Sins against purity/chasity

[Paddy1989]

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.

No that was not my point, my point was that if a woman expose’s specific area’s of her body through revealing clothing that such as her breast’s or bottom no man will look at such a thing as indifferent. A Catholic man would usually avoid looking not because it arouse’s him but because he feel’s the full beauty of a woman’s body should only be seen by her husband. A secularist in many cases will lustfully look at her. If a man let’s say was to walk down the street and i know this might sound silly but for point of argument he is wearing tight trouser’s so that his bulge is clearly visible, do you think when a woman’s eye is automatically drawn to this she will look at it with indifference? Also let’s not forget that some of these fashion’s were created to sexualize women and many of them by men, by defending these fashion’s as innocent you are defending the men and their reason’s for creating them imo. Why not side with the men who truly do care about a woman’s beauty, value and dignity?

 

[severus68]

---

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.

Very well said.

 

[severus68]

No that was not my point, my point was that if a woman expose’s specific area’s of her body through revealing clothing that such as her breast’s or bottom no man will look at such a thing as indifferent. A Catholic man would usually avoid looking not because it arouse’s him but because he feel’s the full beauty of a woman’s body should only be seen by her husband. A secularist in many cases will lustfully look at her. If a man let’s say was to walk down the street and i know this might sound silly but for point of argument he is wearing tight trouser’s so that his bulge is clearly visible, do you think when a woman’s eye is automatically drawn to this she will look at it with indifference? Also let’s not forget that some of these fashion’s were created to sexualize women and many of them by men, by defending these fashion’s as innocent you are defending the men and their reason’s for creating them imo. Why not side with the men who truly do care about a woman’s beauty, value and dignity?

Firstly, do you really think all and only Catholic men are saints? I am sure there are many non Catholics and other Christians who are good people. A man and a woman should look at a person as a person not as a sexual object. I am on the side of men and women who value evey person as a person.

 

[nonanon]

---

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.

I think this post shows insensitivity and misunderstanding of male sexuality. There are strong unconcious, visually-triggered physiological responses involved–these are part of God-given male sexuality, serve a natural purpose, and are good, not evil. In my experience, charitable Christian women are sensitive to these natural responses and avoid abusing them.

 

[severus68]

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.

Both men and women should work on seeing people as people, not focus on the externals and not use excuses like their natures.

 

[nonanon]

Both men and women should work on seeing people as people, not focus on the externals and not use excuses like their natures.

If you choose to see a men’s sexual nature as an “excuse” rather than an integral part of God’s creation, I think you’re not really seeing them as people.

 

[ssa_trad_cath]

I was wondering, why do a lot of men/young men get sucked into watching porn and hooked???

For me it was becasue my Parents never instructed me about sexuality-and they weren’t practicing catholics…

I apologise if what I’m going to say has already been said - I haven’t had time to read all the posts! And I’m not trying to give a complete answer, just one possible reason. I think part of the problem may be the differences between men and women (I think I should mention here I have a BSc in Psychology). Men, on average (important qualification), tend to be more dependant on visual imagery than women to produce sexual arousal. Notice I say on average - that doesn’t mean to say that there aren’t some women who need it as well. So the porn industry is perfectly suited to appeal to men’s sexuality.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Uh, how did this turn into a modesty topic?

You know, the whole hypothetical of a woman running around naked; I can actually think of a situation when that’s acceptable. There have been cases of women escaping criminals who kidnap them for sexual purposes, human trafficking, etc. Sometimes, they literally have to run down the street naked, or at least dressed like a hooker, in order to escape from their captors. I’d hope that if a man were to see that, his first reaction wouldn’t be to become sexually aroused himself. Or that even if it was, that he’d curb that reaction after figuring out that there’s something seriously wrong going on and that the woman needs help.

Also, I think there’s a big difference between blaming a man for a natural physical reaction to certain stimuli, which I agree is unfair, and pointing out that it is never good for a man (or woman) to objectify someone else. That is not part of God-given sexuality for anyone. The traditional cultural double standard that it’s “normal” for men to “sow their wild oats” and that women bear all of the responsibility for enforcing sexual mores, is not part of Catholic teaching either.

As for the culpability of those in the porn industry…I recall a topic a few months back in which a woman kept posting about how angry and frustrated she was that her son was dating a former stripper. She made it very clear that she saw this woman as dirty, polluted, filthy, etc. Basically, as a lesser grade of human being. Yet, when a poster said something along the lines of “I hope he’s not having sex with her”, the response was “Of course he is, I’m sure he wouldn’t be with her if he wasn’t getting it. Girls give it up much too easily these days, LOL!”

