Questions about modest dressing

[chevalier]

So if a culture says they dress in such a way that reveals the body, there is no way to say it is modest based on custom.

The same Karol Wojtyła said mass where people were half-naked (based on their savage cultures), and he also said that nudity itself didn’t always have to be sinful or humiliating.

No person - regardless of culture - can look at parts of the body of the other sex and had “merely disinterested liking.”

Objection. Go tell this to doctors who save people’s lives. Carers of the sick. Parents who was their children. Artists even.

This is why many cultures emphasize covering up, such as in the Middle East and in traditional cultures until the present time. Culture really isn’t the issue. The issue is fallen man. That is objective.

Which parts arouse whom is not objective. People’s responses differ from person to person. The kind and the intensity is variant, it’s not fixed, even if patterns exist common to individuals.

So if a woman wears a shirt that reveals too much, that shirt is objectively immodest because it reveals too much.

Nope. And the non-existent shirt of a National Geographic Amazonian woman isn’t objectively immodest, either.

It doesn’t matter her intent. It is immodest. Regardless of culture, man cannot take seeing the other body which he should not see until the appropriate time.

Wrong. Most people can’t take total nudity or close when it comes to an attractive member of the opposite sex, or something with sexual hints or accents. Patterns do exist. But ultimately the sin is never in too much or too little of fabric or whatever. The sin is in illicitly causing arousal.

This is the objective fact.

Nope, it’s your perception in which you believe very much. But you may want to reconsider it.

Regardless of intention, man reacts a certain way when he sees or perceives the body of the opposite sex. Something is awakened in him. That is why we don’t walk around naked.

Nope. 1) seeing is also a kind of perceiving, 2) Many people walked or especially worked nude in the ancient times, actually. Nudity in the OT doesn’t seem to be a problem of humiliating people rather than immodesty per se. Immodesty consists not in any specific kind of clothing or behaviour or whatever, but in illicitly causing arousal. That’s what the problem is.

That is why some clothing, and not others, are immodest.

Nope, what is the closest to that kind of thing is clothing which is designed to arouse with certain sexual accents, imagery, beads, captions, whatever. But even those will be lost on some people and they exist within a certain cultural convention.

It cannot come down to subjective intent or else we’re all in trouble.

Hmmm? On what do you base that? Do we all go out with the intent of arousing others sexually? Or do you actually imply that the intention to cause illicit arousal can ever be sinless? Both are dead wrong. None of my clothes are intended to cause arousal and neither are yours, for that matter, I believe, nor can we ever get away with intending to cause illicit arousal even if we don’t actually succeed in it, much less does it matter what actually we do wear. There is never sin without intent or neglect and the intent to sin is sin already.

Someone can say, “well my intent is not to awaken sexual desire in you” but if the clothing does it, then it does awaken that.

Sorry, but you’re saying, “if the clothing awakens sexual desire in you, it awakens sexual desire in you.” Please rephrase.

Original sin requires certain clothing choices

The original sin is disobedience to God, actually.

and although there may be some differences in cultures, the principle is the same: the body, when uncovered, awakens desire.

Nope, and John Paul II wouldn’t agree with you either. Additionally, there are such outfits that awaken more desire than does full nudity - and are by far more immodest, for that matter. In fact, the body is not immodest in any way, so merely revealing it cannot be so either. You’re altogether missing the significance of the intent to cause illicit arousal, which is actually what immodesty is all about. Modesty is not defined in inches.

 

[chevalier]

Her cleavage would not be in itself immodest. The fact of her revealing it, regardless of her intent, is an objectively immodest act.

That’s what I’m saying, and it’s directly opposite to what you said before.

Concupiscence is alive and well because of the fall and it is awakened at the sight of the other’s body parts which should remain concealed.

Don’t make the original sin more sexual than it really is. In fact, it’s about disobedience to God.

It would be immodest to reveal a nude body to another person unless there were absolutely reasonable circumstances, such as an artist who is sure he is prepared to handle it.

I’ll suprise you by being very picky here. Actually, I doubt the reasonability of most of the nudity in art, at least so far as the act of posing and painting goes. Most of it is totally unnecessary. There’s no such thing as absolute reasonability of it. It’s relative and it’s questionable from start. A better example would be medicine.

