Nudity is immodest - why exactly?

[monicatholic]

Miles Mariae,

I share your frustration that good, objective efforts to inform have been ignored, insulted, argued and misrepresented till they’re unrecogniseable and bloodied. but in utmost peace and goodwill I wonder if parody is a charitable response to such frustration?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I have read PLENTY about the wrongness of nudity. Of course we are talking about public nudity here. You ever hear about the near occasions of sin?

You misunderstood. I mean I haven’t read in the genesis account that nudity was wrong after the fall. god did not give them fig leaves. They made them for themselves and God asked why… in such a manner as to suggest it was not neccessary. Possibly. I’m not likely to speak for God. Some emoticons in the original text would have been nice…

---

A near occassion of sin is not due to how another person is dressed, it is due to the disordered mind of the viewer. Who is responsible for that? I would argue the individual is far more responsible for ordering their own mind before they try to reorder another person’s clothes.

---

Also, I haven’t read anyone here say they are pro nudist.
to compare spaggetti straps to being shame faced naked cast out of the garden of eden is a bit much.

---

My point was that GOD did not mandate the fig leaf. Adam and Eve created that all on their own.

---

The most one can about how the fall affects our modern standard for modesty is that a fig leaf is enough?

Thank you, Martha, for your sanity and balance.

While I personally do believe total nudity is wrong after the fall (or I’d so be a nudist!), I agree with your reasoning.

Ah… Now everyone is picturing a Catholic mother of 8.5 as a nudist?! Um no. Not that much confidence for one.

---

so do you think total nudity is wrong or nudity is totally wrong? Is it wrong in art?

---

All said in the nature of dialog and good humor.

 

[childofmary1143]

You misunderstood. I mean I haven’t read in the genesis account that nudity was wrong after the fall. god did not give them fig leaves. They made them for themselves and God asked why… in such a manner as to suggest it was not neccessary. Possibly. I’m not likely to speak for God. Some emoticons in the original text would have been nice…

---

A near occassion of sin is not due to how another person is dressed, it is due to the disordered mind of the viewer. Who is responsible for that? I would argue the individual is far more responsible for ordering their own mind before they try to reorder another person’s clothes.

---

Also, I haven’t read anyone here say they are pro nudist.
to compare spaggetti straps to being shame faced naked cast out of the garden of eden is a bit much.

---

My point was that GOD did not mandate the fig leaf. Adam and Eve created that all on their own.

---

The most one can about how the fall affects our modern standard for modesty is that a fig leaf is enough?

Ah… Now everyone is picturing a Catholic mother of 8.5 as a nudist?! Um no. Not that much confidence for one.

---

so do you think total nudity is wrong or nudity is totally wrong? Is it wrong in art?

---

All said in the nature of dialog and good humor.

The Bible clearly says that God did make clothing for Adam and Eve:

Genesis 3:21
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them

Adam and Eve had HID themselves because they knew they sinned.

Also a near occasion of sin can be due to how another dresses. If I see a bikini that is nothing more than bra and underwear, then I am going to be tempted.

 

[PotassiumCl]

From another thread, but i got this was the general opinion: apparently bikinis are immodest to wear while swimming, at least among US Catholics.

Why?

It’s an honest question, and I’m really curious.

I don’t see one’s stomach, back, legs, arms, shoulders, feet, and genitalia as sexually temtping in any way, so I really don’t understand how not wearing anything is more ‘immodest’ than a one-piece.

To be clear, I don’t think one-pieces are immodest either, as there is really nothing sexual about arms and legs and such…

Really?

 

[dkoinzan]

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY!!!

 

[Miles_Mariae]

A near occassion of sin is not due to how another person is dressed, it is due to the disordered mind of the viewer. Who is responsible for that? I would argue the individual is far more responsible for ordering their own mind before they try to reorder another person’s clothes.

That’s disgusting. Has it ever occurred to you that more than one party can be responsible? One person has a responsibility to keep his mind away from sin, and the other has the responsibility to not place obstacles in front of her brother in faith. It is easier to govern the flesh when others are dressed modestly, than when others expose their bodies. Thus, one should try to dress modestly.

