Sins against purity/chasity

[Paddy1989]

---

No one in this thread – has approved of porn – just like no one in this thread has approved of planned parenthood – but my – how some of you will use any means – to muddy the waters – and keep devaluing the person – for the clothes they wear. Now if someone does not see the difference between porn and a woman who to them is “immodest” – well that says — much about the state of their mind. That mind is in need of repair.

No my point was that if people can defend fashion’s that are designed to sexualize women and objectify them they can certainly defend porn which is essentially the same only more extreme. One simply invoke’s more stimulation than the other. No-one is devaluing anyone here other than the person who accept’s immodesty

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

No one in this thread – has approved of porn – just like no one in this thread has approved of planned parenthood – but my – how some of you will use any means – to muddy the waters – and keep devaluing the person – for the clothes they wear. Now if someone does not see the difference between porn and a woman who to them is “immodest” – well that says — much about the state of their mind. That mind is in need of repair.

No my point was that if people can defend fashion’s that are designed to sexualize women and objectify them they can certainly defend porn which is essentially the same only more extreme. One simply invoke’s more stimulation than the other. No-one is devaluing anyone here other than the person who accept’s immodesty

---

The one doing the objectifying is the one doing the looking. The “objectification” is already present (implanted) in the mind – so when the person looks at another – he projects what is in the mind. And yes – we can “teach” this “objectification” – especially to the young – when we “teach” – “look at that “immodest” girl/woman” – "that girl/woman is dressed like a “slut”, “filth” etc. So the devaluing of the person – does indeed come from those who look at another – and their mind says "look at that “immodesty”.

 

[Paddy1989]

---

The one doing the objectifying is the one doing the looking. The “objectification” is already present (implanted) in the mind – so when the person looks at another – he projects what is in the mind. And yes – we can “teach” this “objectification” – especially to the young – when we “teach” – “look at that “immodest” girl/woman” – "that girl/woman is dressed like a “slut”, “filth” etc. So the devaluing of the person – does indeed come from those who look at another – and their mind says "look at that “immodesty”.

Yes but as Catholic’s if they are to remain pure in their mind and heart they have to avoid look at all, if their eye’s glance at all over her then they will catch certain area’s, why? Because those that designed these fashion’s know this very well and that is it’s purpose, you are somehow surprised to see this purpose becoming a reality which is silly. Yes i agree when one look’s down on another this is wrong but these fashion’s Were/ARE created to maximize sex appeal and objectify women. Women who accept these fashion’s will become eye candy for men who accept these fashion’s, for Catholic’s they have to avoid looking at all. Only a woman’s husband should see these area’s of her or if she dresses this way etc for him because it is done within the context of marriage in love and passion for each other.

Do you not see anything wrong with one dressing in fashion’s designed to invoke lust? You have not mentioned ONE thing about it, you have simply attacked the one who accept’s lust which is fair but also the Catholic who is very much tempted and is under greater temptation in certain situation’s such as these.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes but as Catholic’s if they are to remain pure in their mind and heart they have to avoid look at all, if their eye’s glance at all over her then they will catch certain area’s, why? Because those that designed these fashion’s know this very well and that is it’s purpose, you are somehow surprised to see this purpose becoming a reality which is silly. Yes i agree when one look’s down on another this is wrong but these fashion’s Were/ARE created to maximize sex appeal and objectify women. Women who accept these fashion’s will become eye candy for men who accept these fashion’s, for Catholic’s they have to avoid looking at all. Only a woman’s husband should see these area’s of her or if she dresses this way etc for him because it is done within the context of marriage in love and passion for each other.

---

Again Paddy1989 – the “objectification” is of the mind. To the man who has it in him to “objectify” – will see women as “eye candy” – because at some point – this “ideology” was implanted in his mind.

 

[Paddy1989]

---

Again Paddy1989 – the “objectification” is of the mind. To the man who has it in him to “objectify” – will see women as “eye candy” – because at some point – this “ideology” was implanted in his mind.

lust is not something that is attributed to an ideology but is a vice attached to original sin which we must endure it’s temptation and battle it. We must not accept or normalize that which invoke’s it

 

[Walking_Home]

lust is not something that is attributed to an ideology but is a vice attached to original sin which we must endure it’s temptation and battle it

---

But we – have been “helping” people devalue the person – when we “teach” them that what a person wears – makes them “immodest” – “looking like sluts” – “filth”. This implants in the mind objectification-- that these people are not as worthy as the “modest” group – so this negative value towards another – can indeed lead a person to lust.

