Modesty: Who's Responsible?

[Portrait]

Portrait, I would say that obviously immodesty can make it more difficult for people of both genders to avoid lust.

I would also agree with severus that immodesty is not the cause of sexual assault or rape.

Now, maybe you could make the case that our culture-wide objectification of women is partly to blame for the prevalence of sexual assault. But from everything I’ve read and been told, specific victims are not targeted for how they dress- they’re targeted because they are unlikely to go for help, or because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The fact is, as Catholics we must dress modestly, whether the people we come in contact with mean to respect us or not. And as Catholics, we must respect other people regardless of whether they are dressed modestly. We can only control ourselves, and if we fail in that, the fault is our own. We shouldn’t seek to blame other people for our own sins, whether ours is the sin of lust or the sin of dressing immodestly.

Dear Kamaduck,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response.

Having not delved into the issue of forcible sexual assaults upon women and what motivates them, I am afraid that I cannot comment at any great length upon the topic, dear friend. However, I would say that it is not possible to conclusively point to any one particular reason as to why men sexually assault women, as it largely depends upon the individual man. We cannot, in my opinion, completely rule out simple unbridled sexual desire as a motive at work, especially in the case of a man who is socially inept and isolated. His sexual frustration could eventually reach a point where it can no longer be contained. Now, in a case of this kind, can we dogmatically assert that the sight of scantily dressed women clad in seductive style clothing is never a significant factor in a sexual assault? Immodest clothing, revealing an inordinate amount of flesh, must on occasions be factored in as at least contributing to the assault in so far as it arouses the baser instincts.

However, dear sister, I do not think that what motivates sexual assaults is really germane to the topic currently under review, which is who is responsible for modesty. As I have argued in my previous posts, both sexes are responsible and must do their bit to minimise the strength of evil desire and so quell the carnal passions, otherwise sin will swiftly enter their souls and defile them.

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman. Thus a woman semaphores to the world the quality of her character by her choice of clothing, her mode of speech, her manners and her general deportment. Thus a woman who chooses to be attired in immodest vesture signals to others that she has no interior instinct for modesty and selfishly cares little about giving offence or of being an inducement to sin. Modesty may well involve more than dress but there is no getting away from the fact that it still “inspires one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522). Moreover, if outward appearance was unimportant and no indication of character, then it was pointless for St. Paul to enjoin women to be clothed in seemly apparel that did not transgress the boundaries of propriety.

The urgent need of the hour in our decadent Western culture is for women once again to see themselves as the “guardians of chastity for the world”.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Kamaduck,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response.

Having not delved into the issue of forcible sexual assaults upon women and what motivates them, I am afraid that I cannot comment at any great length upon the topic, dear friend. However, I would say that it is not possible to conclusively point to any one particular reason as to why men sexually assault women, as it largely depends upon the individual man. We cannot, in my opinion, completely rule out simple unbridled sexual desire as a motive at work, especially in the case of a man who is socially inept and isolated. His sexual frustration could eventually reach a point where it can no longer be contained. Now, in a case of this kind, can we dogmatically assert that the sight of scantily dressed women clad in seductive style clothing is never a significant factor in a sexual assault? Immodest clothing, revealing an inordinate amount of flesh, must on occasions be factored in as at least contributing to the assault in so far as it arouses the baser instincts.

However, dear sister, I do not think that what motivates sexual assaults is really germane to the topic currently under review, which is who is responsible for modesty. As I have argued in my previous posts, both sexes are responsible and must do their bit to minimise the strength of evil desire and so quell the carnal passions, otherwise sin will swiftly enter their souls and defile them.

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman. Thus a woman semaphores to the world the quality of her character by her choice of clothing, her mode of speech, her manners and her general deportment. Thus a woman who chooses to be attired in immodest vesture signals to others that she has no interior instinct for modesty and selfishly cares little about giving offence or of being an inducement to sin. Modesty may well involve more than dress but there is no getting away from the fact that it still “inspires one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522). Moreover, if outward appearance was unimportant and no indication of character, then it was pointless for St. Paul to enjoin women to be clothed in seemly apparel that did not transgress the boundaries of propriety.

The urgent need of the hour in our decadent Western culture is for women once again to see themselves as the “guardians of chastity for the world”.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

When one tries to “justify” that lack of Grace/darkness of the mind – by placing the fault/responsibility onto someone else – we keep the Light of Grace from working within us.

