Modesty: Who's Responsible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quiet52
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The rape is an immoral act, a crime, a great offense, and for the christians it is a mortal sin. The rape on a woman done by a man, the rape on a woman done by a woman, the rape on man done by a woman, the rape on man done by a man are very criminal actions. Yes, a woman can be a rapist on man. In my humble opinion, it is useful to say that, because in some societies, in some cultures, in some religions, in some mentalities, this idea is not thought, is not recognised, and is said very strange or is not acceptable.

The conjugal rape is also very wrong, and in my humble opinion, that is worst (it is a double rape in the body and the soul) because of the sexed institution and of the sexual contract between spouses.

The rapist (male or female) does not respect the soul and the corollaries and the body and the corollaries of the other human being. In the rape, body and soul are raped by the rapist: the free will and the carnal liberty are broken, it is so monstruous.** Only, the rapist is the criminal, the victim is, only, the victim. **The rapist is, only, the responsible of his / her wrong acts and of his / her wrong inentions.

In the past, the rapes were existing like today, but the culturalism, the clanism, the refusal of the personalism, the wrong acception of rights of women, the idea of shame on the victim, the ideologies and heresies about the rights of victim of rapes** were so powerful. In the past, there were many wrong things, the past time was not much better.**

*The nostalgia of modesty of past times is an illusion. * It is a wrong intellectual approach.

The link between the immodesty and the rape has to be demonstratedk in the details with all the subtleties.
 
fpt said:
** Only, the rapist is the criminal, the victim is, only, the victim. **The rapist is, only, the responsible of his / her wrong acts and of his / her wrong inentions.
Click to expand...
This. The rapist is responsible.

Besides that, I guess I just feel like violently forcing oneself on someone should be a much more obvious no-no than wearing whatever it is Portrait may consider provocative. Immodesty isn’t usually a black and white issue, while rape pretty much is.

I think it should be obvious what the mosre serious offense is, too.
 
The reasoning having for effects of putting in equivalent the immodesty (relative notion in function of circumstances) and the rape, is already a odd (a bad intellectual approach). For the catholicism and thus for a catholic, it is a wrong manner of thinking this topic. That is unacceptable, intellectually speaking and morally speaking.

In the English speaking countries, because of the protestantism with all his under-branches (see the history of christian heresies), the moral debates about the body, the corporeity, the marriage, the nature of females, the nature of males with their own corollaries are more difficult than between the latin countries.

See the number of christian sects in the English speaking world;
See the number of sedevacantist movements;
See the number of “catholic traditional movements” that are very odd;
See the fundamentalism of members of SSPX: the difference between Europe and the USA or Australia inside their own seminaries;

The English speaking countries are deeply touched by many foolish approaches because the culture is linked with protestant manners of thinking, of living, of interpreting, of believing. In Europe, there are wrong intellectual habits, of course, but the protestantism or the neo-protestantismes **are less present, are less powerful, at least in France or in the South of Europe. **

May be that my view is** so French and that I have many prejudices about the English view about the morality. Sorry, if I am too direct and provocative.**
 
Walking_Home said:
The more a person responds to God’s Grace – the more the person is apt to see the other as a child of God – no matter what the person wears.
Click to expand...
Having said that, however, what one chooses to wear does matter, and it would matter even if one was surrounded by others who do not fall into lust when confronted by someone who dresses without modesty (that is, without displaying the amount of self-respect one has the opportunity to choose to display).

Does a police officer have less authority if they are improperly dressed, provided they are recognizable as a police officer? No, they don’t. There might even be good reasons for a police officer to discharge their duties while in total disarray. When an officer chooses to dress in a sloppy manner, however, by that act the officer shows a lack of respect for his or her own office. The duty to dress modesty is like that, IMHO. In a way, modest dress is what you owe to the people who do see that you are worthy of respect, just as it is the duty of a police officer to dress and groom themselves in a way that reflects how seriously they regard their own position in service to the public.
 
