one, you are having an epistemological crisis. Secondly, you are following double standards. Thirdly, you have rejected the existence of moral values.

Intent in creating is a process separate from analyzing the creation. I only picked these two as examples because I felt so sorry for the likes of you who defend the mentally weak. I’ve seen tons and collected tons of artwork that you would decry as immodest based on your fabricated ‘traditional values’. However, it is so easy to ignore the sexual elements and focus on other more noteworthy elements in design.

A very big confusion on your part here. Art is a separate subject from modesty as pertaining to day to day lives. It is important to understand the distinction. Bl. JPII makes this distinction very clear. A piece Art is after all something you observe in a location and you have to be properly disposed to view it and appreciate it. If you are not prepared, you just avoid it. This is different from how one interacts in a society.

But don’t listen to me, just read up on Bl. JP II on what he has to say about ART in the Theology of the Body in his own words.

Something that must be still said though is that Bl. JP II makes it very clear that ART must not violate the personal sensitivity set by a CULTURE that holds modesty as a core value. He makes it very clear that it cannot be done under any circumstance and criticizes those who claim that it can be done in the name/intent of Art.

(continued…)

 

[OurBeloved]

(continued…)

Look at Lightning. I like her outfit because one, it is quite functional and at the same time symbolic of her style. Ever seen her fight? She’s a quick-footed swordsman. That naturally makes the outfit suit her. Do I find her outfit sexually stimulating? Not really bcause I’m more focused on something higher than hormonal.

There are many things that you need to keep in mind here. As we can see, you seem to be someone that has a low hormonal response or perhaps have mastered the body so well that you can control your impulses in a very good way. That is truly commendable.

But, when it comes to modesty, it deals with catering to the general society. Not just the saints but also to the sinners.

Perhaps your mistake here is not realizing that society in general does not have the high standards of control that you possess. They should certainly pursue such standards, but it does not mean we have the right to enjoy ourselves at the risk of leading them to temptation and then possible loss of salvation. In the words of St. Paul

1 Corinthians 6:12

“All things are lawful for me’, but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me’, but I will not be dominated by anything.”

All foods were considered clean to eat after Christ. But St. Paul warns the early church of the possibility of causing others to fall by their actions.

1 Corinthians 8:13

“Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall**”

So it is not a matter of us doing everything we can do. It is also a matter of us trying to avoid causing others to fall. Our concern should be our salvation and those of others.

And I’m here to tell you that if you were to post these images, I would gladly give you a nice little critique for each of them that avoids anything leaning towards your perception. You guys just focus on bare shoulders and legs. There are plenty others like me who focus on something higher. Heck, we go beyond art. We explore the characters externally and internally.

Intent? Nobody should give a hoot about intent. Whether you’re a literary critic, an artistic one, or a fashion one that’s one school of thought that’s applicable to all three. Author/Creator intent is one of the most easily discarded factors. You want to know what an author can mean? An author is just another interpretation.

This sounds like an interesting school of philosophical thought on art but Blessed John Paul II disagrees with you and frankly, so do I. I think I am on the right side with this one.

No I advocate a society where people are more concerned with the internal individual than what they see on the outside. Any form of morality that bases itself on human tastes is what’s really worth discarding when it’s fit.

A society should be concerned about both internal and external. We should not compromise the external and just worry about the internal or vice-versa. We should also not adopt fleeting human tastes from our own personal experiences but from the deposit of traditional values and standards that have been formulated over centuries of experience. Our experiences, as you say correctly, might be right for today with this group of people but might not work for society in general.

So we as Christians, should adopt the more general position of traditional values than the values from our subjective experience of our own short lives up to now.

 

[OurBeloved]

Actually, it is, because that is exactly what I asked, which you would realize if you read my posts. I was asking about what I would tell my hypothetical daughter and on what basis I would form my answer. That involves a level of specificity that in turn involves the “content of traditional values.”

I care only about the specifics at the moment. If that does not interest you, let me know and we can end right here, leaving my question unanswered. But you said look to traditional values, and did not expand on that thought.

I have said this a lot of times on this thread. If you want to learn traditional values, you turn to the homilies of Pope’s, Bishops, Priests or even grandparents or parents from a time where modesty was a core value or you ask an elderly person you know who is from such a time.

As I told you once, the fact that you are unable to locate the information required does not mean it does not exist.