Additionally, according to your views, that would still be objective immodesty justified by circumstances, which is false, because there’s no objective immodesty in going to the obgyn, for instance. Nor is marriage a circumstance removing liability for objective acts of immodesty. Marriage is not legitimatised fornication. Fornication is marital acts taken out of the context of marriage. The difference in perspective is crucial.

There is a reason why we wear clothing.

Certainly. And it’s certainly not only weather. This doesn’t mean that modesty is measurable in inches.

It isn’t because of intent, it is because of the reality of the fall.

We suffer because of sin and there’s no sin without intent. That we suffer from the sins of others without our own intent is another matter.

We suffer greatly because of the effects of the fall - the malice of our will and our darkened intellect and our disordered passions.

We have concupiscence, but we are not malicious by nature and we aren’t evil by default, either, nor is our intellect a dark matter, nor are our passions necessarily disordered, although as a result of concupiscence they might well be.

Those things are why the body cannot be revealed inappropriately and immodestly, not custom or culture. There is a deeper reality within fallen man that is the problem here.

Nope, the reason why the body cannot be revealed immodestly is because that would be a sinful act. But the way you throw “immodestly” into it looks like you throw it in before you define it, and then define it again. “Immodestly” wouldn’t exist as a concept if we didn’t have concupiscence - there would not be allowance for immodest behaviour, but there would simply be no immodest behaviour because immodesty wouldn’t exist.

We are naturally attracted to our bodies, but the exact circumstances are to a great extent cultural. For example, certain hot-blooded ethnicities seem to react more vehemently, whereas more restrained and phlegmatic cultures will not react as much. Remember that ankles were considered erotic 100 years ago. Shoulder tops some 400 years ago were actually more private than breasts. Apart from past times or exotic peoples, you will never even find a pious congregation in which everyone agrees about the exact inches and do you really think that there exists an objective ideal cleavage the way objective good or truth exists? Sure they can’t define what is and what is not modest in such a way that they could dictate what’s sinful and what’s sinless. But on scandalising or titillating them the sin relies, not on artificially objectivising a current and geographically localised norm. You cannot defeat the fact that those ankles 100 years ago and our current standards cannot be objectively true at the same time. Either the objective truth has changed or it has never been objective. What is objective is that sexuality is to be expressed in marriage and that it’s wrong to arouse people outside of marriage (and even in marriage arousing someone who wishes not to be aroused at the moment isn’t the most modest thing to do, either).

 

[strugglingalong]

Don’t make the original sin more sexual than it really is. In fact, it’s about disobedience to God.

You made many, many points and I don’t have the time to respond to them all because I have a final exam to study for but I think I can come down to one essential issue. Original sin. You say original sin is about disobedience to God and it is, but there are effects of the fall that affect all mankind: malice of will, darkened intellect, concupiscence, death, disordered passions. Concupiscence includes lust of the flesh and inclines man to commit sins (see Catechism 2514-2516). If we were all perfect and strong willed, it wouldn’t matter what we see but the fact is that we are fallen. Original sin affects sexuality alot. Read Augustine’s works on concupiscence and marriage. His whole point is that we have this lust of the flesh because of concupiscence whereby our appetites override reason. This is the point. This is what I am saying is trans-cultural. Every single human being alive struggles with concupiscence in their members. To see parts of the body of the opposite sex awaken something in him and fallen man is not in himself, in his fallen state, strong enough to simply see the body of the opposite sex and be fine with it. We’re disordered and fallen. Reading your posts, I get the sense that you’re downplaying the effects of original sin. Yes, original sin is not only sexual but it has a great affect on sexuality. Adam and Eve covered their naked bodies as the first response to their sin. Why? Because after the fall there is the potential that the body will be abused and used as an object for gratification.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

That’s what I’m saying, and it’s directly opposite to what you said before.

Don’t make the original sin more sexual than it really is. In fact, it’s about disobedience to God.

I’ll suprise you by being very picky here. Actually, I doubt the reasonability of most of the nudity in art, at least so far as the act of posing and painting goes. Most of it is totally unnecessary. There’s no such thing as absolute reasonability of it. It’s relative and it’s questionable from start. A better example would be medicine.