EasterJoy said:
Having said that, however, what one chooses to wear does matter, and it would matter even if one was surrounded by others who do not fall into lust when confronted by someone who dresses without modesty (that is, without displaying the amount of self-respect one has the opportunity to choose to display).

Does a police officer have less authority if they are improperly dressed, provided they are recognizable as a police officer? No, they don’t. There might even be good reasons for a police officer to discharge their duties while in total disarray. When an officer chooses to dress in a sloppy manner, however, by that act the officer shows a lack of respect for his or her own office. The duty to dress modesty is like that, IMHO.** In a way, modest dress is what you owe to the people who do see that you are worthy of respect, just as it is the duty of a police officer to dress and groom themselves in a way that reflects how seriously they regard their own position in service to the public.**
Click to expand...
A person is worthy of respect – because each is created in the image and likeness of God. It is our own failure/lack of Grace on our part – to “partition” respect to another – based on what the person wears.
 
Walking_Home said:
A person is worthy of respect – because each is created in the image and likeness of God. It is our own failure/lack of Grace on our part – to “partition” respect to another – based on what the person wears.
Click to expand...
Well, of course persons are worthy of respect regardless of what they wear. Police officers are worthy of respect, too, not only because they are human beings, but because of their office. Respect is not just due us from others, however. We are bound to show respect for ourselves and to act according to our dignity. Modesty in dress is part of the overall modesty in action that befits a child of God. A person does not just dress modestly in order to preserve others from the near occasion of sin, although that is a worthwhile and charitable-minded reason. A person also dresses modesty in deference to one’s own dignity as a human being. One dresses with propriety with regards to one’s own sexual attributes because the sexual faculty is not something to be flaunted like cheap jewelry, but deserves to be reserved for spouse and God alone, to be shown that respect.
 
EasterJoy said:
Well, of course persons are worthy of respect regardless of what they wear. Police officers are worthy of respect, too, not only because they are human beings, but because of their office. Respect is not just due us from others, however. We are bound to show respect for ourselves and to act according to our dignity. Modesty in dress is part of the overall modesty in action that befits a child of God. A person does not just dress modestly in order to preserve others from the near occasion of sin, although that is a worthwhile and charitable-minded reason. A person also dresses modesty in deference to one’s own dignity as a human being. One dresses with propriety with regards to one’s own sexual attributes because the sexual faculty is not something to be flaunted like cheap jewelry, but deserves to be reserved for spouse and God alone, to be shown that respect.
Click to expand...
Dignity is being created in image and likeness of God — not from what a person wears. We loose sight of the person/the human being --created in image and likeness of God-- when we tie dignity to what the person “looks” like – to what a person wears.
 
Walking_Home said:
Dignity is being created in image and likeness of God — not from what a person wears. We loose sight of the person/the human being --created in image and likeness of God-- when we tie dignity to what the person “looks” like – to what a person wears.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep repeating yourself? I didn’t say a person loses their dignity when they don’t act according to their dignity, whether in dress or speech or in some other way. I said quite plainly that they have the same standing whether or not they act like what they are. Still, what a person wears is one aspect of how they choose to act overall. How we act ought to reflect an appreciation for our own dignity. I’m not sure why you have a problem with this? Do you think that if you act like a buffoon, that gives me the right to treat you like a lesser person, or to look down on you? I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that you are a child of God and ought to act like one, including in how you dress. I cannot give myself permission to show you less respect because you failed to even show yourself respect–we don’t differ on that!–but what I don’t get is why that would mean that you have no duty to show respect to yourself? Do you think how you allow yourself to act around others can’t possibly bother any decent-minded person? Do you think that if some outward act or other is not always a fault, then it must never be a fault? Surely you see this in other areas of outward behavior…why is dress any different? 🤷
 
