Modesty: Who's Responsible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quiet52
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those men who are “weak willed” – not only need to take responsibility for their lack of grace/weak will-- but also not place/transfer the blame – onto women.
 
I see modesty as a personal gift of mercy or compassion from a woman to a man in consideration of his sexual “weakness.”
I see chivalry as a personal gift of mercy or compassion from a man to a woman in consideration of her constitutional “weakness”.
In varying degrees and in various ways gloriously peculiar to each one of us are both “woman” and “man” alive in each of us.

Christians are communal creatures who go out of their way to respect and assist the weaknesses we wisely identify in one another.

To say “you are totally responsible for your lustful actions” or to say “you asked for it by the way you dress” seem both to be extremes that deny this Christian reality of communal responsibility. We are all brothers and sisters (even the married) and there is no easy rule that lets us off the hook re our daily responsibilities to one another wrt the continual tug of concupiscence.
 
Each one of us – is responsible for what goes on in our own minds – and should not use/make another as a scapegoat.
 
Modesty is not just about protecting other people from their own lusts. It is also protecting oneself from being made the subject of improper thoughts and inappropriate attentions. It is proper to want to protect oneself from the intrusion of being made into an object–protecting everyone from that demeaning intrusion is everyone’s work.

I mean to remind everyone that when one person looks on another person with lust or covetousness, it is the object of lust that is the victim, not the lustful person. Yet just as a person who is the steward of a priceless treasure is both foolish and insensitive if he or she leaves that precious thing lying about carelessly where it might be stolen or damaged, so it is with our own personal dignity. We are bound to avoid tempting others into crime by making ourselves into attractive targets. We are bound to avoid cheapening what ought to be treated with dignity, and avoid leaving it in harm’s way. We are stewards of our own selves, after all: we belong to God, and should not act as if our bodies are ours to do with as we please, to demean as we see fit.

Note that the Catechism talks about avoiding evident risk of unhealthy curiosity, not all risk. It speaks of being discreet, but not as if it is possible or ideal to try to avoid the chance of being noticed at all by those whose attentions towards others tend towards lust or envy:

***CCC 2522 **Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

**2523 **There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

**2525 **Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

**2526 *So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.
 
EasterJoy said:
The issue I see now goes well beyond some question of whether the skin is covered here or there or not. It is the extent to which feelings of self-worth are being tied to whether or not one is an object of lust. It probably started in advertising–I mean this feeling of insecurity sown in the area of whether or not other people see one as an object of sexual desire–but now it is ubiquitous. The prevailing sentiment is that we’re all supposed to be sexy and we’re all supposed to judge others on whether they make a sexy presentation of themselves or not.

In this way, the very self-respect that would naturally underlie a healthy and happy willingness and desire to be modest has been undermined, because of course everyone is (consciously or not) put in competition with impossible air-brushed standards of perfection on top of it all. It’s not just sex. It is housekeeping and eating the “right” food and all the rest. How can we ever hope to be modest if we’re constantly being told we need to show off and expect to be offered congratulations about everything we do? In place of true self-respect, setting people in pursuit of an impossible and false sense of self-respect has made everyone think that their dignity depends on whether or not they are turned out in a way that makes them sexually desirable and in every other way enviable…and do it for life! Meanwhile, the virtues that really are praiseworthy and worth the admiration of all are falling in public esteem and even make someone the target of criticism–that someone is “uptight” or “frigid” or a “goody two-shoes”, not to mention “dowdy” or “out of date” and who-knows-what-else.