“Past Popes from a time where Modesty was still held as a core value of society.” Yes, what a workable condition. I am sure that you will tell me to really think about this issue, but what you are asking is for someone to make a judgment about a culture and society involves millions upon millions of people and determining at what point that condition is met. Indeed, since you argue for a teleological account of modesty standards, I would need to determine precisely when modesty ceased to be held as a core value of society.

Yes, very easy, and the path is indeed available. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Why is this so difficult? If you are someone who is from the West like me, all you need to do is go to a time period before the sexual revolution where society decided to get rid of modesty as a core value.

If you really have the need, and are really concerned about being modest, the information is very easily available.

You cannot know if you cannot describe the methodology at all. If you cannot explain in any way how a rocket requires physics, then you clearly cannot know that it involves physics.

In this case you do know how the rocket i.e. modesty works. It is suppossed to not cause temptation to others so it is based on experiences of persons. Thus, it makes sense to believe in the collective conclusions and standards drawn and refined through centuries of collective experiences rather than what is gathered in your own short life time.

And the problem is more fundamental: I challenged the notion that the methodology was right at all and asked for any evidence that it was. If you cannot answer at all, why should I believe you?

Because the same methodology is used in every field of academia and ironically in a much smaller scale with smaller groups of people who decide for everyone else.

The methodology might not be perfect, but it is the best we got.

You have pointed out an incorrect assumption about the existence of some crisis on my end. You stake a claim to knowledge of society works, yet rely purely on your own observation and claim that challenges to this “knowledge” are predicated on not understanding how society works. Rephrased, “I am right and you are wrong because I believe X.”

If that is your standard for evidence, then we are done here.

If you want to be done, I am fine with that because something tells me you want to win this argument really bad rather than learn something from it. From the quality of arguments you have presented so far, I can guarantee you that you won’t win this argument as well.

The point being made here however is that “This is how society operates, if you want to deny that, you should deny every bit of knowledge that you have that was not through first hand experience”.

So as a philosophical position, there is nothing wrong with taking your route as long as you do it consistently. What we have here is you picking and choosing what you like and support you from experiences of others in different academic fields while rejecting the methodology it-self.

Prove this.

There is nothing to prove really, it is an observation. If you observe a different method of knowledge propagation in society, then you are welcome to enlighten us which would prove me wrong anyway.

I think you need to take more initiative in your life to prove me wrong rather than take the weak approach of saying “you don’t have a proof so you must be wrong”. I might not have proof but I might still certainly be right

Clearly the former. That is why I asked for an answer to my very reasonable question with the assumption that traditional values are true.

It is certainly noteworthy that you still have no provided an answer with the assumption that what you are saying is accurate.

This seems to be an issue with your research ability than a real practical problem. Or perhaps a result of your predicament in modern society where your parents probably didn’t hand down much to you in the form of traditional values and standards. So your case would indeed be unique.

The proposed methodology is for the average person today who would still have access to traditional values that can be obtained by Elders (which could be in homilies of Pope’s, Bishops, Priests, or advice from ones own parents, grandparents etc). If you are cut-off from all these possibilities, I do sympathize with you but pray to God that you will meet someone from whom you may be able to learn the traditional values. All that matters for this discussion however is that you agree that we have to turn to traditional values as our best option. That to me is the contention of this discussion.

 

[thewanderer]

OurBeloved,

I really would like you to qualify what you mean by traditional values. It seems that the way you understand it is that we must pick a period in history and dress as they did because at least we know they were being modest. Here’s the problem wih saying that and leaving it at that. That kind of thinking, when presented as morally authoritative, is exactly what led me and many others into the self-destructive cycle. I completely agree that going back to the standards of clothing at certain periods of time will ensure modesty, but trying to force that particular standard of clothing on everyone can lead to a very unhealthy self-image. Which is why I think we need to look at such standards of dress, and figure out what is good and what isn’t. Something about the argument that everyone must turn to the traditional standards of dress from time x has been very damaging to many women, so it clearly is not a sufficient answer in and of itself, which is why I continue to look for clarification. Yes t is a matter of charity to not lead others into sin, it is also a matter of charity to not lead others into a psychologically damaged state.

 

[OurBeloved]

The last thing I object to is the complete focus upon what can and cannot be worn as what constitutes modesty. I realize that I have helped this conversation focus on that. But if anyone loses sight of the importance of the dignity ofthe person and of respecting every single person including oneself…

The issue here pertains to modesty as it applies to dress. The human dignity of a person remains intact whether the person is nude or not. Just by the likeness of being in God’s image, the person has a human dignity.