This has been the common sense teaching of modesty. The attitude of “dress how you want, it’s their fault if they sin” undermines the sense of community amongst believers, places worldly comfort above purity, and makes attaining Paradise seem like a free-for-all rather than an effort by the entire body of believers.

From the Catechism:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

1. 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 ones choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is descreet.

 

[Fran65]

Litcrit,
I am really sorry that people have treated your honest question this way.
I am also really sorry that people feel it necessary to shout - red font, huge size font,capital letters and become abusive towards others. There’s no need for any of this and it is not charitable or demonstrating love for one another. That’s why I withdrew from the ‘bikini’ thread, for me, it was becoming an occasion for sin, not growth and learning.
Pax
Karen

 

[teme]

That’s disgusting. Has it ever occurred to you that more than one party can be responsible? One person has a responsibility to keep his mind away from sin, and the other has the responsibility to not place obstacles in front of her brother in faith. It is easier to govern the flesh when others are dressed modestly, than when others expose their bodies. Thus, one should try to dress modestly.

Soldier of Mary, hopefully you didn’t intent to use such harsh words, as “disgusting”. Someone’s opinions and beliefs, when not in opposition with Catholic teaching should be treated with respect - which seemed lacking in this response.

To the point in question, it is true that if a man were to lust after a woman on the street wearing nothing but her unmentionables - both are likely culpable of sin. But, they are culpable of different sins, and likely to varying degrees.

The viewer has the opportunity/choice that when seeing the unclothed beauty of God’s creation to turn his eyes and think of more holy things. If he fails in this, he is culpable of lust. However, another man could view her at the same time, and not fail, successfully ignoring the spectacle, and lovingly returning attention to his wife. So the sin of lust/unholy thoughts does lie in the viewer, as two people can be in the same situation, yet react differently. Therefore, the woman’s action is not complicit in the sin, as she did not cause the sin, she merely caused a situation where it was possible. In the same way a banker isn’t responsible for bank robbery by opening a bank.

Now, the woman whose intentional “wardrobe malfunction” has not made the best choice either. Her situation and choice in dress did allow a man to fall into sin. But, she is not culpable for his sin. She is culpable for lacking modesty, and dressing in such a way that lacks charity by not being concerned with how others will be tempted. She should have considered her brethren’s eternal souls when she left the house, and for that she is responsible. But, let’s imagine this same woman is underclothed because she has just escaped an attempt to rape her, and is therefore unclothed. I would find it hard to believe any priest would find any culpability for her in that situation. Yet, someone unaware of the situation could still fall into lust at the sight of her.

Modesty is essential, as the Cathecism notes. But, we should not assume that one’s sin in lacking modesty also implicates him or her in another’s sin of lust. While they are related, each has sinned in different way - they don’t share that sin.

Catholics do have a responsibility for dressing modestly. However, this is, and always will be a matter of prudence, as the Church would be unwise to use Her Magisterium to dictate codes of dress.

 

[dkoinzan]

I didn’t put big red letter and big font to be mean. I often suggest that people become more familiar with the theology of the body and they just go right on arguing. Theology of the body would explain all the modesty issues the OP has asked about on this thread and the other two threads OP started. It does seem that the OP may be bating the people on the forums. My comment was not made just for the OP but for all that wanted the argue. So my suggestion is to find a good book and read it and then ask questions.

GOOD BOOK:
christopherwest.com/product.asp?ID=8
Theology of the Body for Beginners
What is the “Theology of the Body”? According to Pope John Paul II, if we live according to the true meaning of our sexuality, we “fulfill the very meaning of [our] being and existence.” The human body is a “theology” because it is meant to be a sign of God’s own life and love in the world. With clarity and precision, Christopher West unpacks John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, translating it into a language everyone can understand.
Our Price: $11.99

 

[Fran65]

Catholics do have a responsibility for dressing modestly. However, this is, and always will be a matter of prudence, as the Church would be unwise to use Her Magisterium to dictate codes of dress.

Thank you.

