Sins against purity/chasity

[Smugleaf]

---

We should always see the dignity and value of the person – no matter what the person wears. The dignity and true value of the human being is not dependent on how they dress. It is how we think of them in our mind – that attacks and devalues the person. A man – who has been “taught” at some point in his life – that a woman is “immodest” by what she wears — has been “taught” to devalue. For every woman he lays eyes on – he will “categorize” in his mind —as “modest” – “immodest”. Once this devaluing happens–it opens the door – to further “objectify” the person via his own improper thoughts.

And again – placing the responsibility on the body – for inciting improper thoughts – is leading toward manichaeism.

Thank you so, so much for posting this. I have been reading your posts in this thread and I am so happy to see this attitude.

The whole mechanism of say, a man seeing a scantily-clad woman and associating her with sex is conditioning. She’s dressed that way = she’s “easy” = mind strays. It is objectifying and degrading. It’s also not fair on anyone to be 1. responsible for the thoughts of others and 2. to be conditioned to objectify others, especially based on something as superficial as dress.

 

[Paddy1989]

---

We should always see the dignity and value of the person – no matter what the person wears. The dignity and true value of the human being is not dependent on how they dress. It is how we think of them in our mind – that attacks and devalues the person. A man – who has been “taught” at some point in his life – that a woman is “immodest” by what she wears — has been “taught” to devalue. For every woman he lays eyes on – he will “categorize” in his mind —as “modest” – “immodest”. Once this devaluing happens–it opens the door – to further “objectify” the person via his own improper thoughts.

And again – placing the responsibility on the body – for inciting improper thoughts – is leading toward manichaeism.

I do think your argument is silly, modesty is reflected in dress just as much as character and we Catholic’s are very much instructed on this. It would be the same let’s say if a woman behaved immodest such as exposes her body or engages in sexual behavior in public you are of the mind that any man or woman who see’s this as immodest is simply taught so. No Catholic devalue’s this woman but simply believe’s that certain area’s of her body should only be seen by their husband

 

[Paddy1989]

---

Custody of the eyes – is centered on the one doing the looking — and not on the one being looked at. To say that how a person dresses-- which comes down to the amount of the body exposed – is the cause of a negative reaction (lust) in another person — is to fall into the manichaean mentality of giving to the body a negative value – a “badness”-- which causes the negative reaction.

If someone reveal’s part’s of their body by which in it’s very appearance can cause sexual excitement and incite lust because it causes one to look at the sexual appearance of another stranger then how can this not be negative. You fail to understand that there is no such thing as a button in a man’s head that can turn on or off when looking at certain area’s and trust me any Catholic man will not want to see these area’s of other women, only their wife

 

[Walking_Home]

Surely God Himself was not exhibiting Manichaeism when He provided clothing for Adam and Eve after the fall from grace. The body is wonderful but our fallen state is not immune to sin. For their own benefit, God provided their coverings…He certainly has no distain for the human body.

---

God was not exhibiting Manichaeism — but non the less – Manichaesim did happen-- and it did give a negative attribute to the material world including the human body. We are called to have a Christ like attitude towards others as Christ cares for the them – and this means going beyond what is worn – to see the true value of the human being.

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Madison Square Garden, New York Wednesday, 3 October 1979

Dear young people,

I am happy to be with you in Madison Square Garden. Today this is a garden of life, where young people are alive: alive with hope and love, alive with the life of Christ. And it is in the name of Christ that I greet each one of you today.

I have been told that most of you come from Catholic high schools. For this reason I would like to say something about Catholic education, to tell you why the Church considers it so important and expends so much energy in order to provide you and millions of other young people with a Catholic education. The answer can be summarized in one word, in one person, Jesus Christ. The Church wants to communicate Christ to you.

1. This is what education is all about, this is the meaning of life: to know Christ. To know Christ as a friend: as someone who cares about you and the person next to you, and all the people here and everywhere—no matter what language they speak, or what clothes they wear, or what color their skin is.

And so the purpose of Catholic education is to communicate Christ to you, so that your attitude toward others will be that of Christ. You are approaching that stage in your life when you must take personal responsibility for your own destiny. Soon you will be making major decisions which will affect the whole course of your life. If these decisions reflect Christ’s attitude, then your education will be a success.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1979/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19791003_ny-madison-square-garden_en.html

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

We should always see the dignity and value of the person – no matter what the person wears. The dignity and true value of the human being is not dependent on how they dress. It is how we think of them in our mind – that attacks and devalues the person. A man – who has been “taught” at some point in his life – that a woman is “immodest” by what she wears — has been “taught” to devalue. For every woman he lays eyes on – he will “categorize” in his mind —as “modest” – “immodest”. Once this devaluing happens–it opens the door – to further “objectify” the person via his own improper thoughts.

And again – placing the responsibility on the body – for inciting improper thoughts – is leading toward manichaeism.