EasterJoy said:
Why do you keep repeating yourself? I didn’t say a person loses their dignity when they don’t act according to their dignity, whether in dress or speech or in some other way. I said quite plainly that they have the same standing whether or not they act like what they are. Still, what a person wears is one aspect of how they choose to act overall. How we act ought to reflect an appreciation for our own dignity. I’m not sure why you have a problem with this? Do you think that if you act like a buffoon, that gives me the right to treat you like a lesser person, or to look down on you? I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that you are a child of God and ought to act like one, including in how you dress. I cannot give myself permission to show you less respect because you failed to even show yourself respect–we don’t differ on that!–but what I don’t get is why that would mean that you have no duty to show respect to yourself? Do you think how you allow yourself to act around others can’t possibly bother any decent-minded person? Do you think that if some outward act or other is not always a fault, then it must never be a fault? Surely you see this in other areas of outward behavior…why is dress any different? 🤷
Click to expand...
I am not one to make any kind of judgement on the respect a person has for him/herself – based on what the person wears. What I have tried to incorporate into my life and the life of my children and now grandchildren – is not to judge a book by its cover. To have the same respect for the one wearing the mini-skirt as one who wears a long skirt. And not to try and find “loopholes” to excuse oneself – from seeing the dignity of a person.
 
Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

It is an indisputable fact, dear friends, that since the permissive revolution of the Sixties there has been a complete loss of the moral sense and this explains why immodest and indecent attire abounds in the Western world. There is simply no instinct for modesty today because morality has been under attack from the godless forces of our post-Christian culture, resulting in anything goes approach to clothing. Unfortunately, the progress of these forces has been furthered by some putative Catholics, who erroneously believe that modestyis something decided by the contemporary culture, irrespective of how decadent that culture may be. Moreover, whilst the world’s opinion as to what is modest does evolve over time, that is not always necessarily for the better or consonant with Catholic modesty standards, which is why the faithful must resolutely “resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies” (CCC, para. 2523). Catholic requirements for modesty are, contrary to popular belief, universal and unchangeable and will remain so as long as fallen men and women everywhere must do battle with concupiscence or evil desire. By being scantily dressed or wearing seductive style garments like the mini-length skirt, the struggle against evil desire is made an even more arduous affair than it is already. An obligation is laid upon Catholic men and women to ensure that they “adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9) so as not to be the occasion of temptation others. Moreover, by being considerate in their clothing choices and thus not arousing an unhealthy interest, men and women become co-operators together in the battle against lustful desire and help sanctify their hearts by grace. To answer the OP, both men and women are responsible as regards modesty and both must do their bit to minimise the vicious strength of concupiscence and quell unchaste thoughts. This has nothing to do with any ‘extreme prudery’ or ‘overscrupulosity’ but has everything to do with realistically facing up to man’s fallen estate and his propensity to sin. Moreover, it boldly acknowledges, notwithstanding the surrounding debased culture, that “Modesty is decency” and always “inspires one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522). None of this, admittedly, sits very comfortably with today’s godless culture and it takes a strong man or women to swim against the current and dare to be different.

Modesty in dress is essentially about exercising a proper reserve and avoiding being stumbling block to others; it is not the least desirous in arousing any “unhealthy curiosity” in the opposite sex. If this appears to sound all jolly ‘Puritan’, then it is probably because of the immoral air that we are now, alas, forced to daily inhale in our sex obsessed Western culture.