Additionally, according to your views, that would still be objective immodesty justified by circumstances, which is false, because there’s no objective immodesty in going to the obgyn, for instance. Nor is marriage a circumstance removing liability for objective acts of immodesty. Marriage is not legitimatised fornication. Fornication is marital acts taken out of the context of marriage. The difference in perspective is crucial.

Certainly. And it’s certainly not only weather. This doesn’t mean that modesty is measurable in inches.

We suffer because of sin and there’s no sin without intent. That we suffer from the sins of others without our own intent is another matter.

We have concupiscence, but we are not malicious by nature and we aren’t evil by default, either, nor is our intellect a dark matter, nor are our passions necessarily disordered, although as a result of concupiscence they might well be.

Nope, the reason why the body cannot be revealed immodestly is because that would be a sinful act. But the way you throw “immodestly” into it looks like you throw it in before you define it, and then define it again. “Immodestly” wouldn’t exist as a concept if we didn’t have concupiscence - there would not be allowance for immodest behaviour, but there would simply be no immodest behaviour because immodesty wouldn’t exist.

We are naturally attracted to our bodies, but the exact circumstances are to a great extent cultural. For example, certain hot-blooded ethnicities seem to react more vehemently, whereas more restrained and phlegmatic cultures will not react as much. Remember that ankles were considered erotic 100 years ago. Shoulder tops some 400 years ago were actually more private than breasts. Apart from past times or exotic peoples, you will never even find a pious congregation in which everyone agrees about the exact inches and do you really think that there exists an objective ideal cleavage the way objective good or truth exists? Sure they can’t define what is and what is not modest in such a way that they could dictate what’s sinful and what’s sinless. But on scandalising or titillating them the sin relies, not on artificially objectivising a current and geographically localised norm. You cannot defeat the fact that those ankles 100 years ago and our current standards cannot be objectively true at the same time. Either the objective truth has changed or it has never been objective. What is objective is that sexuality is to be expressed in marriage and that it’s wrong to arouse people outside of marriage (and even in marriage arousing someone who wishes not to be aroused at the moment isn’t the most modest thing to do, either).

The problem I have with your point is that it comes down to saying there is no objective standard. I don’t have the time to read all you wrote, which is alot, because, as I said, this is final exam week and my first one is tomorrow. But I can say - and I do believe - there must be objective standards of dressing even if they vary slightly. Or else what can we say? Nothing. Everything is allowable so long as your intent is not to arouse. Well, a woman may not intend to arouse me but do so anyway. There must be an objective standard or else everything is subjective. I think the lack of objectivity in the modern times has led to this over-emphasis on subjectivity, leading to little or no objective standards of anything. The Magisterium under Pius XI, XII, Leo XII, etc. were far more clear and forthright. Today very little is said which is clear, precise, and objective. Happily alot of people are realizing that how they dress is important and that it has the possibility of awakening inappropriate desire in others.

I’d really like to go through every point you made. Maybe after my exams.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

Nudity in the OT doesn’t seem to be a problem of humiliating people rather than immodesty per se. Immodesty consists not in any specific kind of clothing or behaviour or whatever, but in illicitly causing arousal.

Explain to me David and Bathsheba. She was bathing, no knowing she was being watched, and David saw her. She did not intend to arouse anyone but she did.

Maybe I am not being as precise as I need to be. Modesty is “refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” (CCC 2521). My point here is that to show cleavage is to reveal something that should remain hidden. I would even argue that the Amazon woman who is naked in National Geographic awakens something in fallen man even if it is not as strong as what is awakened in our circumstances because of the knowledge of her place of origin. Now I can agree there is some variance by culture but not to the degree that there is nothing universal. The state of fallen man is universal. There is no tribe or tongue which is free of it and the effects of original sin are the same for us all. I can’t comment on how men react to woman in cultures where everyone walks around nude because I don’t know. I don’t know if they can handle it or not, if everything is fine and dandy or if they tend to have immoral behaviors occurring in the midst of it.

