Sins against purity/chasity

  • Thread starter Thread starter jason3477
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have also noticed how a few on modesty threads come up with graphic details of what they “see”. To be obsessed with ‘modesty’ of dress but to come up so easily with such words which I would choke on.
 
Hello.

…peer pressure, the media, lack of catechesis, parents not well-catechised, habit, concupiscence, availability, bad example, it’s the agenda of the pornography industry…

Here’s a good website for pornography addiction. It also has some good links.familylifecenter.net/

Many blessings to you.
 
The OP has never added anything else to this thread, yet there are over 200 replies, mostly a debate about whether immodest clothing has anything to do with sin. I think you guys should start your own thread on that topic, since the OP was not really about that but how men get hooked on porn.

🤷
 
severus68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No my point was that your argument was as silly as the one i give for porn, you were suggesting that men should therefore look at women dressed with her breast’s partially exposed and look at the natural purpose of her breast’s. Can you imagine a man staring at a woman’s breast’s in a bus for example and when the woman ask’s what is he staring at he was to give such a remark, she would know damn well it’s nonsense and unrealistic. She would at least understand the basic working of a man’s mind when looking at such a thing. Your not using any logic in your argument’s here at all as it’s unrealistic. Also your second point seem’s to suggest you believe Christ cared not for modesty? I’m sure Mary Magdalene dressed very different when she embraced Christ from when she was a prostitute. As i said Christ did not embrace their behavior but reached out for them to embrace him. With this they would revoke their old way’s and follow Christ. I’m beginning to sense even some Catholic’s have embraced this new age interpretation of the Bible to suit the time’s
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
two sins exist when one intends to tempt another. The person who tempts intentionally is guilty of tempting someone, and the sin of the person who gives into the temptation. This is like to the story of Adam and Eve. The devil tempted them both. Now the devil does only evil. Therefore, tempting someone to sin is sinful.
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are modest bathing suit’s you know? However yes with certain exception’s such as medically for example of course this will be the case where we will be exposed at time’s however lust is never invoked at all and i said is for practical reason’s. However as i said this is very different than invoking lust, as the Pope even said inviting a response, inviting a lustful response toward’s such area’s which is what these fashion’s do is wrong.
 
ChiRho said:
two sins exist when one intends to tempt another. The person who tempts intentionally is guilty of tempting someone, and the sin of the person who gives into the temptation. This is like to the story of Adam and Eve. The devil tempted them both. Now the devil does only evil. Therefore, tempting someone to sin is sinful.
Click to expand...
It seem’s that some here would probably say the devil did no wrong and it was all Adam and Eve’s fault since all he did was tempt them:rolleyes:
 
TheRealJuliane said:
The OP has never added anything else to this thread, yet there are over 200 replies, mostly a debate about whether immodest clothing has anything to do with sin. I think you guys should start your own thread on that topic, since the OP was not really about that but how men get hooked on porn.

🤷
Click to expand...
Well it has to do with sexualization and why it has become so normalized in society in which porn also fit’s in, one of it’s root’s is based on that sex appeal has become the main focus for fashion today whether in movies, music and society in general. It has become normal to lust after other’s
 
ChiRho said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about clothes so tight(form fitting/painted on) that the person can’t breath, sit. Or shorts/skirts that barely cover the bottom. As to swimsuits – growing up near the beach --a swimsuit – and yes even a bikini does not impede swimming and some people also like to get some sun. Now when I say bikini – I don’t mean the ones that are just 3 tiny patches connected by string.

But even when we do encounter people wearing extreme forms of attire – it would not be Christian of us – to see them as something lesser-- to devalue them for what they wear.
 
Walking_Home said:
I am not talking about clothes so tight(form fitting/painted on) that the person can’t breath, sit. Or shorts/skirts that barely cover the bottom. As to swimsuits – growing up near the beach --a swimsuit – and yes even a bikini does not impede swimming and some people also like to get some sun. Now when I say bikini – I don’t mean the ones that are just 3 tiny patches connected by string.

But even when we do encounter people wearing extreme forms of attire – it would not be Christian of us – to see them as something lesser-- to devalue them for what they wear.
Click to expand...
No-one has done this at all, merely we are debating against fashion’s that are designed to sexualize women and invoke a response toward’s certain area’s. If you are in agreement with that which your first paragraph suggest’s then there is nothing really else to debate here
 
Walking_Home said:
As to swimsuits – growing up near the beach --a swimsuit – and yes even a bikini does not impede swimming and some people also like to get some sun.
Click to expand...
maybe there is another reason people like to be wearing fewer clothes: it is attractive to others
Now when I say bikini – I don’t mean the ones that are just 3 tiny patches connected by string.
Click to expand...
why is one fine with you and not the other?
But even when we do encounter people wearing extreme forms of attire – it would not be Christian of us – to see them as something lesser-- to devalue them for what they wear.
Click to expand...
love the sinner, hate the sin
 
ChiRho said:
two sins exist when one intends to tempt another. The person who tempts intentionally is guilty of tempting someone, and the sin of the person who gives into the temptation. This is like to the story of Adam and Eve. The devil tempted them both. Now the devil does only evil. Therefore, tempting someone to sin is sinful.
Click to expand...
One cannot blame the other.
 
No-one has done this at all, merely we are debating against fashion’s that are designed to sexualize women and invoke a response toward’s certain area’s.
Click to expand...
My point here has never been to defend clothes designed to sexualize women. Nor is it to defend women (or men) who choose their clothing with the express purpose of getting others to lust after them, of course that’s wrong. It’s just that I really don’t think most people choose their Mass attire thinking “Hey, if I wear this miniskirt it will make men lust after me, great!”. So, to rail against them for inciting lust is rather unfair, if that’s not what they’re trying to do. Even if the person who designed the clothing did so for a sexual purpose.

There is actually a nice article about this linked from another topic here, which is fairly close to what I think about this.

fisheaters.com/modesty.html

Yes, I think women (and men) should dress in a modest fashion. However, I would really like to know, what people advise here in terms of how to deal with those who dress immodestly, beyond just gossiping and grumbling about them.
 
ChiRho said:
maybe there is another reason people like to be wearing fewer clothes: it is attractive to others

why is one fine with you and not the other?

love the sinner, hate the sin
Click to expand...
Since I am not God – I will not apply what I do not know --to a person.
 
ChiRho said:
You’re perfect severus, teach them to be more like you
Click to expand...
You say we do not reply pont by point to your arguements but the truth is that your ‘arguements’ are just a repitition or a rehashing of your an agenda, to get women to conform to your rules. Sounds controlling to me. Making snarky commments is not futhering any arguement BTW.
 
Walking_Home said:
Since I am not God – I will not apply what I do not know --to a person.
Click to expand...
you already did this when you assumed attire was chosen for benign purposes (sunbathing and swimming), so you’re just being selective or avoiding the obvious conclusion
 
severus68 said:
You say we do not reply pont by point to your arguements but the truth is that your ‘arguements’ are just a repitition or a rehashing of your an agenda, to get women to conform to your rules. Sounds controlling to me.
Click to expand...
Nope, I want men to conform to them too, and they aren’t my rules
Making snarky commments is not futhering any arguement BTW.
Click to expand...
I called you out on a boastful statement, deal with it. If you can re-read it and not realize how it makes you look like a braggart, I’ll PM you more details
 
ChiRho said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
One cannot blame the other.
Click to expand...
Both are wrong, correct.

thanks for the discussion
Click to expand...
Not exactly ChiRho – you see – unless the one being “accused” of “tempting” – made clear that was the “intent” – one cannot say there is wrong doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top