The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

[Nate13]

I’m not sure, I don’t know enough about their cultures. I know that some indigenous tribes are very sexist, and I know that others view women with great respect because they are the gender that bears children. What exactly is your point? Besides, you didn’t answer my initial question on that post.

My point is how do you know that their nakedness or half nakedness does not play “a negative role with regard to the value of the person”? The circumstances by themselves in many of those villages is enough to conclude that the value of human life is wanting in many cases.

Anyway, women will always be “objectified by some,” regardless of what they are wearing or not wearing. Look at the Taliban for example. Covered from head to foot but treated as property, not a person.

Correct, thus my point earlier that at some point the blame stops being split between the men and women, and becomes fully the men’s fault.

 

[Debora123]

My point is how do you know that their nakedness or half nakedness does not play “a negative role with regard to the value of the person”?

Um… well first and foremost, it’s common knowledge that the toplessness of tribal women is seen as a normal thing for them, not as a sexual thing. It’s in their culture. The tribal men don’t walk around all aroused due to the women being topless all the time.

By the way, you still have not answered my question.

 

[Debora123]

Um… well first and foremost, it’s common knowledge that the toplessness of tribal women is seen as a normal thing for them, not as a sexual thing. It’s in their culture. The tribal men don’t walk around all aroused due to the women being topless all the time.

By the way, you still have not answered my question.

Also, if they had viewed it as being a sexual thing, they would not have gone topless to JPII’s mass.

 

[Nate13]

Um… well first and foremost, it’s common knowledge that the toplessness of tribal women is seen as a normal thing for them, not as a sexual thing. It’s in their culture. The tribal men don’t walk around all aroused due to the women being topless all the time.

By the way, you still have not answered my question.

See post #197.

 

[Debora123]

Correct, thus my point earlier that at some point the blame stops being split between the men and women, and becomes fully the men’s fault.

Ok?

I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t see how it refutes my point. There are always going to be men that are going to lust. Even in countries that force women to cover up from head to foot. In fact, ESPECIALLY in those countries.

 

[Debora123]

I’m answering it. How do you know it does not arouse any lustful thoughts or temptations whatsoever? Of course they are not all walking around physically excited. Being exposed to nakedness constantly will do that. Porn addicts after a point are not sexually excited just by seeing nakedness.

Are you seriously comparing tribal men who live with topless women and don’t view breasts as a sexual thing, to porn addicts??

C’mon Nate. An intelligent poster as yourself can do better than that.

 

[Nate13]

Ok?

I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t see how it refutes my point. There are always going to be men that are going to lust. Even in countries that force women to cover up from head to foot. In fact, ESPECIALLY in those countries.

Whats’ your point? We are all going to lust anyways so wear however much or little as you want?

 

[Nate13]

Are you seriously comparing tribal men who live with topless women and don’t view breasts as a sexual thing, to porn addicts??

C’mon Nate. An intelligent poster as yourself can do better than that.

No, I comparing the well-known fact that people exposed to pornography repeatedly will become more and more immune to it. Immunity to the value of nakedness does not make it any less a sin to not value it.

 

[Debora123]

Whats’ your point? We are all going to lust anyways so wear however much or little as you want?

NO! (though it did appear to be yours in the recent post)

I’ve stated my point many times. My point, to put as simply as possible has been THIS the whole time:

Nakedness itself is not immodest… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.

 

[Debora123]

No, I comparing the well-known fact that people exposed to pornography repeatedly will become more and more immune to it. Immunity to the value of nakedness does not make it any less a sin to not value it.

But you’re totally not getting it.

Porn is a sexual thing. It is MEANT to arouse. That’s why people use it.

Breasts (in tribal communities) are NOT seen as sexual.

If you are still honestly not seeing a difference between the 2, then there is nothing else I can say to help you see that.

 

[Nate13]

NO! (though it did appear to be yours in the recent post)

I’ve stated my point many times. My point, to put as simply as possible has been THIS the whole time:

You posted about Muslim women when I asked to respond how you knew that nakedness in these places did not play “a negative role with regard to the value of the person”.

Essentially saying lust always exists therefore why attempt to do anything about it. I know this is not what you meant, but your example falls short of providing an answer as to how you know public nudity in these places does not play a negative role with regard to the value of the human person.

Did you know polygamy is a widely found occurrence in African tribes?

 

[Debora123]

You posted about Muslim women when I asked to respond how you knew that nakedness in these places did not play “a negative role with regard to the value of the person”.

Essentially saying lust always exists therefore why attempt to do anything about it. I know this is not what you meant, but your example falls short of providing an answer as to how you know public nudity in these places does not play a negative role with regard to the value of the human person.

Ok Nate. For arguments sake, lets say that we actually DON’T KNOW whether or not the toplessness of the tribal women arouses lust in the tribal men.

So, we don’t know. Therefore it’s impossible to say that we know for sure whether it is modest or immodest in their culture. We must then move on with our lives and leave it up to God to know for sure whether or not there is sin of immodesty taking place in such situation.

Yes?

 

[Nate13]

Ok Nate. For arguments sake, lets say that we actually DON’T KNOW whether or not the toplessness of the tribal women arouses lust in the tribal men.