What I do know is that our bodies are universally the same among cultures and that the effects of the fall are the same. There may be some variance but I cannot agree that it is to such an extent that there is no commonality. If there is no standard, if it is all just subjective intent, then no one can say what clothing is modest and which is not because it is not the clothing but the intent. That appears to me to lead to anarchy. Everyone creates their own standard. I guess I don’t see how your point doesn’t come down to this, each person choosing their own standard of modesty so long as their intent is to be modest and not arouse.

Maybe I am missing something.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

We are naturally attracted to our bodies, but the exact circumstances are to a great extent cultural. For example, certain hot-blooded ethnicities seem to react more vehemently, whereas more restrained and phlegmatic cultures will not react as much. Remember that ankles were considered erotic 100 years ago. Shoulder tops some 400 years ago were actually more private than breasts. Apart from past times or exotic peoples, you will never even find a pious congregation in which everyone agrees about the exact inches and do you really think that there exists an objective ideal cleavage the way objective good or truth exists? Sure they can’t define what is and what is not modest in such a way that they could dictate what’s sinful and what’s sinless. But on scandalising or titillating them the sin relies, not on artificially objectivising a current and geographically localised norm. You cannot defeat the fact that those ankles 100 years ago and our current standards cannot be objectively true at the same time. Either the objective truth has changed or it has never been objective. What is objective is that sexuality is to be expressed in marriage and that it’s wrong to arouse people outside of marriage (and even in marriage arousing someone who wishes not to be aroused at the moment isn’t the most modest thing to do, either).

Okay. Can you tell me a time in the Church prior to the modern age when the Church sanctioned its members to dress in a way that showed off parts of the body? It seems to me - and maybe I am mistaken - that prior to the modern age (maybe it started around the Reformation or French Revolution) men and women dressed in such a way that the majority of their body was covered. Yes there may have been indigenous peoples living in nakedness somewhere in the world but that is outside the scope of civilization and I don’t know if we can consider that common but rather more of an extraordinary situation. But regardless, why has the Church for so long upheld an objective standard and expected her members to cover their bodies? Now today it is subjective. There is no standard. No one can say anything.

Yet from what I hear, when you visit the Vatican there is a dress code without which you won’t be admitted. Isn’t that an objective standard of modesty?

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

I have trouble with pornography, and I’m not a man. Also, I know lots of women who look at it. I am not saying it is okay do do so - far from it - but both sexes are (in my experience) equally in danger of being affected by such materials. But this is going off-topic, so I’ll get away from this subject now…

I really don’t think - I’m sorry - that women struggle with pornography as much as men. I know some women do but it has vastly been a problem for men. I don’t think it is off-topic because it relates to the difference between men and women, that men tend to be aroused in a more visual, physical manner. Look at any website to help with sexual addiction and I guarantee you it is aimed at men. You see very, very few help groups like that for women because while it does affect some of them, it is nowhere near the number of men that are affected. The point is that men tend to be more physically, visually aroused and this addiction proves that point. Can it happen in women? Sure. But I really think the fact is that it happens far, far more in men.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

Let’s get down to it.

You’re telling me that if a woman wears a bikini, and does not intend to arouse, she is not dressed immodestly? One cannot say her bikini is in itself modest or immodest?

And would you say that if we were raised with the belief that it is okay to be naked all the time, and that is just how it is because it is the culture, that we would be okay with seeing naked bodies?

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[Sr_Sally]

Puzzleannie, I love your posts! Always very dry and to the point!

I see I am going to have to hone my mind-reading abilities if I wish to continue participating in these discussions.

 

[chevalier]

Strugglingalong,

Disobedience towards God renders us able to desire what is not good for us, therefore what is against reason. Concupiscence is the operation of our desires against reason. There are many fields where it comes into play, not just the sexual, therefore I stress that the original sin is not sexual in nature. We have concupiscence, but we’re still God’s beloved children. We are frail, but we are not abominable or unholy.

Don’t feel obliged to answer every single point I make in detail. In fact, it would be better to concentrate on the general message.

Whatever you derive from your view of concupiscence (which appears correct to me), it does not somehow imbue this or that item of clothing with an objectively moral character of good or evil, neither does the original sin itself. Once again: there’s no sin without intent. Apart from the original sin, which is not a sin of the same kind as the personal sins we commit, we cannot sin without making a choice. The choice to go and attract men or women to what they cannot (or at least should not) get, or the choice to design the outfit in such a way for someone else, or the choice to give no attention to the possibility of temptation, that is what decides. Clothes of this or that cut are mere tools in it.