If you have these two messages–thou shalt be modest and thou shalt be thought desirable or enviable–you put everyone in an impossible Catch-22 that can result in shame both over displaying too much and over not garnering enough catcalls to have made it all “worth it”! On that account, I agree with those that the biggest issue of our time is not getting people to cover up enough, but to convince them that they have a dignity worthy of clothing in the first place, whether they cover it or not, letting the covering up follow after that. Innoculate against shame first, that is what I mean. A purity with shame as its foundation defeats the purpose of keeping pure in the first place, after all, and shame leaves one vulnerable to every sort of spiritual ill, including despair.
Click to expand...
This. Also, remember, modesty also in part is about appropiate behavior in a particular context. What is alright at the beach is not necessarily appropiate for church; what is appropiate on a shop floor may not be in a courtroom.
 
Cojuanco said:
This. Also, remember, modesty also in part is about appropiate behavior in a particular context. What is alright at the beach is not necessarily appropiate for church; what is appropiate on a shop floor may not be in a courtroom.
Click to expand...
Yes. As the catechism put it: 2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. What is modest does depend on context, but the attention to dignity ought to always be there. And that, in the end, is what modesty is ultimately about: that is, not about keeping others from sin, but in conducting ourselves with both dignity and humility. Even were we surrounded by people who could not be tempted to sin, we’d dress essentially the same. The only difference is that they’d truly want us to. Our immodesty wouldn’t tempt them to sin, but would rather prompt them to feel sympathy for our plight, because we were not acting in the praiseworthy manner befitting a saint. That is what those who truly love us want for us: That we be worthy to be called saints.
 
Both the looker (regardless which sex) and the looked-at (regardless which sex) are responsible for intentional choices. It is sinful to lust after another, but it is also sinful to act on a desire to be lusted after by another. There’s no out-of-jail card here, one can’t make a non-chaste choice and shove the responsibility of the other party.
 
chevalier said:
Both the looker (regardless which sex) and the looked-at (regardless which sex) are responsible for intentional choices. It is sinful to lust after another, but it is also sinful to act on a desire to be lusted after by another. There’s no out-of-jail card here, one can’t make a non-chaste choice and shove the responsibility of the other party.
Click to expand...
I really like your answer. You’ve gotten it in about as few words as could be done.
 
Portrait said:
Dear quiet52,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

An obligation is laid upon both men and women to be clad in modest attire. Undeniably, men are responsible for the custody of their eyes (cf. Job 31: 1) and there can be no doubt that many an impure thought is the primary cause of the enflaming of evil desire. However, women also have a duty to “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety” (I Tim. 2: 9), so that they do not needlessly stimulate lustful desire in men. Thus as regards modesty in vesture, it is not a question of either/or but of both/and, with both sexes doing their bit to minimise and neutralize the strength of concupiscence. Here is how one manual of instruction for Catholics put it:

"What is the virtue of modesty?

The problem is the objectifying of women. The Madonna

The virtue of modesty is the virtue which protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not to invite temptation, and be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause temptation to others".

(Christ In Us: Instructions in the Catholic Faith, Killgallon & Weber, Sheed and Ward, 1958, p. 269)

Modesty in attire, dear friend, has always and rightly been considered by Catholics a bastion against sexual license and the elimination of opportunity. Both men and women are, as it were, co-operators together in the battle for chastity and purity and so actually need one another to keep evil desire in check. It is only a warped radical feminism that would seek to place the burden entirely upon the man’s shoulders and free a woman from all responsibility to dress in a manner that does not offend decency.

Unfortunately, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, have indiscriminately adopted the seductive style fashions of our godless Western culture (e.g. the mini-length skirt, tightly fitting garments or low-cut tops that reveal cleavage). As a result of poor catechesis many of our young people lack a properly formed conscience and are therefore wont to make catastrophic errors of prudential judgment in their clothing choices. It admits of no doubt that this tragic loss of moral sense blights the modern Catholic Church and the clergy must do more at grass roots level to instruct our youth to dress in a manner that does not transgress the boundaries of propriety. No, women/girls do not have to ensure that every square inch of their bodies are covered, but they clearly must not be scantily clad or don tightly fitting garments that accentuate body parts. On the contrary they should endeavour to be circumspect as regards their attire, as befits women who profess the holy religion of Christ.

