M
maryjk
Guest
There are those here that do not think that girls/women should swim or participate in anything like gymnastics. There have been many long debates on leotards, swim suits and tutus. (Sad isn’t it?)
- Status
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
If my sister did so much as hear you say this, good luck not getting turned into a pincushion for pointed kitchen/dining utensils. Oddly enough, I’ve yet to see her act anything like a loose woman. (Scary, dominating tsundere/yandere is more like it.)
I love how people like you go from appearance to objectification even though they’re not logically connected.
You actually justify it y’know. In fact, why exclude women? I certainly objectify myself following your logic. Said object being that of social derision and ridicule. After all, dressing up with a hoodie and baggy jeans obviously means I’m either a loser (hood off) or a dangerous stalker (hood on).
S
severus68
Guest
No loose men?
F
fix
Guest
If it is that relative then modesty is simply subjective which means anything goes. The CCC should say modesty is what you think it is.According to you.
Middle Eastern rapists apparently think otherwise.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Wow. The sad thing is, NONE of these sports or their attire are intended to arouse lust or even a modest amount of sexual attraction in the spectator. For swimming and gymnastics, they happen to be the best uniforms for the job, and for ballet, the costumes are intended to be artistically beautiful, NOT sexual. As a person said earlier, the rot of lust comes from the inside, not the outside.
Now if a woman feels the need to expose herself in extremely tight, cleavage-bearing clothing, or to become a stripper for validation, then clearly, she has some work to do. But even so, we are talking about LUST here. Lust is always a choice. A man may not be able to control whether or not he finds a woman attractive, but he can sure as heck control whether or not he sits and dwells on it, chooses to objectify said woman, or goes home thinking about her and masturbates while playing out some sexual scenario involving her in his head.
For the men on here to say that a woman can basically “cause” a man to “fall” because she wears a top that might show a little cleavage or a pair of tight jeans is disgusting. If that’s all it takes, then y’all need to get ahold of yourselves. In fact, you must do nothing but sit around and masturbate because if you own a television or a computer or subscribe to a magazine, then you see a heck of a lot more than that every time you turn on/log on/open up.
I live in a part of the country where it regularly gets to be 105+ degrees with 90% humidity in the summer. I also have 2 kids under 3 that I have to carry around with me everywhere. If I didn’t have tank tops and shorts in my arsenal, I would literally pass out trying to get some basic shopping done. If there are men out there who will honestly look at me schlepping around my 2 children with my wedding ring on in the parking lot of a grocery store and feel compelled to run home and masturbate because he happened to see my legs and shoulders while I was snapping my kids into their cars eats, well, I just don’t know what to say to that except that maybe he needs professional help.
F
fix
Guest
Your claim was misdirected. I explained why I said what I said.
We are back to self evident, which requires a properly formed conscience or at least one that is not deformed by relativism.
You seem to be looking for a type of scientific-like formula where you enter some numbers and get an answer as to whether something is immodest or not. That is not the standard.
The poster was stating that certain fashions are immodest. You then ask why? He tells you why and then you are unsatisfied and want a formulaic response.
B
Baelor
Guest
It was not misdirected. You interpreted incorrectly, which is not my problem.
Self-evident things are always also independently verifiable, so the “self-evident” claim is worthless to me because there is always an underlying reason that is far more salient as well. “Self-evident” is nothing but a cop-out that stems from intellectual lightweights that should not be engaging in discussions where they would need to use that reasoning anyway.
I will illustrate with an example. A hot stove should not be touched. This is self-evident – but not to a child. It is self-evident to us, but this is because experience has made it so. Yet there is also an underlying reason, one that is explicable through basic chemistry. Only this second one matters.
No one can do anything with “self-evident.” It is as vacuous as the mind that would mention it without mentioning the inevitably extant alternative justification.
Actually, it is. Because of the following:
Read my posts more carefully – I very clearly explain why the causative relationship between modesty and arousal justifies a near-exclusively scientific approach to the issue.
I ask what is necessary for a logical justification. That is not an unreasonable standard.
G
graciew
Guest
Just wondering…by the same token,should men wear T-shirts and long pants at the beach at all times?
E
exnihilo
Guest
The guys seem to get by without the leotard. Of course the problem can also be solved by restricting who is watching. If only other women are watching then the demands of modesty are less.
However they are connected the are connected.I love how people like you go from appearance to objectification even though they’re not logically connected.
You actually justify it y’know. In fact, why exclude women? I certainly objectify myself following your logic. Said object being that of social derision and ridicule. After all, dressing up with a hoodie and baggy jeans obviously means I’m either a loser (hood off) or a dangerous stalker (hood on).
People’s dress doescommunicate information about them. If that weren’t so cops would not wear uniforms. And if anything goes for dress then try wearing shorts, a tshirt, and sandals to someones formal wedding. I imagine the other folks at the wedding will perceive you are disrespecting them.
So what does barely being clothed communicate? Given most of the women who dress that way are usually complaining about how cold they are it certainly isn’t comfort.
Of course there are. But that was not the topic.
G
graciew
Guest
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Well then, you shouldn’t have a problem. The vagueness of the CCC entries on modesty are enough to accommodate that.
Apparently, you need to read more news stories of people impersonating cops and other professions because of their uniform.
If a uniform was all it took, then apparently putting on a Roman collar makes me a priest. Better tell Alberto Rivera.
Appearances are ultimately superficial and you know it. Even God chastised Samuel when he was about to pick one of David’s bros as the future king because he thought the guy looked the part.
So, I’m guessing you’re likely to either beat me up or make a laughing stock out of me because I dress like a total science nerd eh? After all, Christians and scientists don’t get along.