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well with you. Thankyou for your response.

Dress, it is quite true, is not the sole cause of sexual immorality, but it admits of no serious doubt that it is a significant contributory factor, especially in our hypersexualised Western culture with its tendency to focus upon people as an assemblage of body parts.

It is surely of vital importance, dear sister, that we approach this whole issue of modesty from the objective perspective of Catholic moral theology, especially as it relates to Original Sin and its dire consequences for mankind. Man in his fallen estate is, unfortunately, subject to evil desire and thus moral disorder is a part of the human condition. This is why Holy Mother Church has always demanded that the faithful attire themselves modestly, so as not to transgress the boundaries of propriety and tempt others to unchaste thoughts. Our Church fully understands, given our wounded natures, that the sight of scantily dressed men or women is likely to excite our carnal passions and that this can lead to mortal sin, especially fornication and adultery. Owing to our fallen nature and our propensity to sin, men and women must struggle to regulate their attraction by keeping their baser passions in subjection, which is already an exceedingly arduous task given the presence of evil desire. Now in view of this it is surely patently evident that our clothing choices are highly significant and that what we wear (or don’t wear) could be a near occasion of sin to a brother or sister. Therefore we owe it to each other to be co-operators together in the already difficult battle against concupiscence. Why make matters any more difficult than what they already are by being clad in immodest style clothing, an unnecessary source of temptation? Is it really too much to ask of those who profess the holy religion of Christ, to be considerate in their dress, so as not to be the occasion of temptation to others? Owing to our fallen estate, seductive style fashion garments, such as mini-length skirts or halter tops, are indecent and likely to arouse unchaste thoughts. Therefore they are not appropriate or seemly for women professing godliness.

Indeed, dear sister, each person is responsible for their actions and this I have freely admitted. However, that includes a woman, who is responsible for ensuring that she is attired modestly and decently, as equally as a man is for the custody of his eyes and quelling any impure thoughts.

Of course, dear sister, a woman does not have to conceal her womanly appearance or dress in dowdy clothes, but neither should she dress in a way that invites others to view her as an assemblage of body parts. Immodest clothing only serves to distract from our personhood, with the sad result that we engage less with personality and more with body parts, since they become the focus of attention. It is this that leads to both men an women being objectified and, at length, loosing all respect for one another - which is precisely what is happening in the morally degenerate age in which our lot is cast. It would, I think, be naïve to think that the disordered fixation with body parts has no connection whatsoever with unseemly voluptuous style garments or with women being scantily dressed.

It does rather seem, dear sister, that when a Catholic seeks to uphold modest standards of dress, they feel, even on a Catholic website such as this, that they have hatched out of a time pod from the Victorian era, which is very sad when you think about it. Even within the bosom of the Church one detects a strong undercurrent of intense dislike of what is now seemingly perceived as prissy dress standards and a sexist approach to women because it dares to say that they have a responsibility to dress with a proper reserve.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

If a man views a woman as an “assemblage of body parts” – he needs to pray for the Grace to see her as a Child of God – and not go around find ways of “excusing/justifying” his dark thoughts. The more one tries to “justify” the sickness that lives in the mind – the more one repels Grace.

 

[Kamaduck]

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. In that sense, I think assigning blame to one side or the other is counter-productive.

The issue of sexual assualt and rape, which severus brought up, is not something I think we should handle in quite the same way. I think it is a related issue, but mostly because our advice to women to be modest can come across as victim-blaming when applied to cases of sexual assault.

Portrait, I’m glad that you admit that you know little about the subject. From my (admittedly incomplete) understanding, rape is a crime usually motivated by a desire to have power over another. Victims are not chosen for their manner of dress. Claiming that they are is generally considered victim-blaming, and victim-blaming is disgusting. IMO. As my health teacher told his class, the victim is often guilty of being stupid, but for the crime of the rape, only the rapist is responsible. Stupidity is not a crime.

Now, in general, we are all responsible for our own actions. You keep your eyes to yourself, regardless of whether the people around you are making it easy on you. You dress modestly, regardless of whether the people around you are making that easy on you. We all need to toughen up and stop trying to shove our responsibilities onto the opposite sex. And that’s really all there is to say about that.

 

[quiet52]

I have two daughters. When they were in middle school time, I was very clear about the clothing that was acceptable. I told them about how men’s minds work, and how visual they are, that that if they dressed too provocatively, dirty old men would be thinking nasty thoughts about them!