Whilst it is quite true, dear friend, that Holy Mother Church has not mandated any one choice of clothing, a well-formed conscience, coupled with some good old fashioned sanctified common sense, should steer both sexes well away from garments that are manifestly provocative and which draw attention to body parts and shape - “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522). It is one thing for a woman to make herself attractive, but it is quite another for her to make herself look tarty and therefore unseemly. Woman do know the difference and so do men. The moral sense of the faithful has always held it to be wrong and uncharitable for a woman to dress so as to incite lust in the male sex. That remains true in 2013, notwithstanding what secular feminism says to the contrary.

It is deeply saddening, dear friend, to hear contemporary Catholics asking what modesty is or to be provided with some concrete criterion, as if they expect the Church to spoon feed them as to which specific garments are modest and which are not. Holy Mother Church assumes that a well-formed conscience will do this and thus aid a man or woman in making the correct clothing choices. However, any clothing which gives unseemly prominence to body parts/form and exposes an inordinate amount of flesh is manifestly inappropriate and exceeds the boundaries of propriety and good taste. Who can honestly deny that a mini-skirt, tightly fitting jeans and a bikini does not fall into this category? There can be little doubt that immodest and indecent attire has resulted in the disordered fixation with body parts, which in turn has resulted in the hypersexualisation of Western culture and the prevalent decadence which is a sad feature of it. Unless Catholics wish to be implicated in this aggressive sexualisation of our culture they must steadfastly refuse to be clad in unseemly attire, for "modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and pressures of prevailing ideologies (CCC, 2523). The urgent need of the hour is for Catholics to raise a standard and dare to be different in the matter of their vesture.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
Dress is not the cause of sexual licence and it is certainly not the cause of sexual assault or rape. Each person is responsible for his/her own actions.

Modesty is much more than about dress.

A woman does not have to dress so as to eliminate any appearance of her God given womanly figure. It is not indecent to wear trousers/jeans or wear an outfit with a cinched in waist, for example.
 
chevalier said:
Both the looker (regardless which sex) and the looked-at (regardless which sex) are responsible for intentional choices. It is sinful to lust after another, but it is also sinful to act on a desire to be lusted after by another. There’s no out-of-jail card here, one can’t make a non-chaste choice and shove the responsibility of the other party.
Click to expand...
Or, as my Mother would say, “Worry about yourself!”
 
I have been punished for my immodesty! Yesterday I was building a shed. I was unaware that my underwear had seperated at the waistband, leaving two sizable holes. The temperature was in the mid seventies (very hot for Scotland where we aren’t used to the yellow ball in the sky). I had my factor 50 on my neck so thought I was adequately protected. After a good few satisfying hours I finished for the day. At this point i felt a soreness in my behind. Oh how my kids laughed when they saw what can only be described as two almost eyebrow shaped very red areas - one above either cheek!
The moral here is cover up or face the consequences!
I now apologise for anyone who cant rid themselves of the mental picture of a Scotsman with a burned bottom lol
 
chevalier said:
Both the looker (regardless which sex) and the looked-at (regardless which sex) are responsible for intentional choices. It is sinful to lust after another, but it is also sinful to act on a desire to be lusted after by another. There’s no out-of-jail card here, one can’t make a non-chaste choice and shove the responsibility of the other party.
Click to expand...
You put my thoughts more sussinctly then I did. Thank you.
 
Pat_the_elder said:
I have been punished for my immodesty! Yesterday I was building a shed. I was unaware that my underwear had seperated at the waistband, leaving two sizable holes. The temperature was in the mid seventies (very hot for Scotland where we aren’t used to the yellow ball in the sky). I had my factor 50 on my neck so thought I was adequately protected. After a good few satisfying hours I finished for the day. At this point i felt a soreness in my behind. Oh how my kids laughed when they saw what can only be described as two almost eyebrow shaped very red areas - one above either cheek!
The moral here is cover up or face the consequences!
I now apologise for anyone who cant rid themselves of the mental picture of a Scotsman with a burned bottom lol
Click to expand...
Lol!
 