 

[Paddy1989]

---

But we – have been “helping” people devalue the person – when we “teach” them that what a person wears – makes them “immodest” – “looking like sluts” – “filth”. This implants in the mind objectification-- that these people are not as worthy as the “modest” group – so this negative value towards another – can indeed lead a person to lust.

These fashion’s are what create’s this mentality, it causes one who look’s at women who dresses this way and who embrace’s it as resembling the purpose of why it was created in the first place. Lust is invoked with these fashion’s whether she know’s it or not and the man either play’s the part in helping create/promote these fashion’s and ideology that sex appeal is fashionable or they take pleasure in it’s result’s

 

[Walking_Home]

These fashion’s are what create’s this mentality, it causes one who look’s at women who dresses this way and who embrace’s it as resembling the purpose of why it was created in the first place. Lust is invoked with these fashion’s whether she know’s it or not and the man either play’s the part in helping create/promote these fashion’s and ideology that sex appeal is fashionable or they take pleasure in it’s result’s

---

Round and round you go – but in the end Paddy1989 – it will not change — Lust is of the heart and mind-- it resides within. And again – we cannot transfer the blame/the cause of our own sin – onto others.

 

[ChiRho]

I am sure Pope XII was a good man. Popes are human too. I am sure more than one Pope in the past would be shocked at the freedom and the rights of women today.

And with a sweep of a hand, you ignore anything you disagree with by saying “he was human”, relegating him as a man of his times. We should treat the words of those who are in the process of canonization and formally declared Venerable (Pope Pius XII) with a bit more thought, even if we do eventually disagree with him.

 

[ChiRho]

And what are some arbitrary, dress rules sought to be imposed by a few supposed to prevent?

Who said they are arbitrary? Ask JP2 and the quote I provided from Love and Responsibility. Obviously it’s supposed to prevent or promote something

 

[Paddy1989]

---

Round and round you go – but in the end Paddy1989 – it will not change — Lust is of the heart and mind-- it resides within. And again – we cannot transfer the blame/the cause of our own sin – onto others.

I have not once attempted to do that but to try and make you understand the immodesty of these fashion’s that are designed to objectify women and maximize sex appeal and how it does just that. That we as Catholic’s should not invoke lust whether it be in our dress or character. Lust is certainly of the heart and mind and we are all tempted by it as other vice’s however invoking it is certainly wrong and that’s what these do

 

[ChiRho]

---

Round and round you go – but in the end Paddy1989 – it will not change — Lust is of the heart and mind-- it resides within. And again – we cannot transfer the blame/the cause of our own sin – onto others.

Instead of accusing people of going “round and round”, you should actually address their arguments: point by point. People have told you numerous times in this thread that they weren’t blaming others, but you still keep posting that as if we’re explicitly saying “it’s everyone else’s fault.” Either show us how we are wrong, or don’t make the accusation. I can’t tell you how irritating it is to make a thoughtful post, explaining one’s point thoroughly and with well-reasoned arguments, and have someone respond “you’re wrong” and repeat the same thing they’ve been saying, not once trying to take the other’s argument point by point and show them where they are wrong. This is what you have been doing this thread. You didn’t address a quote that I posted, perhaps because it specifically debunks some of your arguments.

It’s not fair to people you are debating with to string them on by saying the same thing over and over again, and never actually engage them in debate. I’m not sure if you are doing it on purpose or are unaware of this habit, but it’s not a good tactic for convincing people who disagree with your viewpoint.

 

[Walking_Home]

Severus68:

And what are some arbitrary, dress rules sought to be imposed by a few supposed to prevent?

Who said they are arbitrary? Ask JP2 and the quote I provided from Love and Responsibility. Obviously it’s supposed to prevent or promote something

---

Here is quote from John Paul II that does deal with “modesty”. As you can see – when clothes are worn according to it objective function – we cannot attribute “immodesty”. A girl/woman in a swimsuit at the beach or pool – cannot be deemed to be “immodest” – yet some here would label the girl/woman as “immodest” – showing what “only a husband should see”. Now lets say – a girl/woman wearing a shorts/tank top and even a mini-skirt - walking along minding her own business --to her these are just clothes to wear --this is their objective function – and meant to do nothing other–she would be labeled by some as “immodest”.

Pope John Paul II -------in Love and Responsibility:

While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so.
For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.

