Nudity is immodest - why exactly?

[NTOT]

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.

Correct.

It seems a bit misogynistic to assign culpability to a woman for a choice a man makes.

She is responsible for the effects of her vanity.

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.

No, because one is not responsible for sinful effects when one does not commit a moral wrong. If a priest were to illicitly provide the host, he then would be indirectly responsible for all the evil effects that results from it. Just as someone who irresponsibly allows his 5 year old to drive his car, he is indirectly responsible for the deaths of the strolling people struck by the car. These are imperfect examples of the the spiritual harm that one is responsible when one commits sin, especially that of vanity.

 

[NTOT]

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.

Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[Fran65]

Vanity, the desire for undue attention especially sexual, is a much more grave sin (1st commandment) than is lust (9th commandment).

You are assuming that you know why women dress in a particular way. That is a very big assumption to make. Women dress for many reasons and not just out of a ‘love of self’ (also known as pride).

Some women *may *be dressing in a way to deliberately draw sexual attention, that’s true.

Some men are lustful whether the woman is fully covered or not. I know, I have been on the receiving end. Minding my own business, long sleeved top, long skirt, and a hat. Nothing clingy or revealing and still some men stare at my breasts or my bottom.

Its not one or the other, its both!

Couldn’t you also argue that lust also places God well below the desires of the individual? Isn’t that Pride too - I can and will stare and fantasize if I like?

Karen

 

[NTOT]

You are assuming that you know why women dress in a particular way. That is a very big assumption to make. Women dress for many reasons and not just out of a ‘love of self’ (also known as pride).

No I am not assuming to know why a particular woman dresses the way she does. I am specifically stating that a woman who purposely dresses intentionally in such manner as to call undue attention to herself is comminting the very deadly sin of vanity. This undue attention desired, is a direct incitement for others to lust. Capital sin brought upon by capital sin.

Some

women *may *be dressing in a way to deliberately draw sexual attention, that’s true.*That is besides the point.

Some men are lustful whether the woman is fully covered or not.

Also besides the point.

I know, I have been on the receiving end. Minding my own business, long sleeved top, long skirt, and a hat. Nothing clingy or revealing and still some men stare at my breasts or my bottom.

You would not be responsible, since you would not have been indulging in the sin of vanity. If you took steps to provoke that lust, or if you took delight in the flattery of someone gazing upon you, both would be gravely sinful actions.