To conclude, dear friends, I sincerely apologise if my remarks regarding sexual assaults upon women were considered offensive. It was not my intention to wound anyone’s feelings, but to simply seek to provide a balanced view of what is a highly emotive topic. In my opinion it is unbalanced and unfair to limit the motivation of rape or sexual assault to power, without admitting that other motivations are possible. Fanatical radical feminist dogma has effectively closed down any sensible and rational debate on the subject so that no “right thinking person” would ever doubt that the cause of rape/sexual assault on women is anything but power and control. However, this is politically correct propaganda and one of the most basic observations one can make regarding men who sexually assault women is surely that all such offenders are not alike. This was the only point that I was seeking to make. It is just no longer socially acceptable, because of feminist influence, to dare to suggest that there are many variables for rape and sexual assault, as there can for murder and other violent crimes. People murder for money, for love, for jealousy or patriotism. Now I would submit that rape/sexual assault upon women is every bit as complex. The fact is that some men rape because they are sexually unfulfilled and are perhaps of a too diffident disposition to resort to the services of a prostitute), some may rape from a need to prove themselves, some from peer pressure (as in so called ‘gang-rapes’), some from a desire for revenge and, yes, without doubt, some for power and control. It admits of no doubt that men rape and assault women from a constellation of complex motives, which become further blurred when you introduce drug abuse or drunkenness. With all of these variables it is simply not tenable to speak of rape and sexual assault upon women as being exclusively a matter of power and control. This may be fashionable dogma today, but it is jolly unbalanced dogma that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Sexual arousal is clearly a component in sexual assault in some case and therefore how a woman is dressed clearly does have some bearing, probably a great deal more than some would care to acknowledge nowadays. Of course this does not mean that she deserves to be raped or assaulted, any more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time means a person deserves to be murdered. However, they are undoubtedly contributing factors and should not be denied to just to satisfy the warped views of PC dogma.

God bless and this is my final post in this thread, but before I take my leave may I wish all contributors and viewers alike a jolly splendid day, whatever your plans.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:
 
Walking_Home said:
I am not one to make any kind of judgement on the respect a person has for him/herself – based on what the person wears. What I have tried to incorporate into my life and the life of my children and now grandchildren – is not to judge a book by its cover. To have the same respect for the one wearing the mini-skirt as one who wears a long skirt. And not to try and find “loopholes” to excuse oneself – from seeing the dignity of a person.
Click to expand...
Do you teach them that they have any duty at all with regards to how they keep their own “covers”?
 
I just had a thought. Let me approach from the other direction. Immodesty is when one displays themselves in a fashion intending to cause lust in those around them. Modesty is the failure to be immodest, not necessarily preventing lust in all who see you.

Is this a fair understanding?
 
mek42 said:
I just had a thought. Let me approach from the other direction. Immodesty is when one displays themselves in a fashion intending to cause lust in those around them. Modesty is the failure to be immodest, not necessarily preventing lust in all who see you.

Is this a fair understanding?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t define modesty in negative terms, such as preventing sin in others, because modesty is a positive thing, not the avoidance of the negative. Modesty is a virtue by which one acts with both humility and dignity, not just in dress but also in speech and other actions. It is an inclusive way of acting, because there is no competition of selves in it, no seeking of glamour for yourself in comparison to others. An athlete can excel at what they do, but still be modest about it and still act in a way that respects those they play with…it is called good sportsmanship.
 
mek42 said:
I just had a thought. Let me approach from the other direction. Immodesty is when one displays themselves in a fashion intending to cause lust in those around them. Modesty is the failure to be immodest, not necessarily preventing lust in all who see you.

Is this a fair understanding?
Click to expand...
That would make it impossible to be unintentionally immodest. I think it’s more like, modesty is treating yourself with the same respect and dignity that others ought to show you.

Although I would definitely agree that it’s possible to be perfectly modest and still become an object of lust for some people. There’s just no stopping them sometimes. 🤷
 
Kamaduck said:
That would make it impossible to be unintentionally immodest. I think it’s more like, modesty is treating yourself with the same respect and dignity that others ought to show you.

Although I would definitely agree that it’s possible to be perfectly modest and still become an object of lust for some people. There’s just no stopping them sometimes. 🤷
Click to expand...
I think a lot of men are surprised by just how often that happens. I’m a single female with no car. I can count on some guy leering or whistling or doing something inappropriate about 2 out of 3 times. Usually when I’m in professional attire. I’ve found a lot of guys who are shocked by how much a part of life it is for women.
 