The problem I have with your point is that it comes down to saying there is no objective standard. I don’t have the time to read all you wrote, which is alot, because, as I said, this is final exam week and my first one is tomorrow. But I can say - and I do believe - there must be objective standards of dressing even if they vary slightly.

If they vary slightly, then they are not objective.

No, there must not be a single objective standard. There is no such imperative, no such necessity. What is objective is that we must not appeal to other people’s concupiscence. Inches of clothing neither automatically push us into personal guilt nor excuse us. The only objective standard of clothing, as far as modesty is concerned, is to prevent such an appeal to concupiscence.

Or else what can we say? Nothing. Everything is allowable so long as your intent is not to arouse. Well, a woman may not intend to arouse me but do so anyway.

That does not automatically mean that her clothes were immodest. It might have been her behaviour or even the way you looked. I nowhere say that lack of intent to arouse justifies the decision to cause such arousal regardless. That would be a practical application of the principle of double-effect and in that case, a good must be intended and it must overweigh the unintented evil effect. There is normally no such good. Additionally, charity requires that we don’t put others in temptation, which means that if we know that we will arouse and we don’t care for the struggles of others, we are at fault. Unintentionally but carelessly tempting outfit will still be immodest in the context in which it causes illicit arousal and there is some fault in it.

I think the lack of objectivity in the modern times has led to this over-emphasis on subjectivity, leading to little or no objective standards of anything.

It serves no good to create artificial objective standards, nor does it even actually make them objective. Our concupiscence is objective. The exact visual impulses which arouse us are an intersubjectively verifiable experience.

Today very little is said which is clear, precise, and objective.

Maybe there is a reason? Don’t get me wrong. It’s an awful thing to subjectivise the objective. To relativise the absolute is also wrong. But this doesn’t justify creating artificial objectives or absolutes. There’s no truth in it if we make some artificial mental constructs (the so called conceptus mentis sine ullo fundamento in re) and start treating them as objective or absolute as if we had the power to imbue them with such a character. We can make a convention, but we cannot declare our clothing standards objective or absolute.

Happily alot of people are realizing that how they dress is important and that it has the possibility of awakening inappropriate desire in others.

Dress is extremely important and the choice to appeal to other people’s concupiscence is wrong. Chaotic, intrinsically and objectively disordered. In some cases an actual evil act may be involved. But this doesn’t mean that the length of the skirt itself makes immodesty. Immodesty wouldn’t exist without concupiscence. Abusing our concupiscence is what creates immodesty.

 

[chevalier]

Explain to me David and Bathsheba. She was bathing, no knowing she was being watched, and David saw her. She did not intend to arouse anyone but she did.

You are confusing immodesty with arousal. It is certainly possible to arouse without intent, but it is not possible to be immodest without either intent or negligence. It doesn’t occur from the Biblical account that Batsheba was immodest.

My point here is that to show cleavage is to reveal something that should remain hidden.

My point is that bathing suits show cleavage and all the much more. Women go to doctors. You yourself mentioned artists. To show cleavage with the intent to cause illicit arousal, or without thought about men’s struggles, that would be immodest. Otherwise there would be immodesty in visiting a doctor or well, even in taking a shower or changing clothes.

You cannot claim that every instance of showing a specific area of skin is immodest. You cannot claim that it normally is but exceptions exist. The reality is that sexuality is ordered towards marriage and dressing immodestly is a misuse of the sexual faculty - by using it outside marriage.

I don’t know if they can handle it or not, if everything is fine and dandy or if they tend to have immoral behaviors occurring in the midst of it.

You probably know, however, that in such environments where the porn industry is strong, the reactions to nudity or partial nudity are stronger, that men need less to be aroused and they even take asexual things sexually, out of context because of how they are given to their passions.

If there is no standard, if it is all just subjective intent, then no one can say what clothing is modest and which is not because it is not the clothing but the intent.