So we are here considering, not the issue of safeguarding dignity but on the issue of modesty as it pertains to not leading others in to temptation.

Of recognizing that no person should turn their life into something that must be governed completely by the whims and vices of others that is when the real problems in society begin. And I am not basing this simply off of my own experience, but on the wisdom of the Church.

I am not even sure what you mean about not being governed by others. One could say that one’s purpose of life here on earth is to LOVE GOD and LOVE ones Neighbor. In this sense, everything about ones life seems to revolve around others. As many saints have taught, one finds oneself in loosing oneself for the sake of others.

So I am not really sure what you speak of as the church teaching otherwise.

My question to you to give me a universal by Which I can determine what “traditional values” are is simply a request asking you how we are to determine what of past ages is wisdom and what is folly.

Perhaps it is your goal that is confusing things. If your goal is to be modest, then you adopt every single traditional value of the past pertaining to it.

Or you can take the other approach. Start with your nude form and start adopting traditional values and standards one by one or put pieces of cloth one by one and try them out during your life and gain experience. But in the course of doing so, you would have lead countless men to temptation and might have lead to them falling out of grace and loosing their salvation.

Ironically, the second approach would also cause you to be overly scrupulous. You will have to worry about every individual who

So if your perspective is clear, that the important thing is your salvation and those of others, it is better to adopt traditional values and standards without trying to judge what is folly or true.

What you seem to confuse however, is traditional values with fashion. That distinction is matter of understanding. Different fashions could be a T-shirt, shirt, gown etc. The standard like how much skin can be exposed would apply to all of them equally.

[EDIT: Just so you know, the fact that some women are disgusted by a speedo really doesn’t meanthat others aren’t turned on by it. Some men are disgusted by bikini’s by they see hem as immodest and degrading. Those women who are disgusted by speedos hunk the same, but trust me, there are women out there that see speedos as their way of getting ‘eye candy’]

This is exactly why you shouldn’t be relying on your personal experience or that of a limited community you live in. It is better to adopt traditional values since they provide a general consensus based on collective experience of centuries on how different people behave. So the traditional values you get aren’t something that applies to EVERY person. The values you get apply to society in general. This is simply what you must follow as a reasonable person.

You are not called to be extreme and worry everyday before you dress something on whether it might cause temptation to someone (unless its a special case where you know the person you are meeting has… certain tendencies I guess…). Rather, you are called to wear according to a general standard. That general standard is set by traditional values.

To be honest, if you do follow traditional values, you can avoid a lot of unnecessary scruples.

 

[OurBeloved]

OurBeloved,

I really would like you to qualify what you mean by traditional values. It seems that the way you understand it is that we must pick a period in history and dress as they did because at least we know they were being modest. Here’s the problem wih saying that and leaving it at that. That kind of thinking, when presented as morally authoritative, is exactly what led me and many others into the self-destructive cycle. I completely agree that going back to the standards of clothing at certain periods of time will ensure modesty, but trying to force that particular standard of clothing on everyone can lead to a very unhealthy self-image. Which is why I think we need to look at such standards of dress, and figure out what is good and what isn’t. Something about the argument that everyone must turn to the traditional standards of dress from time x has been very damaging to many women, so it clearly is not a sufficient answer in and of itself, which is why I continue to look for clarification. Yes t is a matter of charity to not lead others into sin, it is also a matter of charity to not lead others into a psychologically damaged state.

I am not sure what is so damaging to all women about adopting a standard of dress from a particular time?

I am also not sure how this leads to a self-destructive cycle. The traditional values are set. It is either cover your shoulders or expose them for an example. So if you are going to buy a top, you worry about whether this criteria is satisfied for an example.

The self-destructive cycle would happen only if you try to refine these traditional values or try to pick and choose or add some of your own values. So you might say, shoulders must be covered but I personally think elbows might be causing a lot of attraction too.

But the point of having traditional values is to avoid that sort of thinking in the first place. You don’t worry about covering your elbows because you know that it is not required according to the general set of standards. It might cause some random person to be tempted by your elbows but you are reasonable in not accounting for it.

So its a two way street, you doing the best you can to dress modest according to general standards handed down to you, and men everywhere doing the best they can to overcome temptation.