So, we don’t know. Therefore it’s impossible to say that we know for sure whether it is modest or immodest in their culture. We must then move on with our lives and leave it up to God to know for sure whether or not there is sin of immodesty taking place in such situation.

Yes?

If you can provide cases that show where a moral society that values the dignity of the human person is upheld as well as public nudity/partial nudity is also common, and that it is not the far reaching exception to the rule and is quite common, I will concede the point.

In absence of that happening though I will continue with my belief that public nudity for sure will never add to upholding the dignity of the human person, and probably hurts that goal. I will do this because its the most probable case by far given the information we have. I don’t need 100% certainty to have an opinion on the subject haha.

 

[Debora123]

Did you know polygamy is a widely found occurrence in African tribes?

What does this have to do with modesty??

JPII and the Catechism teach the modesty varies from one place to another. Chastity, however, does not.

 

[fix]

Exactly, I think that is the point of disagreement. I think there is a point where no matter what that culture is you reach an objective state of immodesty.

It is all subjective to many people. That, over course, is incorrect. The quote by JP II is often misused to claim nudity is licit based on subjective criteria alone. The problem with that is that the quote must be in context and not excised from all of Catholic teaching on the topic.

 

[Debora123]

If you can provide cases that show where a moral society that values the dignity of the human person is upheld as well as public nudity/partial nudity is also common, and that it is not the far reaching exception to the rule and is quite common, I will concede the point.

In absence of that happening though I will continue with my belief that public nudity for sure will never add to upholding the dignity of the human person, and probably hurts that goal. I will do this because its the most probable case by far given the information we have.

Nate, YOU’RE the one making the bold claim that there is immodesty taking place in those tribes with regards to the topless women. Therefore it serves YOUR responsibility to prove that this behavior does indeed “play a negative role with regard to the value of the person, and its aim is to arouse concupiscence.”

I have even gone as far as to say we simply do not know whether it does or not, because I am unable to give solid proof (since I am not an expert in the field of African Tribes). But YOU still stand your ground that it DOES play a negative role, without giving any proof whatsoever!

Again, all I’m saying here is exactly, precisely, word for word THIS:

Nakedness itself is NOT immodest… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.

That is ALL I’m saying.

 

[Debora123]

It is all subjective to many people. That, over course, is incorrect. The quote by JP II is often misused to claim nudity is licit based on subjective criteria alone. The problem with that is that the quote must be in context and not excised from all of Catholic teaching on the topic.

So why don’t you step up to the Challenge and answer this:

But how are tribal women in the jungle being immodest by going topless if their toplessness is seen as normal (not sexual) and does not arouse in the tribal men any lustful thoughts or temptations whatsoever?

Remember, modesty is about purity of mind first and foremost - not necessarily about the number if inches of skin showing at any given time.

Remember JPII’s quote that you and I BOTH posted:

Nakedness itself is not immodest… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.

By the way, saying “nudity is licit” is a very VERY broad statement. One that no one here is making. It just greatly depends on the nature of the nudity.

For example:

Nudity to take a shower is perfectly licit.

While nudity to pose for pornography… not so much.

 

[Nate13]

Nate, YOU’RE the one making the bold claim that there is immodesty taking place in those tribes with regards to the topless women. Therefore it serves YOUR responsibility to prove that this behavior does indeed “play a negative role with regard to the value of the person, and its aim is to arouse concupiscence.”

No, I’m not responsible for describing why humans are human. JPII’s point in that quote from Love and Responsibility was that to all intensive purposes public nudity will lead to concupiscence just based on the fact that we are human.

I have even gone as far as to say we simply do not know whether it does or not, because I am unable to give solid proof (since I am not an expert in the field of African Tribes). But YOU still stand your ground that it DOES play a negative role, without giving any proof whatsoever!

Again, all I’m saying here is exactly, precisely, word for word THIS:

That is ALL I’m saying.

My proof is the human condition as I and many other’s understand it including JPII. It may be that you an I just have a different view on what the human condition entails. I may also have to do with how seriously we take the story in Genesis. Of course I accept there is more to the story than the literal truth, but the literal truth does describe the human condition.

To support the claim that JPII supports my view:

“He states that in practice it arouses concupiscence which must be taken into account.”
Love and Responsibility pg.190

 

[Debora123]

No, I’m not responsible for describing why humans are human. JPII’s point in that quote from Love and Responsibility was that to all intensive purposes public nudity will lead to concupiscence just based on the fact that we are human.

My proof is the human condition as I and many other’s understand it including JPII. It may be we just have a different view on what the human condition entails. I may also have to do with how seriously we take the story in Genesis. Of course I accept there is more to the story than the literal truth, but the literal truth does describe the human condition.

It is hard for some people to understand that in some tribal cultures, women’s breasts are not seen as sexual parts whatsoever, and do not incite lust. As I pointed out earlier, this is evident by the fact that the tribal women from new guinea went to JPII’s mass topless. Surely they would not have done this if they felt breasts were a sexual thing.

I think that contributes to our barrier here. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nate13]

It is hard for some people to understand that in some tribal cultures, women’s breasts are not seen as sexual parts whatsoever, and do not incite lust.

I think that contributes to our barrier here. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

“He states that in practice it arouses concupiscence which must be taken into account.”
Love and Responsibility pg.190

Here is the principle to start from. Live by it until other-wise proven differently.