When we say some clothing is modest or immodest, we take from our experience, as well as from the experience of other people and the experience of other people’s, as well. Logically, that’s intersubjective, not objective. Mind you, there’s intent and there’s negligence. If we know that the outfit will awaken concupiscence where and when it’s worn, we can say it’s immodest - even if there’s no intent but mere ignorance and negligence on the part of the wearer. But the problem is not with clothes as material items, but with people’s minds - with the fact that they have concupiscence and the fact that they want to appeal to the concupiscence of others’.

That appears to me to lead to anarchy.

Artificial objectives are a fallacy and lead to totalitarism.

There may be some variance but I cannot agree that it is to such an extent that there is no commonality.

Of course there is common experience! A lot of it is common. In fact, most people will be attracted to total nudity or the sight of the private parts. It’s safer to assume that someone will than that he won’t be tempted by that. But at the same time this doesn’t work for ankles, shins, arms, whatever. For example, a knee-long skirt would be deemed immodest 400 years ago on the grounds of showing so much leg, while today we won’t agree that it’s immodest. We will say it’s modest actually. The amount of cleavage shown 400 or 300 years ago (and even some periods closer to modernity) could outrage a modern Catholic, while it didn’t cause such universal outrage back in the time. Was the whole populace immodest back then? Are we now? Because we disagree on ankles or cleavages and because we can’t be both right at the same time.

You simply can’t make an all-encompassing, fully objective and absolute, extratemporaneous and extrageographical standard of clothing. It doesn’t work like that. The need for coverage is proportional to the danger of concupiscence. While subjectivism of the kind that everything is allowed is wrong - both logically and morally - you cannot logically claim such an objective standard. The objective standard is to respect the intersubjective experience.

 

[chevalier]

I guess I don’t see how your point doesn’t come down to this, each person choosing their own standard of modesty so long as their intent is to be modest and not arouse.

That is in contradiction, not in accordance with what I’ve been saying.

Maybe I am missing something.

Yes. The fact that there is truly no objective standard that would be all-encompassing, all-defining, all-containing, immune to perception, independent of time and of geography. Such an objective and absolute standard is that we need to respect the intersubjective experience and that we can neither appeal to concupiscence nor ignore temptations we cause. Please note that the Catechism does not say what should be hidden. It says that what should be hidden is modest to refuse to unveil. But the exact technical specifics are not there. Remember that firstly, in the absence of concupiscence, there would be no immodesty, so if there’s no appeal to concupiscence, there’s no immodesty - and also that fulfilling a checklist does not remit our obligation (look at all the ways of circumventing a dress code). This is for example the reason why more nudity is allowed between members of the same sex (and heterosexual) than it is in mixed company - because guys will not be attracted to hairy chests, simply speaking. Similarly, females will not be attracted to female breasts. This does not make group showers immodest or an exception from modesty. It simply shows that there’s more to modesty than a checklist of how inches here or there is allowed.

Okay. Can you tell me a time in the Church prior to the modern age when the Church sanctioned its members to dress in a way that showed off parts of the body? It seems to me - and maybe I am mistaken - that prior to the modern age (maybe it started around the Reformation or French Revolution) men and women dressed in such a way that the majority of their body was covered. Yes there may have been indigenous peoples living in nakedness somewhere in the world but that is outside the scope of civilization and I don’t know if we can consider that common but rather more of an extraordinary situation. But regardless, why has the Church for so long upheld an objective standard and expected her members to cover their bodies? Now today it is subjective. There is no standard. No one can say anything.

I’m afraid you’re indeed missing the point. Firstly, you do need to browse a couple of history books for fashion ideas. Secondly, it’s not about common or extraordinary situations - and even then, you would be admitting that such an “extraordinary situation” were an exception from your all-encompassing, objective and absolute standard. You just can’t legislate what is sexually appealing and what is not. You can only gather opinions from people and go by them - and that is precisely the definition of intersubjective rather than objective. And once again: there’s no need for such a standard the way we need the absolute and objective metre in Sevres. Not any more than we need the objective cold or warm or white or yellow. “Cold is below 10 degrees Celsius, upon which it becomes merely chilly, and not below 0 degrees Celsius which is freezing?”

You just cannot pretend that there’s an extramporaneous and extrageographical standard, in other words, you cannot define modesty in abstraction from concupiscence.

Yet from what I hear, when you visit the Vatican there is a dress code without which you won’t be admitted. Isn’t that an objective standard of modesty?