 

[Portrait]

Well, Baelor, you are escaping the point here. As I said before, the debate here is not about the content of traditional values. If interested, I have already told you how to access these traditional values and standards by reading or listening to the homilies of past Popes from a time where Modesty was still held as a core value of society. For one who wants to seek, the path is available.

But even if forget about that, for you to accuse of not being able to answer that question does not undermine the methodology. That is a logical error on your part. I might be fully aware of the methodology but unaware of how to obtain information on the methodology. To give you an analogy, I might know that I need to know physics to launch a rocket but unaware of which book to read. The fact that I don’t know which book to read does not mean the methodology is wrong.

So honestly, what this discussion came down to was you asking for validation of the development process of traditional values. You wanted GUARANTEES that people of the past understood modesty perfectly and did a good job at forming the traditional values.

However, as I pointed out, this suspicion that they might have not done a good job or might not have understood modesty accurately is symptom of perhaps a larger epistemological crisis that you are undergoing or simply a desperate defense to save yourself from conceding the matter.

But the fact remains that every single arrangement human society has established for the acquiring and propagation of knowledge consists of humans that operate in the same way as they do in forming and passing down traditional values.

So from a practical standpoint, when the average person is indeed interested in achieving salvation, and want to be modest, the place to turn to are traditional values from a time in which modesty has been a core value of society. Your line of thinking and argumentation is of no use to anyone since it deals with hypothetical experiments that no-one has performed and ironically, you yourself have not performed up until now. As far as the practical person is concerned, the traditional values have been successful at upholding modesty. So rather than abolish it all and start building values from scratch from ones own personal experience, which in the meantime might be the cause of temptation to many, it is better to simply turn to traditional values.

Therefore, while I appreciate the time you took to “bold the salient parts” for my assistance, I think it might do you well to really consider why you are having this discussion. Is it to provide a means for persons to live a modest a life, or for you to win another argument by suggesting hypothetical experiments that you and I both know nobody will care to perform, and doesn’t give a reasonable answer to the question as to how people should act in the meantime.

If one arranges their priorities accurately, with salvation at the top, it is clear that traditional values are a gold mine. But for someone who has other priorities mixed in and competing for the top position, traditional values are a burden.

Dear OurBeloved,

Codial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good to see your return to the thread, old chap.

Your previous and latest dispatches are excellent and articulate rejoinders that exemplify authentic Catholic thinking and methodology. To me, at least, your arguments are so obviously correct that even a blind man on a galloping horse could see their truthfulness.

Keep up the good work, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

The issue here pertains to modesty as it applies to dress. The human dignity of a person remains intact whether the person is nude or not. Just by the likeness of being in God’s image, the person has a human dignity.

So we are here considering, not the issue of safeguarding dignity but on the issue of modesty as it pertains to not leading others in to temptation.

And I think its really important to not focus too much on the one without the other, which is why I brought it up. Yes, we can decide to talk specifically about dress if we wish, but if we’re talking about it on a random internet forum where you never know who is gonna read it, you need to make sure they don’t come away with a onesided view of things as this can become self-destructing.

I am not even sure what you mean about not being governed by others. One could say that one’s purpose of life here on earth is to LOVE GOD and LOVE ones Neighbor. In this sense, everything about ones life seems to revolve around others. As many saints have taught, one finds oneself in loosing oneself for the sake of others.

So I am not really sure what you speak of as the church teaching otherwise.

Of course I didn’t mean that we should act completely independantly of others, but there is an unnatural and unhealthy way of acting based solely on others which can be very detrimental

Perhaps it is your goal that is confusing things. If your goal is to be modest, then you adopt every single traditional value of the past pertaining to it.

Or you can take the other approach. Start with your nude form and start adopting traditional values and standards one by one or put pieces of cloth one by one and try them out during your life and gain experience. But in the course of doing so, you would have lead countless men to temptation and might have lead to them falling out of grace and loosing their salvation.

I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to imply here? That my goal isn’t to be modest? My goal isn’t solely to refrain from tempting others, that is true. But that is a part of my goal.

Ironically, the second approach would also cause you to be overly scrupulous. You will have to worry about every individual who

So if your perspective is clear, that the important thing is your salvation and those of others, it is better to adopt traditional values and standards without trying to judge what is folly or true.

What you seem to confuse however, is traditional values with fashion. That distinction is matter of understanding. Different fashions could be a T-shirt, shirt, gown etc. The standard like how much skin can be exposed would apply to all of them equally.