DarkLight said:
I think a lot of men are surprised by just how often that happens. I’m a single female with no car. I can count on some guy leering or whistling or doing something inappropriate about 2 out of 3 times. Usually when I’m in professional attire. I’ve found a lot of guys who are shocked by how much a part of life it is for women.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent, it doesn’t matter what you wear. It’s sickening, but some people will reduce others to objects no matter what.

If you want to avoid inappropriate reactions, you basically have to not go anywhere. That’s really the only reliable way. It may well be worse if one dresses immodestly, but modesty hardly guarantees that one will be treated with any level of respect at all.
 
Portrait said:
Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Modesty in dress is essentially about exercising a proper reserve and avoiding being stumbling block to others; it is not the least desirous in arousing any “unhealthy curiosity” in the opposite sex. If this appears to sound all jolly ‘Puritan’, then it is probably because of the immoral air that we are now, alas, forced to daily inhale in our sex obsessed Western culture.

To conclude, dear friends, I sincerely apologise if my remarks regarding sexual assaults upon women were considered offensive. It was not my intention to wound anyone’s feelings, but to simply seek to provide a balanced view of what is a highly emotive topic. In my opinion it is unbalanced and unfair to limit the motivation of rape or sexual assault to power, without admitting that other motivations are possible. Fanatical radical feminist dogma has effectively closed down any sensible and rational debate on the subject so that no “right thinking person” would ever doubt that the cause of rape/sexual assault on women is anything but power and control. However, this is politically correct propaganda and one of the most basic observations one can make regarding men who sexually assault women is surely that all such offenders are not alike. This was the only point that I was seeking to make. It is just no longer socially acceptable, because of feminist influence, to dare to suggest that there are many variables for rape and sexual assault, as there can for murder and other violent crimes. People murder for money, for love, for jealousy or patriotism. Now I would submit that rape/sexual assault upon women is every bit as complex. The fact is that some men rape because they are sexually unfulfilled and are perhaps of a too diffident disposition to resort to the services of a prostitute), some may rape from a need to prove themselves, some from peer pressure (as in so called ‘gang-rapes’), some from a desire for revenge and, yes, without doubt, some for power and control. It admits of no doubt that men rape and assault women from a constellation of complex motives, which become further blurred when you introduce drug abuse or drunkenness. With all of these variables it is simply not tenable to speak of rape and sexual assault upon women as being exclusively a matter of power and control. This may be fashionable dogma today, but it is jolly unbalanced dogma that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Sexual arousal is clearly a component in sexual assault in some case and therefore how a woman is dressed clearly does have some bearing, probably a great deal more than some would care to acknowledge nowadays. Of course this does not mean that she deserves to be raped or assaulted, any more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time means a person deserves to be murdered. However, they are undoubtedly contributing factors and should not be denied to just to satisfy the warped views of PC dogma.

God bless and this is my final post in this thread, but before I take my leave may I wish all contributors and viewers alike a jolly splendid day, whatever your plans.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:
Click to expand...
A man may be too diffident to approach a prostitute but he has no problem raping a woman? That is not logical.

Countess studies have been done on rape/sexual assault and you see fit to to give a totally opposing reason for rape. Perhaps you will share with us the research you have done to come to such conclusion.
How does feminism come into this? Are women supposed to stay at home under the protection of men so they will not be raped? Pity the woman then who has no father or brothers.
 
quiet52 said:
**Modesty: Who’s Responsible?

culture-of-life.org/e-brief/modesty-whos-responsible**

Whether we see the issue through the lens of “Puritanical” standards, females dressing provocatively, or males “sexualizing everything,” the heart of the matter is something larger: what will best help adolescents and young adults, who are struggling with what it means to be a man or woman, to live a respectable, virtuous life, and prepare for a flourishing future?

So what do you think?

And how can the Church best address this issue, for the sake of forming our young people in virtue?
Click to expand...
The media influences the values of the public, and enough people just follow along with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top