And good luck. I tried saying this several different ways, but less elegantly, on the other thread! It was never accepted, but shrugs what else can one do? I think some felt the same way about their argument. And I defend their right to make it.

Pax
Karen

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m still confused if in addition to this thread being originally a parody…why it would even be a concern? Walking out in public nude, is illegal. It’s a moot point, no? I wouldn’t walk around nude in my house…with a 12 yr old and 15 yr old present…but are we talking about in public or private or both? If in public, it’s illegal, so why would it matter?

 

[Fran65]

I didn’t put big red letter and big font to be mean.

Thank you.

It does seem that the OP may be bating the people on the forums.

If you read Litcrit’s posts (The OP) you would know that this is not true. My impression is that her question(s) are honest and sincere and her responses indicate that.

I gave up with that (Bikini) thread as it became unpleasant and that was not anything to do with Litcrit (the OP)

Now this thread, it said at the start it was meant to poke fun.

Karen

 

[Miles_Mariae]

The most one can about how the fall affects our modern standard for modesty is that a fig leaf is enough?

A fig leaf? Overdressed if you ask me.

Also, I haven’t read anyone here say they are pro nudist.

Uh, hello!

 

[masha]

After skimming this and the two threads that inspired it, I would certainly agree with the poster who suggested the Theology of the Body (especially the first chapter). John Paul II presents a defense of modesty that is very holistic, that springs from a fuller understanding of the Catholic view of the human person than we on this site are really able to present.

To Litcrit (does that imply an interest in Literature by the way?),
Laugh a bit, please, I’m sure the original poster had no evil intentions. And listen, please to the overwhelming responses you have had from men. Most Catholic men consider bikinis and spagetti-strap tops to be immodest, not so much because they bare your shoulders, back, etc, but because by baring so much they draw attention (in a negative sense) to the areas they do cover.

To teme,
A woman who choses to dress in a revealing way is accountable for the sins of the man who yields to lustful thoughts in looking at her. To varying degrees, yes, but it is quite possible that she could be more culpable, in chosing to display herself as an object to the world.
There is also nothing really wrong with using the word “disgusting” to discribe an attitude that allows a woman to dress as immodestly as she choses and blames any impure thoughts on the “disordered mind” of the viewer.

Please, Please, read the Theology of the Body, as well as Love and Responsibility in their full forms! The only way to truely form a Catholic mindset toward modestly is to immerse yourself in the Church view of humanity.

Pax et bonum,
Mashynka

 

[savienu]

Thank you.

And good luck. I tried saying this several different ways, but less elegantly, on the other thread! It was never accepted, but shrugs what else can one do? I think some felt the same way about their argument. And I defend their right to make it.

Pax
Karen

Same here. That was a really good post.

 

[teme]

To teme,
A woman who choses to dress in a revealing way is accountable for the sins of the man who yields to lustful thoughts in looking at her. To varying degrees, yes, but it is quite possible that she could be more culpable, in chosing to display herself as an object to the world.

I would love to stand corrected - so please provide some support to back up this claim. Something perhaps from the Catechism, Bible… This belief seems more rooted in personal opinion, rather than Church teaching. Remember, both the underclad and the luster are culpable (provided they both know what they are doing), but they are not culpable for the same act. One for lust; the other for immodesty.

It seems a bit misogynistic to assign culpability to a woman for a choice a man makes. By that logic, the man is complicit in the woman’s sin as well- but who would argue the man is responsible for the woman’s dress?

The root of this issue is whether one person’s choices cause another to sin. Sin is a choice to turn away from God. God gave us free will to choose to sin or not. So, to argue one person’s choice to dress in a seductive way “makes” the man choose to lust assumes we have no free will, which is contrary to Church teaching. As well, the same logic would mean a priest, and in connection Christ, is responsible for sacrilege by consecrating the host if a member of the congregation takes it, drives a nail through it, and tosses it in the trash.

My ability to sin ends at my nose. My ability “help” others sin extends beyond. But in that case, I am culpable for enticing another to sin, not the other’s sin directly.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

It would seem that immodesty, insofar as it creates temptation for others, falls into the same category as scandal. Thus the “underclad” as teme puts it is guilty of the scandal (occasion for spiritual downfall) offered to another person, but not the sin of the other person per se.