Again, the distinction you are making is unclear. You seem to be implying that the only aspect to dressing modestly is to covering x, y, and z. Yes you have given some examples, but not a universaal I can use to figure out what is an acceptable difference in fashion and what is a matter of modesty

This is exactly why you shouldn’t be relying on your personal experience or that of a limited community you live in. It is better to adopt traditional values since they provide a general consensus based on collective experience of centuries on how different people behave. So the traditional values you get aren’t something that applies to EVERY person. The values you get apply to society in general. This is simply what you must follow as a reasonable person.

You are not called to be extreme and worry everyday before you dress something on whether it might cause temptation to someone (unless its a special case where you know the person you are meeting has… certain tendencies I guess…). Rather, you are called to wear according to a general standard. That general standard is set by traditional values.

To be honest, if you do follow traditional values, you can avoid a lot of unnecessary scruples.

See, the thing is that, while that works for some, it does not work for all. I can assure you that this kind of thought can and has led many women into a self-destructive cycle, so I think it is important to figure out how to avoid such a cycle and to make sure to present that mthod of avoiding it whenevver one talks about the importance of modesty.

 

[thewanderer]

I am not sure what is so damaging to all women about adopting a standard of dress from a particular time?

I am also not sure how this leads to a self-destructive cycle. The traditional values are set. It is either cover your shoulders or expose them for an example. So if you are going to buy a top, you worry about whether this criteria is satisfied for an example.

The self-destructive cycle would happen only if you try to refine these traditional values or try to pick and choose or add some of your own values. So you might say, shoulders must be covered but I personally think elbows might be causing a lot of attraction too.

But the point of having traditional values is to avoid that sort of thinking in the first place. You don’t worry about covering your elbows because you know that it is not required according to the general set of standards. It might cause some random person to be tempted by your elbows but you are reasonable in not accounting for it.

So its a two way street, you doing the best you can to dress modest according to general standards handed down to you, and men everywhere doing the best they can to overcome temptation.

If the point of traditional values is to avoid a self destructive cycle then it often fails. Also, I never said it is damaging to all women, but it can and has been damaging to some. Which is why I think its important to make sure to include it in the discussion so that others reading this aren’t led down that path.

(sorry for posting again by the way… I guess I kind of assumed that since you had already replied to Baelor more than once that you had missed my earlier post. I don’t want to come across as though I am harassing you.)

 

[OurBeloved]

And I think its really important to not focus too much on the one without the other, which is why I brought it up. Yes, we can decide to talk specifically about dress if we wish, but if we’re talking about it on a random internet forum where you never know who is gonna read it, you need to make sure they don’t come away with a onesided view of things as this can become self-destructing.

Well sure, but this is a good example of you being overly scrupulous about someone making a mistake in interpreting me. I was saying that we must adopt traditional values as our guidelines. Doing so will remove reasons for being scrupulous since we would already have standards. So I think what I have said cannot lead a reasonable person down a self-destructive spiral, at least on its own.

Of course I didn’t mean that we should act completely independantly of others, but there is an unnatural and unhealthy way of acting based solely on others which can be very detrimental

I am sure there is. That is exactly what traditional values will avoid.

Again, the distinction you are making is unclear. You seem to be implying that the only aspect to dressing modestly is to covering x, y, and z. Yes you have given some examples, but not a universaal I can use to figure out what is an acceptable difference in fashion and what is a matter of modesty

Modesty is about not leading others to temptation. Whether you wear a T-shirt, or a Shirt, or a Gown, or Pants, you can either lead people to temptation or not. How you avoid leading them to temptation is making sure these fashions follow traditional values and standards.

So covering yourself properly and in a way that does not emphasize form does play a major role when it comes to modesty in dress. This issue of modesty deals directly with the visual sense. Why is it so surprising or confusing that it would then have a lot to say about how one shows oneself?

See, the thing is that, while that works for some, it does not work for all. I can assure you that this kind of thought can and has led many women into a self-destructive cycle, so I think it is important to figure out how to avoid such a cycle and to make sure to present that mthod of avoiding it whenevver one talks about the importance of modesty.

How is there a destructive cycle when there is nothing to study,or decide on personally?

To really point out the problem with your position, someone could say the same thing about religion in general. One can say religion leads to a self-destructive cycle. In other words, anything that gives you standards or values to conduct your life on can lead to a self destructive cycle and according to you, it is the fault of adopting a religion or set of traditional values and not some other factor pertaining to the ones who use it.