S
severus68
Guest
I am confused now. Is the topic about women and about loose they are? I thought it was about a young person asking about her issues with his/her young sister.
S
severus68
Guest
Very good points.
Just to add this:
Why must it always be put it it as men lust because women…? It is always (at least on many posts on many threads on CAF), that the sexual sin of men are hinged on and directly caused by sins of women.
If a man chooses to lust, he sins, full stop.
S
severus68
Guest
Good point LW. Maybe if I put on a ‘Superman’ costume, I could fly.Well then, you shouldn’t have a problem. The vagueness of the CCC entries on modesty are enough to accommodate that.
Apparently, you need to read more news stories of people impersonating cops and other professions because of their uniform.
If a uniform was all it took, then apparently putting on a Roman collar makes me a priest. Better tell Alberto Rivera.
Appearances are ultimately superficial and you know it. Even God chastised Samuel when he was about to pick one of David’s bros as the future king because he thought the guy looked the part.
So, I’m guessing you’re likely to either beat me up or make a laughing stock out of me because I dress like a total science nerd eh? After all, Christians and scientists don’t get along.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Are you saying that all those little trick-or-treaters that come to my house on Halloween CAN’T fly? I was mislead!
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Forget that. I’m still wondering why the local mall remains standing after every comic book/cosplay convention. I mean… all those video game, comic book, and anime characters walking around…
E
exnihilo
Guest
Actually that people wear a certain uniform to make a false impression only proves my point that clothing conveys information. Even the people who aren’t truly that which a uniform indicates they are know that the uniform conveys certain information. A uniform is not all that it takes and I never said that. I only said that a uniform, or choice of clothing, conveys information.Would say there is no need for a basketball team to all wear the same thing since clothing conveys no information?Apparently, you need to read more news stories of people impersonating cops and other professions because of their uniform.
If a uniform was all it took, then apparently putting on a Roman collar makes me a priest. Better tell Alberto Rivera.
How we choose to look conveys information. How we are born looking we can not help. But we can work with the material we have. A person could be naturally beautiful but do nothing to take care of their body. Are you saying a dirty, disheveled person is not conveying information about themselves?
Appearance is not everything, but it is also not nothing. Witness the words of Jesus:
‘But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.’
The issue is a bit more complex than you make it.
‘But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak. For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.’
What I find most interesting is that our society will make almost any accommodation for the sensibilities of any group, including a sinful group (homosexuals for instance). And yet they will make no accommodations for the sinful nature of men. For instance there are many words I can not say because it would be offensive to certain groups of people. The word itself is of course ultimately arbitrary. The issue is the reaction the word causes in the person who hears it. Yet if we bring up the fact that men react with sexual thoughts to scantily clad women we are told it is our problem alone. We are told to get over it. The hypocritical standard is both telling and sad.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Most threads on CAF stray far off topic unless the OP comes back and responds frequently. Sometimes, even then, some posters just seem to want to turn ever thread into a philosophical/dogmatic debate.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear severus68,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope you are keeping well.
It is all a question, dear sister, of dressing with good taste and decency, so as not to transgress the boundaries of propriety. Provided that a woman is guided by a well-formed conscience, and does not take her cue from the debased culture around her, then her decision making respecting her attire will always be appropriate and in keeping with Catholic teaching regarding modest apparel. Thus, for example, a midi-skirt and top that does not give unseemly prominence to body shape/parts is perfectly decourous and surely a stark contrast to a mini-skirt worn with high-healed shoes and a skin-tight T-shirt, which is far too unbecoming for a woman professing religion.
To argue from thefalse premise, as many modern day Catholics do,that the only standard of modesty to be followed is what is appropriate for the time and place in our culture, reveals a monumental failure to think with an authentic Catholic mind. More, it reveals a mind that has become thoroughly imbued with moral relativistism where there are virtually no absolutes as regards clothing choices.
As to the whole issue of swimwear, there is no valid reason as to why these should somehow be exempt from moral considerations. Thus questions concerning modest and immodest attire continue to be highly relevant. A devout Catholic will surely ask whether sports or swimwear is more unduly revealing than it ought to be for its particular function. Whilst one must have a reduction in the ammount of clothing for the purposes of swimming and atheletics, it hardly seems necessary that such attire should be very tight-fitting and expose an inordinate ammount of flesh. To don a bikini is tantamount to wearing your underwear in public and it matters not whether the context is the beach or the local swimming pool, for the men who are present at these places do not somehow become immune to concupisence. The faithful must be realistic regarding the human condition and man’s very wounded nature on account of Original Sin. This is why our Church and Sacred Scripture exhort us to dress modestly and resist prevailing ideologies.
Therefore, dear friend, whether it is sportswear or bathing costumes, a Catholic must understand that because chastity is an absolute value, it is never permitted, irrespective of the setting or the prevailing cultural norms, to stimulate the base sexual passions in a member of the opposite sex (other than one’s marital spouse).
In view of the prevailing decadent Western culture today, perhaps it might well be advisable for a respectable Catholic man or woman to avoid such places as the beech. You will inevitably be surrounded by multitudes of both sexes who care very little respecting modesty issues and who have no inhibitions about flaunting their body parts to the gaze of complete strangers. In short they reveal that they are devoid of any moral sense and of God’s demands for being clad in “seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9).
God bless, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Especially the one above. Trying to get this thread back on topic…Most threads on CAF stray far off topic unless the OP comes back and responds frequently. Sometimes, even then, some posters just seem to want to turn ever thread into a philosophical/dogmatic debate.
- Status