They are now 17 and almost 19, both virgins, both beauties, with great senses of style. My older daughter won best dressed in her senior yearbook, and has never dressed like a tramp.

I lay the responsibility on the mother’s shoulders entirely.

Good job, Mom! Your daughters are blessed, and you are blessed by them.

But know that many mothers work hard at instilling values of chastity within their children, and their children still rebel. I don’t think those moms are necessarily “failures” or irresponsible.

 

[severus68]

Dear Kamaduck,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response.

Having not delved into the issue of forcible sexual assaults upon women and what motivates them, I am afraid that I cannot comment at any great length upon the topic, dear friend. However, I would say that it is not possible to conclusively point to any one particular reason as to why men sexually assault women, as it largely depends upon the individual man. We cannot, in my opinion, completely rule out simple unbridled sexual desire as a motive at work, especially in the case of a man who is socially inept and isolated. His sexual frustration could eventually reach a point where it can no longer be contained. Now, in a case of this kind, can we dogmatically assert that the sight of scantily dressed women clad in seductive style clothing is never a significant factor in a sexual assault? Immodest clothing, revealing an inordinate amount of flesh, must on occasions be factored in as at least contributing to the assault in so far as it arouses the baser instincts.

However, dear sister, I do not think that what motivates sexual assaults is really germane to the topic currently under review, which is who is responsible for modesty. As I have argued in my previous posts, both sexes are responsible and must do their bit to minimise the strength of evil desire and so quell the carnal passions, otherwise sin will swiftly enter their souls and defile them.

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman. Thus a woman semaphores to the world the quality of her character by her choice of clothing, her mode of speech, her manners and her general deportment. Thus a woman who chooses to be attired in immodest vesture signals to others that she has no interior instinct for modesty and selfishly cares little about giving offence or of being an inducement to sin. Modesty may well involve more than dress but there is no getting away from the fact that it still “inspires one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522). Moreover, if outward appearance was unimportant and no indication of character, then it was pointless for St. Paul to enjoin women to be clothed in seemly apparel that did not transgress the boundaries of propriety.

The urgent need of the hour in our decadent Western culture is for women once again to see themselves as the “guardians of chastity for the world”.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Sexual assault and rape is about power. No woman asks for it!!!
It is also insulting to men to say they cannot control themselves and when you go on about unbridled lust/desire.

Men need to control themselves too - most do. All adults have to take responsibility for themselves… Men are not children with no self control needing women to keep them chaste.

 

[severus68]

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. In that sense, I think assigning blame to one side or the other is counter-productive.

The issue of sexual assualt and rape, which severus brought up, is not something I think we should handle in quite the same way. I think it is a related issue, but mostly because our advice to women to be modest can come across as victim-blaming when applied to cases of sexual assault.

Portrait, I’m glad that you admit that you know little about the subject. From my (admittedly incomplete) understanding, rape is a crime usually motivated by a desire to have power over another. Victims are not chosen for their manner of dress. Claiming that they are is generally considered victim-blaming, and victim-blaming is disgusting. IMO. As my health teacher told his class, the victim is often guilty of being stupid, but for the crime of the rape, only the rapist is responsible. Stupidity is not a crime.

Now, in general, we are all responsible for our own actions. You keep your eyes to yourself, regardless of whether the people around you are making it easy on you. You dress modestly, regardless of whether the people around you are making that easy on you. We all need to toughen up and stop trying to shove our responsibilities onto the opposite sex. And that’s really all there is to say about that.

Actually I thought Portrait was going into that arena with his words ( my bolding) :

“Modesty in attire, dear friend, has always and rightly been considered by Catholics a bastion against sexual license and** the elimination of opportunity**.”

Yes, rape is about power.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sexual assault and rape is about power. No woman asks for it!!!
It is also insulting to men to say they cannot control themselves and when you go on about unbridled lust/desire.

Men need to control themselves too - most do. All adults have to take responsibility for themselves… Men are not children with no self control needing women to keep them chaste.

---

 

[Baelor]

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman. Thus a woman semaphores to the world the quality of her character by her choice of clothing, her mode of speech, her manners and her general deportment. Thus a woman who chooses to be attired in immodest vesture signals to others that she has no interior instinct for modesty and selfishly cares little about giving offence or of being an inducement to sin.

While this is in general true, we cannot assume that others speak the same nonverbal languages that we do. What may indicate rudeness in one state may be polite in another. We cannot determine intent from action.