No. If the Vatican itself considered it objective, it would be binding in every church everywhere. Don’t you think that if wearing a skirt N inches long would be objectively evil, it would be identified as such in the official teaching? The Vatican that we know is located in 21th century Italy and not on the Isle of Saint X on Ocean N in a random century, nor is it outside time and space. The official teaching teaches what it is important: that it’s wrong to dress to lead others to sin and that one needs to care for other’s frailty and sensibilities (temptation, scandal, respectively).

 

[chevalier]

Let’s get down to it.

You’re telling me that if a woman wears a bikini, and does not intend to arouse, she is not dressed immodestly? One cannot say her bikini is in itself modest or immodest?

Can you say her bikini is objectively yellow or green?

And no, a bikini is not necessarily immodest.

And would you say that if we were raised with the belief that it is okay to be naked all the time, and that is just how it is because it is the culture, that we would be okay with seeing naked bodies?

We most probably would, and also it is not true that we are raised currently. You realise this because you first start with “what if we were” and then you say that “actually, it is like that”, so the “what if” stops being speculative. Your whole paragraph then acquires a meaning along the lines of, “we’re raised with the belief that it’s okay to be naked all the time because that’s how our culture is, does it mean it’s okay?”

And now I will answer: the problem with our culture is not the attitude towards nudity or dress, but the attitude towards sexuality. If nudity didn’t appeal to our concupiscence, then there would be no problem with nudity. Our culture seems to believe it’s okay to seek and find and give sexual gratification outside marriage. Therefore, it’s not like the culture believes that cleavage of N inches doesn’t appeal to concupiscence. The culture believes that appealing to concupiscence is okay. That is wrong. That doesn’t make the outfit modest. The outfit would be modest only if there were no intention of leading to sin where and when it were designed and/or worn, and no negligence or ignorance, either.

 

[strugglingalong]

Can you say her bikini is objectively yellow or green?

And no, a bikini is not necessarily immodest.

I disagree. A bikini is immodest and there is no way for it to be modest. It reveals what should not be revealed, which the Catechism says modesty should concern itself with. Maybe there is agreement within civilized nations, but there is agreement. I would also argue that it would be immodest it any place.

If nudity didn’t appeal to our concupiscence, then there would be no problem with nudity. Our culture seems to believe it’s okay to seek and find and give sexual gratification outside marriage. Therefore, it’s not like the culture believes that cleavage of N inches doesn’t appeal to concupiscence. The culture believes that appealing to concupiscence is okay. That is wrong. That doesn’t make the outfit modest. The outfit would be modest only if there were no intention of leading to sin where and when it were designed and/or worn, and no negligence or ignorance, either.

The problem is that nudity will always appeal to concupiscence because it is the nature of man ever since the fall. Even in doctor’s offices etc. I’d say there is something going on if it is between two genders, which is why some women I know will only go to a female doctor. We can speak of indigenous peoples and tribes that are naked, but we must then also speak of their sexual ethics. Do nations where they reveal their bodies by custom like chastely? Look at Africa. Obviously they don’t cover themselves much and they are having all kinds of sexual problems. I still think it is an objective fact of human existence that when we are faced with seeing too much of the other gender’s body - especially the sexual organs - we lust. That is what needs protected. Even if we were raised to think that it is normal to be naked, the sight would awaken desire within us and it would be very difficult not to give in.

I wish I could make my point better and think through it all better. I know you’re very intelligent. I wish I could defend my point better, more intellectually, but right now I am burned out intellectually.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

No. If the Vatican itself considered it objective, it would be binding in every church everywhere. Don’t you think that if wearing a skirt N inches long would be objectively evil, it would be identified as such in the official teaching? The Vatican that we know is located in 21th century Italy and not on the Isle of Saint X on Ocean N in a random century, nor is it outside time and space. The official teaching teaches what it is important: that it’s wrong to dress to lead others to sin and that one needs to care for other’s frailty and sensibilities (temptation, scandal, respectively).

It seems to me the Church used to make statements on dress until now. It seems like no one says anything any more…each person is just to decide for themselves, which has led us to alot of difficulty.