I do think your argument is silly, modesty is reflected in dress just as much as character and we Catholic’s are very much instructed on this. It would be the same let’s say if a woman behaved immodest such as exposes her body or engages in sexual behavior in public you are of the mind that any man or woman who see’s this as immodest is simply taught so. No Catholic devalue’s this woman but simply believe’s that certain area’s of her body should only be seen by their husband

Paddy1989:

If someone reveal’s part’s of their body by which in it’s very appearance can cause sexual excitement and incite lust because it causes one to look at the sexual appearance of another stranger then how can this not be negative. You fail to understand that there is no such thing as a button in a man’s head that can turn on or off when looking at certain area’s and trust me any Catholic man will not want to see these area’s of other women, only their wife

---

The only silliness – is to what extent – some are willing to go -to shift responsibility from the one with the lustful look – to the one being looked at.

 

[severus68]

Thank you so, so much for posting this. I have been reading your posts in this thread and I am so happy to see this attitude.

The whole mechanism of say, a man seeing a scantily-clad woman and associating her with sex is conditioning. She’s dressed that way = she’s “easy” = mind strays. It is objectifying and degrading. It’s also not fair on anyone to be 1. responsible for the thoughts of others and 2. to be conditioned to objectify others, especially based on something as superficial as dress.

I agree.

 

[severus68]

Have you ever SEEN people in a nudist camp??? Old wrinkly men and women!!

I give up, think whatever you will.

How often do you go to observe people at nudist camps? So old people cannot incite lust only the young and beautiful?

Do you find women struggling with young children and old women with loose bras and straps particularly funny? I thought that according to you, bra straps incite lust?

 

[severus68]

If someone reveal’s part’s of their body by which in it’s very appearance can cause sexual excitement and incite lust because it causes one to look at the sexual appearance of another stranger then how can this not be negative. You fail to understand that there is no such thing as a button in a man’s head that can turn on or off when looking at certain area’s and trust me any Catholic man will not want to see these area’s of other women, only their wife

You fail to understand that not all men, even Catholic men have their tongues hanging out at the sight of a woman’s knees, arms, shoulders whatever.

 

[severus68]

---

Custody of the eyes – is centered on the one doing the looking — and not on the one being looked at. To say that how a person dresses-- which comes down to the amount of the body exposed – is the cause of a negative reaction (lust) in another person — is to fall into the manichaean mentality of giving to the body a negative value – a “badness”-- which causes the negative reaction.

 

[Smugleaf]

You fail to understand that not all men, even Catholic men have their tongues hanging out at the sight of a woman’s knees, arms, shoulders whatever.

Agreed. The view that men are instantly (and constantly) aroused is unfair and sexist towards them.

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

The only silliness – is to what extent – some are willing to go -to shift responsibility from the one with the lustful look – to the one being looked at.

It is interesting how some now argue not against a particular form of modest dress, but against any need for modest dress at all, even denying that such a thing as modest or immodest dress exists at all. That people are seriously arguing that it’s fine for Catholics to walk around naked because anyone aroused by nudity simply lacks self control is in a few words:

-absurd
-ridiculous
-totally non-Catholic

Custody of the eyes IS about the person looking. Modesty in dress is about the person dressing. Both are important.

The logical conclusion of this absurd position is that there is nothing wrong with a man or a woman posing for pornographic photographs. If they want to be naked, that’s there choice. If someone looks at the photos and sins, that is their problem.

When I hear the chorus of “don’t blame me for your sin! I can do whatever I want” I hear Cain asking God “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Pax Christi

 

[L_piperatus]

Custody of the eyes IS about the person looking. Modesty in dress is about the person dressing. Both are important.

This is also how I understand it. We have a duty to guard our eyes, and also a duty to dress modestly. We simultaneously have to comply with both of these requirements, as they have been handed down to us by authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

The only silliness – is to what extent – some are willing to go -to shift responsibility from the one with the lustful look – to the one being looked at.

It is interesting how some now argue not against a particular form of modest dress, but against any need for modest dress at all, even denying that such a thing as modest or immodest dress exists at all. **That people are seriously arguing that it’s fine for Catholics to walk around naked **because anyone aroused by nudity simply lacks self control is in a few words:

-absurd
-ridiculous
-totally non-Catholic

Custody of the eyes IS about the person looking. Modesty in dress is about the person dressing. Both are important.

The logical conclusion of this absurd position is that there is nothing wrong with a man or a woman posing for pornographic photographs. If they want to be naked, that’s there choice. If someone looks at the photos and sins, that is their problem.

When I hear the chorus of “don’t blame me for your sin! I can do whatever I want” I hear Cain asking God “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Pax Christi

---

Don’t put words – in people’s mouths – that were never said. The absurdity – is to what length – you and your kind will go. No one here has said pornography is “ok” – or that we should all be walking around naked. The truth of the matter – is that yes – custody of eyes – is centered on the person doing the looking. And frankly – I do believe a Manichaean mentality is taking hold – for some of you walk around – viewing everything through the eyes of darkness.