This seems to be logical. If a person dresses immodestly in public, the guilt lies in this act and not in the acts of others (those who lust). Of course, if the “underclad” notices that others are ogling and fails to cover up, it can be argued that a sin of omission has occurred. Thus, if two people both dress immodestly and go out in public, and one becomes a temptation for 5 others while the other becomes a temptation for 10, the second does not necessarily sin more.

All the same, immodesty presents an occasion for another’s spiritual downfall, and the immodest person is responsible as is the person lusting. To attribute all responsibility to the one lusting and thus exonerate the person presenting the temptation is, as I said earlier, disgusting.

 

[Teakafrog]

All the same, immodesty presents an occasion for another’s spiritual downfall, and the immodest person is responsible as is the person lusting. To attribute all responsibility to the one lusting and thus exonerate the person presenting the temptation is, as I said earlier, disgusting.

EXACTLY. Again, I ask, how is it Christian of a woman to purposely try to incite lust in every man who happens to see her? How is that in any way living the Gospel, as we are all called to do? I do not understand how anyone can think that that sort of behavior is acceptable, in any culture.
Would you repeatedly offer alcohol to an alcoholic? Leave money sitting around in the open to tempt a kleptomaniac? Purposely placing temptation right in front of someone who has a problem with it (and you do not know which men that see your mostly naked body will have problems with the sin of lust) is just cruel, and is not in any way a form of Christian charity.

 

[Fran65]

EXACTLY.Would you repeatedly offer alcohol to an alcoholic? Leave money sitting around in the open to tempt a kleptomaniac?

Okay, having talked to men in many settings, my understanding is that men can and do lust after women no matter how they are dressed. They recognise an attractive woman whether she’s dressed appropriately to visit St Paul’s Basilica in Rome (a suggestion of modest dress from another thread) or whether she’s in a thong. Men can and do engage in lustful thoughts (if they’re of a mind to) once they’ve seen an attractive woman. (I’m talking only about men as we’re discussing the dress of women.)

Teakfrog’s logic* implies *that women being in public and available to be seen by these men with lustful thoughts we are:

“purposely placing temptation right in front of someone who has a problem with it”.

The logical conclusion to that is that as charitable women we ‘should’ either hide our bodies completely or remain cloistered, as some Islamic cultures teach. Another conclusion is that we should not be treated by male doctors - in case we lead them to lustful thoughts as they examine our bodies. That’s why in some countries women are dying from treatable conditions and during childbirth. Although I suppose we could insist on having a woman doctor.

Please be aware that I am not saying that Teakfrog or anyone else on the Bikini thread wants that. I am illustrating the *logical extension *of the argument she has made.

My understanding with respect to alcohol is that alcoholics have to learn to cope with alcohol being around and available eventually, although in the earlier stages of treatment they will avoid places that are alcohol focused. Perhaps those earlier stages are analogous to early childhood for boys when we could be teaching them control of lustful thoughts and behaviour and that women are people however they are dressed.
Karen

 

[NTOT]

A woman who choses to dress in a revealing way is accountable for the sins of the man who yields to lustful thoughts in looking at her. To varying degrees, yes, but it is quite possible that she could be more culpable, in chosing to display herself as an object to the world.

By their natures men and woman are different. Woman suffer more from the curse of vanity. Men more from lust. Vanity, the desire for undue attention especially sexual, is a much more grave sin (1st commandment) than is lust (9th commandment). Vanity is an affront the first and greatest commandment which is to put God above all else, especially oneself. Yes woman who provoke lust in men are culpable for the sin of others that result from their vanity.

There is also nothing really wrong with using the word “disgusting” to discribe an attitude that allows a woman to dress as immodestly as she choses and blames any impure thoughts on the “disordered mind” of the viewer.

Quite correct. Just as if someone commits scandal, he is responsible for all those led astray by that action. Serious stuff indeed. Something about a millstone and being cast into the sea was the stern rebuke. It is foolish to think we are responsible for only our own sins.