It is perfectly possible for a woman not to realize that she is dressed immodestly in a particular society or that her clothing choices may provoke others to sin, proving your point wrong.

 

[fpt]

While this is in general true, we cannot assume that others speak the same nonverbal languages that we do. What may indicate rudeness in one state may be polite in another. We cannot determine intent from action.

It is perfectly possible for a woman not to realize that she is dressed immodestly in a particular society or that her clothing choices may provoke others to sin, proving your point wrong.

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman.

Here, I am going to play the devil advocate, but i like that.

Yes and no, or yes or no, this type of statement* is too simplist, too much affirmative*. In reality, that is more complex. Be careful with the moralism, the rigorism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the pharisaism, the scrupulism about those types of topics.

Modesty versus immodesty??? Decency versus indecency??? Purity versus impurity??? Morality versus immorality???..etc…???
The constitutive elements???

In my humble, you should read the moral position of Mister Portrait on the marital act with the corollaries (foreplay and co). He is almost as mister Ronald Conte Jr. Thus, he is probably very strict in his constitutive elements of immodesty in garments. I am sorry, but I want to be very clear for informing the posters, in the details with all the subtelties.

The devil advocate, fpt!!!

 

[Baelor]

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman.

It can, be we should not make judgments about others based on anything other than syllogistic processes.

Yes and no, or yes or no, this type of statement* is too simplist, too much affirmative*. In reality, that is more complex. Be careful with the moralism, the rigorism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the pharisaism, the scrupulism about those types of topics.

Which is all I stated in the first place.

 

[Portrait]

Sexual assault and rape is about power. No woman asks for it!!!
It is also insulting to men to say they cannot control themselves and when you go on about unbridled lust/desire.

Men need to control themselves too - most do. All adults have to take responsibility for themselves… Men are not children with no self control needing women to keep them chaste.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

We are repeatedly told nowadays, dear sister, that sexual assault/rape *always *involves power and control and is never about arousal and sexually unfulfilled men. This does, however, seem a like a sweeping over generalization, emanating from politically correct radical feminism, which insists that it is socially unacceptable to say that a woman’s clothing has any bearing on a sexual assault. To hold such a view is, after all, tantamount to “blaming the victim”, which is now considered to be anathema in contemporary Western culture.

A more balanced position, dear sister, is surely to say that in some cases, perhaps even a considerable number, rape and sexual assault is about control and having the power to subdue another person, but decidedly not in every single case. That sexual assault may be a crime of power in some cases is something that I would not stop to deny, but it admits of no doubt that it can also be a crime perpetrated as an act of overwhelming sexual urge in a frustrated man. This is especially the case with men who are socially inadequate and who therefore lack the confidence to establish even normal friendships with women, let alone become romantically involved with them. It is no use to say by way of reply that these men should control their sexual urges, which of course is perfectly true, because in nearly all cases such men would probably be non-Christians who are alienated from God and possibly enslaved by the imperious dictates of fallen human nature. Thus they may have no desire to control their sinful desires and appetites, so much are they under the dominion of sin (cf. Eph. 2: 2,3). This is not to excuse their nefarious forcible assaults against women but rather to explain what may motivate them to commit such crimes. Now for these sort of chaps a woman’s provocative appearance or her being scantily dressed may well be a significant factor as regards a rape or sexual assault, not wanting power or control. This is really common sense and should not go for a ball of chalk in the interests of politically correct feminist dogma, which, almost as an article of faith, stubbornly refuses to accept that women have any responsibility. That surely evinces a fanatically unbalanced standpoint which ought, in my opinion, to be viewed with grave suspicion.

Of course men should control themselves and take responsibility for their actions, dear sister, but we live in a fallen world where, sadly, many men are dominated by self-centred passions which continually involve “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind”. This being the case they will not always exercise self-control and behave like perfect gentlemen. Therefore, in view of this, I cannot see how it is “insulting” to say that the sort of men I have been speaking of are enslaved by unbridled lust, possibly fuelled by pornography, given that they are so controlled by their carnal desires. In these cases I think it would be sheer naivety to deny that sexual arousal is a component of sexual assault and that a woman’s attire (or lack of it) has an effect upon then, perhaps a jolly strong effect at that.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Of course men should control themselves and take responsibility for their actions, dear sister, but we live in a fallen world where, sadly, many men are dominated by self-centred passions which continually involve “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind”. This being the case they will not always exercise self-control and behave like perfect gentlemen. Therefore, in view of this, I cannot see how it is “insulting” to say that the sort of men I have been speaking of are enslaved by unbridled lust, possibly fuelled by pornography, given that they are so controlled by their carnal desires. In these cases I think it would be sheer naivety to deny that sexual arousal is a component of sexual assault and that a woman’s attire (or lack of it) has an effect upon then, perhaps a jolly strong effect at that.