 

[Paddy1989]

---

Here is quote from John Paul II that does deal with “modesty”. As you can see – when clothes are worn according to it objective function – we cannot attribute “immodesty”. A girl/woman in a swimsuit at the beach or pool – cannot be deemed to be “immodest” – yet some here would label the girl/woman as “immodest” – showing what “only a husband should see”. Now lets say – a girl/woman wearing a shorts/tank top and even a mini-skirt - walking along minding her own business --to her these are just clothes to wear --this is their objective function – and meant to do nothing other–she would be labeled by some as “immodest”.

I think his point only prove’s what we are saying. First we are talking about fashion’s that are designed to invoke attention to certain area’s of the body. This is very different than a swimsuit that is worn for practical reason’s at a pool or beach. Tell me the practical reason’s for wearing a top for example which partially exposes breast’s or very short miniskirt which barely and sometime’s doesn’t cover her bottom

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Round and round you go – but in the end Paddy1989 – it will not change — Lust is of the heart and mind-- it resides within. And again – we cannot transfer the blame/the cause of our own sin – onto others.

Instead of accusing people of going “round and round”, you should actually address their arguments: point by point.** People have told you numerous times in this thread that they weren’t blaming others, but you still keep posting that as if we’re explicitly saying “it’s everyone else’s fault.**” Either show us how we are wrong, or don’t make the accusation. I can’t tell you how irritating it is to make a thoughtful post, explaining one’s point thoroughly and with well-reasoned arguments, and have someone respond “you’re wrong” and repeat the same thing they’ve been saying, not once trying to take the other’s argument point by point and show them where they are wrong. This is what you have been doing this thread. You didn’t address a quote that I posted, perhaps because it specifically debunks some of your arguments.

It’s not fair to people you are debating with to string them on by saying the same thing over and over again, and never actually engage them in debate. I’m not sure if you are doing it on purpose or are unaware of this habit, but it’s not a good tactic for convincing people who disagree with your viewpoint.

---

Really ChiRho – you say they weren’t blaming others. Well here is Paddy1989’s post. By his words “should not invoke/invoking” – that is what he is doing --transferring the responsibility via the “invoking” onto others-- and yes this transfers the blame.

What I’m seeing is lip service paid to being responsible for our own sin–but in the end – it still comes back to the “immodest” women.

Paddy1989:

I have not once attempted to do that but to try and make you understand the immodesty of these fashion’s that are designed to objectify women and maximize sex appeal and how it does just that. That we as Catholic’s** should not invoke lust** whether it be in our dress or character. Lust is certainly of the heart and mind and we are all tempted by it as other vice’s however invoking it is certainly wrong and that’s what these do

 

[Paddy1989]

---

Really ChiRho – you say they weren’t blaming others. Well here is Paddy1989’s post. By his words “should not invoke/invoking” – that is what he is doing --transferring the responsibility via the “invoking” onto others-- and yes this transfers the blame.

What I’m seeing is lip service paid to being responsible for our own sin–but in the end – it still comes back to the “immodest” women.

Listen if i was to take a women out and try and encourage her to have sex, something let’s say at the beginning she wasn’t intending to do but through manipulation let’s say i’m able to tempt her to where she now is open to it this is itself a sin, it does not excuse the sin if she give’s in but to invoke sin within other’s is certainly a sin in and of itself. What i have done on this thread is recognized the sin in which both men and women play a part, for you however you do not recognize invoking lust as sinful at all and this is what i’m debating with you

 

[severus68]

---

No one in this thread – has approved of porn – just like no one in this thread has approved of planned parenthood – but my – how some of you will use any means – to muddy the waters – and keep devaluing the person – for the clothes they wear. Now if someone does not see the difference between porn and a woman who to them is “immodest” – well that says — much about the state of their mind. That mind is in need of repair.

Exactly!

 

[severus68]

Education is key here and no-one is forcing anyone to change but asking that they abide by Church teaching on modesty due for reason’s of their dignity and value. There IS a reason for these teaching’s and not just done as a mean’s to control women. You stated before that if a man is to look at a immodest dressed woman in Church not because he desire’s to but because as i said these clothe’s are created to draw attention from the male eye then he shouldn’t look at all and should spend more time watching the priest. You have accused the man who eye’s are drawn and therefore is concerned with this sin yet made no appeal for modesty at all here, has he not purity in his heart whenever he does not give into lustful thought’s like many do but is merely concerned that such dress is accepted and worn at Church in the first place. I can assure you when men are concerned about such thing’s just as many women are it is because of the damage that immodesty does to women and how she is therefore generally seen in society. It is not done for some self-righteous reason but to combat the normalizing of women being sexualized and thus them being generally seen in such a way