I was actually surprised at how honest this woman was, in absolving her son of all responsibility of his own sexual sins, and putting all of the blame on the woman. She even posted that her hope was that her son was just in the relationship for “fun” and would tire of her soon. She seemed to think that a “loose woman” deserved to be used and abused. Which some people here seem to think, too. That if a woman dresses a certain way, then she’s asking for men to behave inappropriately toward her. I’ve even seen the occasional poster state that women who dress in a certain way are responsible for being raped.

The idea seems to be, of course a man is going to take sex when it’s offered, that’s part of male nature, not a sin. But, female nature is NOT sexual, and hence when a woman acts out sexually, she’s a dirty whore who bears all of the responsibility for what happens, because she should know better.

I hope I’m not the only one who sees this kind of attitude as sexist against both men and women?

Which isn’t to say that women don’t have a responsibility to dress and act modestly. Just that, well, it takes two to tango, KWIM?

 

[nonanon]

Uh, how did this turn into a modesty topic?

Umm…don’t all threads eventually go that way?

I don’t think the “escapee” example, while interesting, sheds much light in the “modesty” topic because it’s such an unusual situation. I think most men can easily control their responses and not “objectify” in an unusual case like this, but the challenges of “every day” immodesty are very different.

Also, I think there’s a big difference between blaming a man for a natural physical reaction to certain stimuli, which I agree is unfair, and pointing out that it is never good for a man (or woman) to objectify someone else.

Thank you–exactly the distinction I’ve been trying to make. It seems to me that many posters (not just on this thread) jump to the conclusion that any male sexual response to a woman’s appearance means he has sinned or objectified her. That’s simply not true. We’ve got to be careful to distinguish natural unconcious sexual responses from sexual behavior.

The idea seems to be, of course a man is going to take sex when it’s offered, that’s part of male nature, not a sin. But, female nature is NOT sexual, and hence when a woman acts out sexually, she’s a dirty whore who bears all of the responsibility for what happens, because she should know better.

I hope I’m not the only one who sees this kind of attitude as sexist against both men and women?

Which isn’t to say that women don’t have a responsibility to dress and act modestly. Just that, well, it takes two to tango, KWIM?

I agree that the views described are sexist. But in my experience, the sexist views on culpability (“not a sin” above) are more widely held by women than men. While they may not readily admit it (e.g. WJ Clinton), I think that men really know that “taking sex whenever offered” as described above is wrong, and that they are at least as culpable as the woman. But it seems to me that the harshest judgments against the women involved in such a situation come not from men, but from other women. As in your example, where the sexist judgment against the “loose” woman came from a woman.

So there are sexist views, but they aren’t held exclusively by men. I completely agree–two to tango. And the Church rightly calls both sexes to more mutually respectful attitudes and behavior.

 

[severus68]

Uh, how did this turn into a modesty topic?

You know, the whole hypothetical of a woman running around naked; I can actually think of a situation when that’s acceptable. There have been cases of women escaping criminals who kidnap them for sexual purposes, human trafficking, etc. Sometimes, they literally have to run down the street naked, or at least dressed like a hooker, in order to escape from their captors. I’d hope that if a man were to see that, his first reaction wouldn’t be to become sexually aroused himself. Or that even if it was, that he’d curb that reaction after figuring out that there’s something seriously wrong going on and that the woman needs help.

Also, I think there’s a big difference between blaming a man for a natural physical reaction to certain stimuli, which I agree is unfair, and pointing out that it is never good for a man (or woman) to objectify someone else. That is not part of God-given sexuality for anyone. The traditional cultural double standard that it’s “normal” for men to “sow their wild oats” and that women bear all of the responsibility for enforcing sexual mores, is not part of Catholic teaching either.

As for the culpability of those in the porn industry…I recall a topic a few months back in which a woman kept posting about how angry and frustrated she was that her son was dating a former stripper. She made it very clear that she saw this woman as dirty, polluted, filthy, etc. Basically, as a lesser grade of human being. Yet, when a poster said something along the lines of “I hope he’s not having sex with her”, the response was “Of course he is, I’m sure he wouldn’t be with her if he wasn’t getting it. Girls give it up much too easily these days, LOL!”

I was actually surprised at how honest this woman was, in absolving her son of all responsibility of his own sexual sins, and putting all of the blame on the woman. She even posted that her hope was that her son was just in the relationship for “fun” and would tire of her soon. She seemed to think that a “loose woman” deserved to be used and abused. Which some people here seem to think, too. That if a woman dresses a certain way, then she’s asking for men to behave inappropriately toward her. I’ve even seen the occasional poster state that women who dress in a certain way are responsible for being raped.

The idea seems to be, of course a man is going to take sex when it’s offered, that’s part of male nature, not a sin. But, female nature is NOT sexual, and hence when a woman acts out sexually, she’s a dirty whore who bears all of the responsibility for what happens, because she should know better.