Portrait, I assume it goes without saying that the same situation can arise with the sexes reversed (i.e. women assault men).

 

[Portrait]

While this is in general true, we cannot assume that others speak the same nonverbal languages that we do. What may indicate rudeness in one state may be polite in another. We cannot determine intent from action.

It is perfectly possible for a woman not to realize that she is dressed immodestly in a particular society or that her clothing choices may provoke others to sin, proving your point wrong.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response.

It is important, dear brother, that we do not overlook the fact of the hypersexualisation of our Western culture since the 1960’s and its disordered fixation with body parts. Moreover, even from a very tender age the young, especially girls, are encouraged to look sexually provocative and at all costs to avoid being prudish or conventional, especially in the matter of their clothing choices. It is now extraordinarily difficult for a young lady to swim against the current and dare to be different in matter of her attire, or at least to dress conservatively with a proper reserve.

Therefore, I think that the number of girls/women in our morally degenerate age who are unaware that they are dressing immodestly constitute a tiny minority. The various teenage magazines and debased youth culture generally, ensure that the young are not left in any doubt regarding indecent attire that is plainly sexually seductive and designed to focus attention on body parts. Thus the almost insignificant number who may not be aware of what modesty is, notwithstanding the hypersexualisation of our culture, does not negate my general and valid observations.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

Therefore, I think that the number of girls/women in our morally degenerate age who are unaware that they are dressing immodestly constitute a tiny minority. The various teenage magazines and debased youth culture generally, ensure that the young are not left in any doubt regarding indecent attire that is plainly sexually seductive and designed to focus attention on body parts. Thus the almost insignificant number who may not be aware of what modesty is, notwithstanding the hypersexualisation of our culture, does not negate my general and valid observations.

I am not disputing the general accuracy of your observations. I am disputing the absolutism with which you made them.

 

[Portrait]

Contrary to what some modern Catholics now contend, dear friend, outward appearance does inform us a great deal as to the interior state of a man or woman.

Here, I am going to play the devil advocate, but i like that.

Yes and no, or yes or no, this type of statement* is too simplist, too much affirmative*. In reality, that is more complex. Be careful with the moralism, the rigorism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the pharisaism, the scrupulism about those types of topics.

Modesty versus immodesty??? Decency versus indecency??? Purity versus impurity??? Morality versus immorality???..etc…???
The constitutive elements???

In my humble, you should read the moral position of Mister Portrait on the marital act with the corollaries (foreplay and co). He is almost as mister Ronald Conte Jr. Thus, he is probably very strict in his constitutive elements of immodesty in garments. I am sorry, but I want to be very clear for informing the posters, in the details with all the subtelties.

The devil advocate, fpt!!!

Dear fpt,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

To denounce immodest attire that transgresses the boundaries of propriety and good taste, dear friend, is not to be judgemental or overscrupulous but to be authentically Catholic. Modesty is about protecting chastity and since donning unseemly attire or being scantily clad is inconsiderate to others and can be the occasion of temptation to them, it is rightly condemned as unbefitting of those who profess Christ’s holy religion.

Moreover, if the condemnation of immodest attire now seems “rigorous” or pharisaical, then surely that is only indicative of the phenomenal impact of immorality upon our Western culture since the 1960’s. We have, alas, gradually become desensitized by the immoral climate in which live and move and have our being without really realizing it. Indeed, this explains, dear friend, why there is a lowered public opinion respecting immodest clothing and why both men and women no longer balk at indecent fashions as they once did in a more respectable and sober age.

God bless and goodbye for now. Supper time bids.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[fpt]

It can, be we should not make judgments about others based on anything other than syllogistic processes.

Which is all I stated in the first place.

By principle, i am on the same line than you. But in the real world, the lay persons and even the priests have simplest reasonings. Be careful, be very prudent.