You say who are we to point out the sin of immodesty on a page where a poster has asked why porn has become so normalized and on purity. Surely you can understand how all this fit’s in to the topic which i explained earlier in which today women’s fashion is nearly primarily aimed at maximizing sex appeal. To be fashionable today is to be sexually appealing. Do you not see the harm this does. Also as for comparing immodesty to sexual act’s depicted in porn, this was aimed at post’s that seemed to imply that some should see immodest dress from a different perspective and that immodesty is merely a creation of the mind, it was said that if a women wore something that paritally exposes her breast’s for example they should not look at it negatively and as immodest but even keep in mind the natural purpose such as in child nurturing. I was merely saying well what if some ask for the same with sexual act’s depicted in porn which is done to invoke sexual stimulation and simply ask to look at it from a different perspetive. I was pointing out the silliness and unrealistic point of the statement by comparing it to another

Also i fail to understand your point on Jesus ministering to those who did not practice immodesty such as prostitute’s for example. Was he therefore acceptive of this behaviour or was he simply opening his arm’s to those in need of him and to embrace them in which if they did accept him would turn away from such thing’s. Do we as Christian’s not do the same and try and bring ourselves and other’s closer to Christ or should we should be acceptive of sin and immodesty?

Likening saying to see breasts for their actual purpse of nourishing a baby to saying to look at porn from a different prespective is absolute rubbish.

Christ looked at the what was in a person. He only commented on externals in relation to hypocrits.

 

[Walking_Home]

I think his point only prove’s what we are saying. First we are talking about fashion’s that are designed to invoke attention to certain area’s of the body. This is very different than a swimsuit that is worn for practical reason’s at a pool or beach. Tell me the practical reason’s for wearing a top for example which partially exposes breast’s or very short miniskirt which barely and sometime’s doesn’t cover her bottom

---

To a man who has made the claim more than once – that a woman should be covered–and that only a husband should see her-- the girl/woman wearing the swimsuit would still be “exposing” even at the beach/pool – for she would more than likely be in the presence of men. So the point that the Pope made – is not the point of the said man.

 

[ChiRho]

---

Here is quote from John Paul II that does deal with “modesty”. As you can see – when clothes are worn according to it objective function – we cannot attribute “immodesty”. A girl/woman in a swimsuit at the beach or pool – cannot be deemed to be “immodest” – yet some here would label the girl/woman as “immodest” – showing what “only a husband should see”. ** Now lets say – a girl/woman wearing a shorts/tank top and even a mini-skirt - walking along minding her own business --to her these are just clothes to wear --this is their objective function – and meant to do nothing other–she would be labeled by some as “immodest”.**

You are almost completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting the pope’s words. The pope goes over several instances where partial nudity or full nudity are typically acceptable: working, bathing, and for a medical examination. It’s obvious that these are good reasons, because it’s sometimes difficult to work in certain attire, hard to bathe when fully clothed, and impossible for certain areas to be examined when clothed.

But simply because something is called a “swimming suit” or a “dress” does mean that is its only objective function. Everyone who wears a small swim suit knows full well that that suit is not for swimming (I’ve yet to see an Olympic swimmer say that wearing a small suit improves the function of swimming, and we all know why).

so for “Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest”, it must also be said that some modes of attire are inherently immodest in public (private is the prerogative of the two married spouses).

As the pope points out in “There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest,** since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment”**, he implies that there are other times where a person’s dress is meant to provoke a reaction. This is especially obvious in the bathing suit industry. If, as the pope says, the function of the modern bathing suit is for bathing, why would such an industry be built around looking sexy? If the function of bathing were truly being served (it is not, it’s merely an unsubstantiated claim you’re making), more focus would be set on the* functionality* of the bathing suit, and less time spent on making sure it strategically covers body parts and doesn’t fall off when someone actually goes for a swim. It is highly ironic that people are more worried about clothes supposedly designed specifically for bathing coming off and undone than their normal clothes, which aren’t custom designed!

If you want to address functionality as it relates to modesty, and then try to claim that low cut, high cut, or mini cut modes of attire are more functional, you’ve got a lot of data to battle. Anyone who has ever worn something extremely tight, form fitting, or exposing knows that in no way did it serve to increase any sort of functionality, other than attracting attention.