I hope I’m not the only one who sees this kind of attitude as sexist against both men and women?

Which isn’t to say that women don’t have a responsibility to dress and act modestly. Just that, well, it takes two to tango, KWIM?

Well said.

 

[severus68]

If you choose to see a men’s sexual nature as an “excuse” rather than an integral part of God’s creation, I think you’re not really seeing them as people.

Both men and women have sexual natures too which are good. However, saying it is the sexual nature of men that makes them can’t help themselves is the excuse.

 

[nonanon]

Both men and women have sexual natures too which are good. However, saying it is the sexual nature of men that makes them can’t help themselves is the excuse.

Did anyone say that? I didn’t.

 

[tvdxer]

Most males start masturbating, looking at pornography, and thinking impure thoughts before they learn definitively that these are sins - if they ever learn this at all. I would say that most start doing these things around the age of 10 - 12. It’s hard to stay pure when you’re surrounded by impurity, but immeasurably more difficult when you already have ingrained unchaste habits - masturbation, internet pornography, fantasies, etc. - which tend to be VERY hard to kick.

I think it’s partly a lack of timely catechesis, but on the other hand, if all boys (and girls) were instructed on this before they started committing these sins, how many would obey? Would there not be more who would find the flesh just too enticing?

 

[L_piperatus]

I think those posters who say things like “a man should not sexualise a scantily clad woman when he looks at her” are living in la-la-land. It’s a matter of spiritual survival for the man to immediately avert his eyes and look elsewhere, as soon as he realizes that the woman is not dressed appropriately. There’s no such thing as “when he looks at her”, as far as a prudent man looking at a woman dressed immodestly.

I don’t know how about the other way around, i.e. women confronted with scantily clad men, but what I said about a man’s need not to look at women dressed to tempt, that’s just plain truth and biblically based. See for example the Book of Job - he made a covenant with his own eyes not to look at other women than his wife. He didn’t make a covenant with his eyes to “not sexualise other women when he looks at them”, or any such silliness. He made a covenant not to look, period.

This is also why it is so incredibly rude and insensitive towards other churchgoers, to show up in church dressed inappropriately - because there are large numbers of people confined in a small space, which makes it very hard for those who are trying to guard their eyes, to look away from the scandal that’s all around them. When somebody is right in front of you, within less than 2 feet, you have very little space left where to avert your eyes. And you must avert your eyes, because looking at someone exposing their body is just not an option.

P.S. I haven’t mentioned the Priest. What is he going to do, with an endless procession of breasts, put on display with push-up bras and really deep cleavages, which is one of the more shameful aspects of Church life in the Catholic Church in the USA? “Do not sexualise when he looks at 'em” is not an option! He must avert his eyes while serving communion to these people! He must serve them while simultaneously looking somewhere else than what they so willingly parade and display right into his face! And that’s deeply offensive, frankly, towards our Priests, to parade like that in front of them.

 

[Paddy1989]

I think those posters who say things like “a man should not sexualise a scantily clad woman when he looks at her” are living in la-la-land. It’s a matter of spiritual survival for the man to immediately avert his eyes and look elsewhere, as soon as he realizes that the woman is not dressed appropriately. There’s no such thing as “when he looks at her”, as far as a prudent man looking at a woman dressed immodestly.

I don’t know how about the other way around, i.e. women confronted with scantily clad men, but what I said about a man’s need not to look at women dressed to tempt, that’s just plain truth and biblically based. See for example the Book of Job - he made a covenant with his own eyes not to look at other women than his wife. He didn’t make a covenant with his eyes to “not sexualise other women when he looks at them”, or any such silliness. He made a covenant not to look, period.

This is also why it is so incredibly rude and insensitive towards other churchgoers, to show up in church dressed inappropriately - because there are large numbers of people confined in a small space, which makes it very hard for those who are trying to guard their eyes, to look away from the scandal that’s all around them. When somebody is right in front of you, within less than 2 feet, you have very little space left where to avert your eyes. And you must avert your eyes, because looking at someone exposing their body is just not an option.

P.S. I haven’t mentioned the Priest. What is he going to do, with an endless procession of breasts, put on display with push-up bras and really deep cleavages, which is one of the more shameful aspects of Church life in the Catholic Church in the USA? “Do not sexualise when he looks at 'em” is not an option! He must avert his eyes while serving communion to these people! He must serve them while simultaneously looking somewhere else than what they so willingly parade and display right into his face! And that’s deeply offensive, frankly, towards our Priests, to parade like that in front of them.