**“The cowl does not make the monk” is a very good saying
**

 

[fpt]

Dear fpt,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

To denounce immodest attire that transgresses the boundaries of propriety and good taste, dear friend, is not to be judgemental or overscrupulous but to be authentically Catholic. Modesty is about protecting chastity and since donning unseemly attire or being scantily clad is inconsiderate to others and can be the occasion of temptation to them, it is rightly condemned as unbefitting of those who profess Christ’s holy religion.

Moreover, if the condemnation of immodest attire now seems “rigorous” or pharisaical, then surely that is only indicative of the phenomenal impact of immorality upon our Western culture since the 1960’s. We have, alas, gradually become desensitized by the immoral climate in which live and move and have our being without really realizing it. Indeed, this explains, dear friend, why there is a lowered public opinion respecting immodest clothing and why both men and women no longer balk at indecent fashions as they once did in a more respectable and sober age.

God bless and goodbye for now. Supper time bids.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

I did not want to be disrespectful toward your own person, dear mister Portrait. I wished only to say that behind your interpretation of the catholic doctrine, there is, in my humble opinion, a strange understanding of the catholic doctrine of sexuality and of corporeity (the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality).

Your understanding of the corporal morality can be different, at least, or can be almost totally opposed to the normal standard* (see your logic about the conjugal foreplay and the Ronald Conte Jr’s theology).

*Yes, I am in doctrinal war against the theology of Ronald conte about the marital foreplay.
*
*
I do not like the prevarication, or the state language, (the “diplomatic speech”, in French, “la langue de bois” et / ou “la langue de buis”).

 

[severus68]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

We are repeatedly told nowadays, dear sister, that sexual assault/rape *always *involves power and control and is never about arousal and sexually unfulfilled men. This does, however, seem a like a sweeping over generalization, emanating from politically correct radical feminism, which insists that it is socially unacceptable to say that a woman’s clothing has any bearing on a sexual assault. To hold such a view is, after all, tantamount to “blaming the victim”, which is now considered to be anathema in contemporary Western culture.

A more balanced position, dear sister, is surely to say that in some cases, perhaps even a considerable number, rape and sexual assault is about control and having the power to subdue another person, but decidedly not in every single case. That sexual assault may be a crime of power in some cases is something that I would not stop to deny, but it admits of no doubt that it can also be a crime perpetrated as an act of overwhelming sexual urge in a frustrated man. This is especially the case with men who are socially inadequate and who therefore lack the confidence to establish even normal friendships with women, let alone become romantically involved with them. It is no use to say by way of reply that these men should control their sexual urges, which of course is perfectly true, because in nearly all cases such men would probably be non-Christians who are alienated from God and possibly enslaved by the imperious dictates of fallen human nature. Thus they may have no desire to control their sinful desires and appetites, so much are they under the dominion of sin (cf. Eph. 2: 2,3). This is not to excuse their nefarious forcible assaults against women but rather to explain what may motivate them to commit such crimes. Now for these sort of chaps a woman’s provocative appearance or her being scantily dressed may well be a significant factor as regards a rape or sexual assault, not wanting power or control. This is really common sense and should not go for a ball of chalk in the interests of politically correct feminist dogma, which, almost as an article of faith, stubbornly refuses to accept that women have any responsibility. That surely evinces a fanatically unbalanced standpoint which ought, in my opinion, to be viewed with grave suspicion.

Of course men should control themselves and take responsibility for their actions, dear sister, but we live in a fallen world where, sadly, many men are dominated by self-centred passions which continually involve “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind”. This being the case they will not always exercise self-control and behave like perfect gentlemen. Therefore, in view of this, I cannot see how it is “insulting” to say that the sort of men I have been speaking of are enslaved by unbridled lust, possibly fuelled by pornography, given that they are so controlled by their carnal desires. In these cases I think it would be sheer naivety to deny that sexual arousal is a component of sexual assault and that a woman’s attire (or lack of it) has an effect upon then, perhaps a jolly strong effect at that.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

NO, rape/sexual assault is about power. A man who can’t contro; his sexual urges has other recourse. A woman does not ask for it however she is dressed. I take great exception to your saying otherwise.

News flash - even Christians commit rape/sexual assault, sometimes even on their wives.

You continue to insult men and women with your posts.

 

[mek42]

If lack of urge control is the only issue, I really think that the unwanted advancee would be able to extricate themselves from the situation before an assault occurred. Simple lack of control can usually be rebuffed verbally, with a shove or the classic slap in the face. The non-sexual relationship might get destroyed, but there wouldn’t be an assault.