Part of the lack of Grace – is finding ways of shifting responsibility for our own thoughts – onto someone else.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I see modesty as a personal gift of mercy or compassion from a woman to a man in consideration of his sexual “weakness.”
I see chivalry as a personal gift of mercy or compassion from a man to a woman in consideration of her constitutional “weakness”.
In varying degrees and in various ways gloriously peculiar to each one of us are both “woman” and “man” alive in each of us.

Christians are communal creatures who go out of their way to respect and assist the weaknesses we wisely identify in one another.

To say “you are totally responsible for your lustful actions” or to say “you asked for it by the way you dress” seem both to be extremes that deny this Christian reality of communal responsibility. We are all brothers and sisters (even the married) and there is no easy rule that lets us off the hook re our daily responsibilities to one another wrt the continual tug of concupiscence.
Click to expand...
Dear Blue Horizon,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said and bang on target.

We all, dear friend, have a communal obligation towards one another and none can be exempt from this mutual obligation, be they men or women. Being clad in modest attire is a two-way responsibility for both men and women. It is most unfortunate to hear many contemporary Catholics speak the language of non-accountability as far as women are concerned, as if any modesty issue is something which resides entirely with the man and him keeping his unchaste thoughts in check. However, this is a very one-sided ‘sexist’ approach and is simply not consonant with Catholic teaching, which has always acknowledged the duty of a woman to dress in a seemly manner, as befits her profession of religion. Moreover, it is completely at variance with Sacred Scripture and the teaching of St. Paul who specifically enjoins women to “adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9). Evidently, St. Paul knew only too well the clear and present dangers arising from concupiscence as a consequence of man’s fallen estate and took them very seriously indeed. At any rate, the apostle did not believe that responsibility rested solely with the man and the custody of his eyes, otherwise his instruction to *women * specifically would be utterly meaningless. We are our ‘brother’s keeper’ and therefore cannot be inconsiderate or selfish, be we men or women, when it comes the matter of our clothing choices. This does not mean that women must dress frumpily or that men must dress in a singularly old fashioned style, but both sexes must be attired modestly with decency and propriety.

As I remarked in a previous post, dear friend, a man is certainly responsible for the custody of his eyes (Job 31: 1) and for quelling any lecherous thoughts, but a woman also has a duty to don clothing that will plainly not enflame those impure thoughts, her clothing (or lack of it) becoming a virtual inducement to sin. Only the warped thinking of radical feminism, which rejects the reality of concupiscence as a result of the Fall, would seriously argue that seductive style clothing or being scantily dressed has absolutely no bearing on anything. Our decadent Western culture is obsessed with revealing almost everything and is only too well aware that the indecent exposure of flesh is sexually arousing. Indeed, this is why the dissolute fashion industry thrives upon skimpy clothing styles, which are manifestly ostentatious, extravagant and sexually seductive.

Given the flagrant immodesty and indecent clothing fashions with which one is confronted nowadays, one feels like shouting out, “I say ladies, please leave something for the privacy of the bedroom”. Alas, dear friend, our immoral Western culture has lost the distinction between the public and the private, which is just one of those ironings-out of distinctions which mark the irreligious post-Christian mindset.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
severus68 said:
Dress is not the cause of sexual licence and it is certainly not the cause of sexual assault or rape. Each person is responsible for his/her own actions.

Modesty is much more than about dress.

A woman does not have to dress so as to eliminate any appearance of her God given womanly figure. It is not indecent to wear trousers/jeans or wear an outfit with a cinched in waist, for example.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Men (and women) are obligated to have custody of the eyes and not fall into lust.
Women (and men) are obligated to dress modestly and should not intentionally under-dress.
We are all obligated to refrain from things that will cause others to stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top