 

[Walking_Home]

severus68:

You fail to understand that not all men, even Catholic men have their tongues hanging out at the sight of a woman’s knees, arms, shoulders whatever.

Agreed. The view that men are instantly (and constantly) aroused is unfair and sexist towards them.

---

Ditto.

 

[nonanon]

---

Don’t put words – in people’s mouths – that were never said. The absurdity – is to what length – you and your kind will go. No one here has said pornography is “ok” – or that we should all be walking around naked. The truth of the matter – is that yes – custody of eyes – is centered on the person doing the looking. And frankly – I do believe a Manichaean mentality is taking hold – for some of you walk around – viewing everything through the eyes of darkness.

I think Dan has a point–it does sound as though you’re arguing that there is no such thing as “immodest” dress. Can you clarify that?

 

[Bearontherun]

I think Dan has a point–it does sound as though you’re arguing that there is no such thing as “immodest” dress. Can you clarify that?

I look forward to hearing an answer to that one as well. Thanks for bringing it up.

Twice I have asked…

Do clothing choices have any role to play in practicing the virtue of modesty in your opinion?

It is yet to be answered

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Don’t put words – in people’s mouths – that were never said. The absurdity – is to what length – you and your kind will go. No one here has said pornography is “ok” – or that we should all be walking around naked. The truth of the matter – is that yes – custody of eyes – is centered on the person doing the looking. And frankly – I do believe a Manichaean mentality is taking hold – for some of you walk around – viewing everything through the eyes of darkness.

I think Dan has a point–it does sound as though you’re arguing that there is no such thing as “immodest” dress. Can you clarify that?

---

Keep in mind – that modesty varies from culture to culture. “Modesty” --will even be “dependent” on — who is doing the talking. There are even some “Traditionalists” – whose “idea” of “modesty” is to totally obliterate the female form – under long sleeved/ankle length/to the neck --loose layers of clothing-- transforming the woman into a shapeless lump. Anything less --is “immodest”. To others mid-calf/short sleeved/inch or so from the neck – is “modest” – anything less is not. Some consider slacks on a woman as “immodest”. So you see “modesty” varies upon who is doing the looking – and they will turn it – and blame “improper” thoughts on the woman. The ones whose idea of “modesty” – is turning a woman into a shapeless lump – will point at a woman wearing mid-calf/short sleeved – as “immodest” – “inciting” “improper” thoughts.

I am not saying that going around with the behind hanging out is ok – but that we need to work on ourselves – to see the true human being – in each person – so that when one sees another – lust will not be in the forefront.

 

[Bearontherun]

---

I am not saying that going around with the behind hanging out is ok – but that we need to work on ourselves – to see the true human being – in each person – so that when one sees another – lust will not be in the forefront.

Thanks for that and I do agree.

 

[nonanon]

---

Keep in mind – that modesty varies from culture to culture. “Modesty” --will even be “dependent” on — who is doing the talking. There are even some “Traditionalists” – whose “idea” of “modesty” is to totally obliterate the female form – under long sleeved/ankle length/to the neck --loose layers of clothing-- transforming the woman into a shapeless lump. Anything less --is “immodest”. To others mid-calf/short sleeved/inch or so from the neck – is “modest” – anything less is not. Some consider slacks on a woman as “immodest”. So you see “modesty” varies upon who is doing the looking – and they will turn it – and blame “improper” thoughts on the woman. The ones whose idea of “modesty” – is turning a woman into a shapeless lump – will point at a woman wearing mid-calf/short sleeved – as “immodest” – “inciting” “improper” thoughts.

I am not saying that going around with the behind hanging out is ok – but that we need to work on ourselves – to see the true human being – in each person – so that when one sees another – lust will not be in the forefront.

Thanks–that helped a lot.

I agree that there is a lot of subjectivity in defining “modesty”, and I think we all need to be aware of differences between the sexes in this. Women shouldn’t feel restricted into only uncomfortable or “oppressive” clothing out of concerns for men’s reactions, but men shouldn’t be forced or distracted into the near occasion of sin by women’s clothing choices, given our generally more easily visually stimulated nature.

It’s hard to define precisely, but I think that somewhere there is a mutually respectful Christian middle ground that both are called to seek in different ways.

 

[Walking_Home]

Thanks–that helped a lot.

I agree that there is a lot of subjectivity in defining “modesty”, and I think we all need to be aware of differences between the sexes in this. Women shouldn’t feel restricted into only uncomfortable or “oppressive” clothing out of concerns for men’s reactions, but men shouldn’t be forced or distracted into the near occasion of sin by women’s clothing choices, given our generally more easily visually stimulated nature.

It’s hard to define precisely, but I think that somewhere there is a mutually respectful Christian middle ground that both are called to seek in different ways.

---

But you see – the man’s "distraction’ is based on the darkness of his own mind and not on the person being looked at. This is why each individual person – needs to work – in purifying the heart and mind – so that when we look at another – we will not see a “stimulating” object–but the true human being – that each and every person is.