100% True. This is not hard to understand, just some don’t want to accept it, as i said how this fits in with the like’s of pornography and how it’s normalized is because our mind’s have become sexualized. When we see sex appeal primarily as what’s aimed for in today’s fashion is it so hard to see why it’s become normalized

 

[Walking_Home]

when he looks at her" are living in la-la-land. It’s a matter of spiritual survival for the man to immediately avert his eyes and look elsewhere, as soon as he realizes that the woman is not dressed appropriately. There’s no such thing as “when he looks at her”, as far as a prudent man looking at a woman dressed immodestly.

I don’t know how about the other way around, i.e. women confronted with scantily clad men, but what I said about a man’s need not to look at women dressed to tempt, that’s just plain truth and biblically based. See for example the Book of Job - he made a covenant with his own eyes not to look at other women than his wife. He didn’t make a covenant with his eyes to “not sexualise other women when he looks at them”, or any such silliness. He made a covenant not to look, period.

---

For a man who supposedly — “immediately averts his eyes” — you take in quite a lot of details. I mean – from what you have posted prior on the supposed “immodesty” which you have 'seen". It has ranged from a picture of woman in a magazine --wearing some kind of coat – which you went on to say – you felt there was nothing underneath – to and a bride and her brides-maids – taking pictures --and certain body parts on the verge of 'slipping".

 

[Walking_Home]

I think those posters who say things like “a man should not sexualise a scantily clad woman when he looks at her” are living in la-la-land. It’s a matter of spiritual survival for the man to immediately avert his eyes and look elsewhere, as soon as he realizes that the woman is not dressed appropriately. There’s no such thing as “when he looks at her”, as far as a prudent man looking at a woman dressed immodestly.

I don’t know how about the other way around, i.e. women confronted with scantily clad men, but what I said about a man’s need not to look at women dressed to tempt, that’s just plain truth and biblically based. See for example the Book of Job - he made a covenant with his own eyes not to look at other women than his wife. He didn’t make a covenant with his eyes to “not sexualise other women when he looks at them”, or any such silliness. He made a covenant not to look, period.

This is also why it is so incredibly rude and insensitive towards other churchgoers, to show up in church dressed inappropriately - because there are large numbers of people confined in a small space, which makes it very hard for those who are trying to guard their eyes, to look away from the scandal that’s all around them. When somebody is right in front of you, within less than 2 feet, you have very little space left where to avert your eyes. And you must avert your eyes, because looking at someone exposing their body is just not an option.

P.S.** I haven’t mentioned the Priest. What is he going to do, with an endless procession of breasts, put on display with push-up bras and really deep cleavages, which is one of the more shameful aspects of Church life in the Catholic Church in the USA? “Do not sexualise when he looks at 'em**” is not an option! He must avert his eyes while serving communion to these people! He must serve them while simultaneously looking somewhere else than what they so willingly parade and display right into his face! And that’s deeply offensive, frankly, towards our Priests, to parade like that in front of them.

---

What is a priest to do – purify his heart and mind – just like** You **and I and everyone is called to do. Even if everyone at Mass was “modestly” dressed – at some point the priests need to venture out into society. Purity of the heart and mind – will not lend itself – to being drawn to “improper thoughts” – or going around – making mental notes on this “immodesty” – that “immodesty” – how low, --how high etc. etc.

 

[severus68]

---

What is a priest to do – purify his heart and mind – just like** You **and I and everyone is called to do. Even if everyone at Mass was “modestly” dressed – at some point the priests need to venture out into society. Purity of the heart and mind – will not lend itself – to being drawn to “improper thoughts” – or going around – making mental notes on this “immodesty” – that “immodesty” – how low, --how high etc. etc.

Good post. I also thought of something else. Perhaps for those who feel that their eyes and minds are bombarded with breasts should just think about how women’s breasts have nourished most of them and perhaps their thought process will change.

 

[Paddy1989]

Good post. I also thought of something else. Perhaps for those who feel that their eyes and minds are bombarded with breasts should just think about how women’s breasts have nourished most of them and perhaps their thought process will change.

Or perhap’s women don’t wear clothing that exposes their breast’s, that’s all we’re saying

 

[Bearontherun]

---

What is a priest to do – purify his heart and mind – just like** You **and I and everyone is called to do. Even if everyone at Mass was “modestly” dressed – at some point the priests need to venture out into society. Purity of the heart and mind – will not lend itself – to being drawn to “improper thoughts” – or going around – making mental notes on this “immodesty” – that “immodesty” – how low, --how high etc. etc.

I guess my priest recognizes that although we strive to be perfect:angel1:, we are imperfect human beings:doh2:.

As the warm weather approaches he has a reminder printed in the bulletin mentioning which forms of dress are appropriate for mass and which are not.