Well if nothing else I’m going to study and read more on the question after finals. I just can’t accept that it can only be reduced to subjectivity which seems to leave it up to cultural decisions. I do think there is something more universal in there somewhere.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[apriltherese]

In response to strugglingalong’s basic argument: You cannot tell me that a shirtless, non-Christian Amazon woman is commiting a sin. If you can say that about such a person, then you are truly judgemental in at least that aspect.

 

[strugglingalong]

In response to strugglingalong’s basic argument: You cannot tell me that a shirtless, non-Christian Amazon woman is commiting a sin. If you can say that about such a person, then you are truly judgemental in at least that aspect.

That is problematic. The non-Christian Amazon woman is probably in darkness on a great many things. I’m sure her understanding of virtue and ethics is severely lacking to say the least. If we want to hold her up as an example, then we should compare all professing Christians against the standards of pagans. I wouldn’t say she is committing a sin if she is in ignorance, which only God knows. But I would say that the revealing of her body is going to awaken concupiscence in men. I just can’t see a tribe of naked people living chastely. That doesn’t mean they are entirely culpable, something God alone knows, but I can’t see how the effects of the fall don’t come into play either. Mankind is mankind everywhere. It is fallen everywhere. The reality, the effects, of the fall on mankind are universal.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[strugglingalong]

Disobedience towards God renders us able to desire what is not good for us, therefore what is against reason. Concupiscence is the operation of our desires against reason. There are many fields where it comes into play, not just the sexual, therefore I stress that the original sin is not sexual in nature. We have concupiscence, but we’re still God’s beloved children. We are frail, but we are not abominable or unholy.

Yes, I agree concupiscence comes into play in many, many areas of our life. I do think, however, sexuality is one major area but not the only one nor one to be looked at alone.

Yes we have concupiscence, which makes us sinners before God even while we are holy in His eyes if we’re in Christ. Yet those who are not in Christ are not His children strictly speaking, but are His enemies born as they are into sin (Cf. Trent). We can’t downplay the importance and power of the effects of the fall which grace helps in those who believe and which really separates men in those who have yet to believe. But for both those effects are real and substantial, presenting a daily and constant battle in this life. That is why modesty/immodesty becomes such an important issue. If we have true charity, we’d never want to lead another into temptation. We’d never want to reveal what is not to be revealed.

Christ’s peace to you.

 

[mapleoak]

That is problematic. The non-Christian Amazon woman is probably in darkness on a great many things.

Such as? …example.

I’m sure her understanding of virtue and ethics is severely lacking to say the least.

Based on what?

If we want to hold her up as an example, then we should compare all professing Christians against the standards of pagans.

Huh? Why is that?

Just to add a little tidbit also, total nudity can actually be more modest than dressing in a provocative and suggestive manner so as to incite others. The ‘come hither’ aspect as well as the stirring of the mind toward imagination can be much worse of a problem. Intentions are most definitely significant.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[mesquite_magic]

That is problematic. The non-Christian Amazon woman is probably in darkness on a great many things. I’m sure her understanding of virtue and ethics is severely lacking to say the least. If we want to hold her up as an example, then we should compare all professing Christians against the standards of pagans. I wouldn’t say she is committing a sin if she is in ignorance, which only God knows. But I would say that the revealing of her body is going to awaken concupiscence in men. I just can’t see a tribe of naked people living chastely. That doesn’t mean they are entirely culpable, something God alone knows, but I can’t see how the effects of the fall don’t come into play either. Mankind is mankind everywhere. It is fallen everywhere. The reality, the effects, of the fall on mankind are universal.

Christ’s peace to you.

No. The Amazonian woman realises that’s breasts are for feeding her child. Period. She isn’t burdened by Western culture’s sexualized veiw of a woman’s breasts.

I would like for someone to point out to me were God told Eve exactly what to cover and by how many inches. The only verses I can find refering to Adam and Eve’s clothing are- Genesis 3 Verse 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And Genesis 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. I don’t see where God told Eve, “your tunic must cover you from forehead to ankle”.

Admittedly, I don’t know my Bible well. Please enlighten me.

I also still have a problem with the thinking that my immodesty compels a man to commit sin. He doesn’t have to look. If he truely doesn’t want to sin, it’s easy enough to turn his head the other way.

Kim