 

[OurBeloved]

If the point of traditional values is to avoid a self destructive cycle then it often fails. Also, I never said it is damaging to all women, but it can and has been damaging to some. Which is why I think its important to make sure to include it in the discussion so that others reading this aren’t led down that path.

All they need to do to not go down that path is embrace all the traditional values and standards regarding modesty and not try to modify it themselves.

As I indicated in my previous reply, the alternatives to traditional values can lead to far more scruples and far more temptation and possible loss of souls.

(sorry for posting again by the way… I guess I kind of assumed that since you had already replied to Baelor more than once that you had missed my earlier post. I don’t want to come across as though I am harassing you.)

No worries.

But to be honest, I am not understanding how mere adoption of traditional values can lead someone down a self-destructive spiral. What you say, seems possible with everything, the Law, Religion etc. So I am not sure if the self-destructive cycle is a result of mere adoption of traditional values but something that is a result of other factors that have nothing to do about it.

 

[OurBeloved]

Dear OurBeloved,

Codial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good to see your return to the thread, old chap.

Your previous and latest dispatches are excellent and articulate rejoinders that exemplify authentic Catholic thinking and methodology. To me, at least, your arguments are so obviously correct that even a blind man on a galloping horse could see their truthfulness.

Keep up the good work, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

It is good to be back!

 

[thewanderer]

Well sure, but this is a good example of you being overly scrupulous about someone making a mistake in interpreting me. I was saying that we must adopt traditional values as our guidelines. Doing so will remove reasons for being scrupulous since we would already have standards. So I think what I have said cannot lead a reasonable person down a self-destructive spiral.

It is very easy to lead impressionable young women who desire to be holy to consider themselves and their body as simply something which they must gaurd from the greedy eyes of men. I know you don’t think this can happen, but I assure you it can and does.

I am sure there is. That is exactly what traditional values will avoid.

Modesty is about not leading others to temptation. Whether you wear a T-shirt, or a Shirt, or a Gown, or Pants, you can either lead people to temptation or not. How you avoid leading them to temptation is making sure these fashions follow traditional values and standards.

So covering yourself properly and in a way that does not emphasize form does play a major role when it comes to modesty in dress. This issue of modesty deals directly with the visual sense. Why is it so surprising or confusing that it would then have a lot to say about how one shows oneself?

its not confusing to say that modesty is about preventing temptation out of charity and that it has to do with the visul sense in particular (alhtough it can also be related to the other senses, touch and smell for instance). The thing is is that I am looking for a universal, not just examples, about what the difference between fashion and standards of modesty is. We know things through universals. I am still not clear on exactly what your idea of traditional values entails, so I’m looking for a universal. From earlier in this thread we had a universal that we both agreed on ‘sexy’ clothing is immodest (in general public use). That is a universal that can be used practically to determine what clothing is modest and what immodest. Seeing as we both agreed on that, I was curious how that lined up with the idea of traditional values. If you still agree that the line of immodesty with respecct to clothing is to be drawn at ‘sexy’ clothing, then traditional values ought to match up with this universal, if they don’t, and require more than that, then it seems likely that one can dispense with the traditional values that require more as the universal for whether an article of clothing is modest or not is whether or not it is ‘sexy’.

How is there a destructive cycle when there is nothing to refine?

There are two different factors, 1. the focus placed solely (or almost solely) on women ensuring they do not become an occasion of sin for a man.
2. The statement ‘traditional values’ when left unclear can lead to all sorts of claims about what is necessary for modesty, such as the claim that women can never wear pants or else they are sinning by being immodest. Many things were traditionally the style or stadard of dress in the past, but if it is not clear what is meant by ‘traditional values’ it can lead people to mistake what you have labelled differences in fashion as a lack of modesty.

To really point out the problem with your position, someone could say the same thing about religion in general. One can say religion leads to a self-destructive cycle. In other words, anything that gives you standards or values to conduct your life on can lead to a self destructive cycle and according to you, it is the fault of the religion or traditional values and not ones use of it.

No, people can not say the same thing with respect to religion in general. my problem is not that there is some set of standards and values. I wholeheartedly believe there is some standard of what clothing is acceptable and what clothing isn’t, so I have no idea why you think that is my problem. My problem, as mentioned above, is that I have seen this kind of unclarified thnking and arguing lead women into a destructive cycle, so we should clarify it so as to avoid leading women into that!