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

[Debora123]

“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.

Can you show me the actual quote in it’s entire context, rather than giving me a fragment of a sentence that isn’t even a direct quote itself? Because I can’t even tell exactly what he is speaking of specifically with what you have provided.

 

[Baelor]

Haha so when you see someone in a doctor’s coat do you ask to see their medical Id, proof that they graduated from an accredited University, and multiple forms of Id? No, you give them the benefit of the doubt until you have cause to think otherwise.

No. But I don’t assume they are a doctor or even care if they are a doctor unless I am in their office. If I cared, I would ask them to confirm anyway, and just like that, the dress they are wearing is irrelevant because it presents no new information or information obtainable in no other way – which happens to be exactly what I was before.

 

[Nate13]

Can you show me the actual quote in it’s entire context, rather than giving me a fragment of a sentence that isn’t even a direct quote itself? Because I can’t even tell exactly what he is speaking of specifically with what you have provided.

I can’t find my copy of Love and Responsibility Its based off a quote from another thread. I spent 30 minutes looking for it last night, and that is actually probably why I missed your post with the same quote in it now that I think about it haha. The quote came with the reference “Love and Responsibility pg. 190”

Edit: Just found it but I have the simplified version by Monsignor Vincent M. Walsh… Hopefully someone with the actual book can reiterate it for us.

 

[Nate13]

Found it on google books

books.google.com/books?id=TNRY9HkssDQC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=in+practice+it+arouses+concupiscence+which+must+be+taken+into+account&source=bl&ots=syYl5Hu_BT&sig=Oj23Gp1wkBZ37AgxswCzLVVa3nY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bDMHT9-gK62nsALC98CQCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=in%20practice%20it%20arouses%20concupiscence%20which%20must%20be%20taken%20into%20account&f=false

should take you right to the page. If not read page 190

Dress is always a social question, a function of (healthy or unhealthy) social customs. We must simply stress that although considerations of a aesthetic nature may seem to be decisive here they are not and cannot be the only ones: considerations of an ethical nature exists side-by-side with them. Man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person, especially of a person of the opposite sex, can arouse in him a merely disinterested liking which develops into a innocent affection. In practice it also arouse concupiscence, or a wish to enjoy concentrated on sexual values with no regard for the value of the person. And this must be taken into account.

Pages 188-192 are a good read for anyone looking for answers on the subject of modesty.

 

[Debora123]

Found it on google books

books.google.com/books?id=TNRY9HkssDQC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=in+practice+it+arouses+concupiscence+which+must+be+taken+into+account&source=bl&ots=syYl5Hu_BT&sig=Oj23Gp1wkBZ37AgxswCzLVVa3nY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bDMHT9-gK62nsALC98CQCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=in%20practice%20it%20arouses%20concupiscence%20which%20must%20be%20taken%20into%20account&f=false

should take you right to the page. If not read page 190

Pages 188-192 are a good read for anyone looking for answers on the subject of modesty.

Thanks for finding the quote. I honestly don’t disagree with it, nor do I see how it can imply that there is some sort of official standard of dress that stresses that showing XX inches of skin is always going to arouse lust, regardless of the situation or the people involved.

A few decades ago, the Western World used to consider ankles as sexual parts. Perhaps an African tribal man would think the notion that female breasts are sexual, sound about as silly as though if someone were to say to you that ankles are.

I’d also like to point out that I highly doubt many people who walk into the vatican get aroused from the paintings of stark naked people all over the walls. It all depends on context, amongst many other things, as pointed out by JPII in the same book. There is no set standard.

 

[Bezant]

 

[Walking_Home]

This thread adds to my conclusion – that Christianity has for hundreds of years has actually been “teaching” and re-enforcing – darkness of heart/mind/lust — instead of teaching purity of the mind and heart.

 

[Nate13]

Thanks for finding the quote. I honestly don’t disagree with it, nor do I see how it can imply that there is some sort of official standard of dress that stresses that showing XX inches of skin is always going to arouse lust, regardless of the situation or the people involved.

A few decades ago, the Western World used to consider ankles as sexual parts. Perhaps an African tribal man would think the notion that female breasts are sexual, sound about as silly as though if someone were to say to you that ankles are.

I’d also like to point out that I highly doubt many people who walk into the vatican get aroused from the paintings of stark naked people all over the walls. It all depends on context, amongst many other things, as pointed out by JPII in the same book. There is no set standard.

Your correct in that there is no XX inches of skin requirement. There is a principle there though that is all-encompassing and in my opinion rules out public nudity because of the his statement that “in practice it also arouses concupiscence”. Thus unless proven otherwise to not be cause for arousing concupiscence, we should reject the notion of public nudity/partial nudity.

I would not consider the Vatican images to be public nudity. If you don’t want to walk in and see the images you don’t have to. Its the same idea as a private beach. If you can’t handle it, don’t go. There is also a large difference between the effectiveness of still image and a living breathing, real life person in terms of causing concupiscence. Also with a still image painting the thing that would be objectified is a lifeless image, as opposed to a real person. We treat living breathing people a lot differently than we do images, and there are different standards.

 

[Debora123]

This thread adds to my conclusion – that Christianity has for hundreds of years has actually been “teaching” and re-enforcing – darkness of heart/mind/lust — instead of teaching purity of the mind and heart.

JPII’s quotes are refreshing to read:

But this by no means signifies that impurity of body is identified simply with partial or total nudity. There are circumstances in which nudity is not impure. If someone uses it to treat the person as an object of pleasure - even if it is by bad thoughts - he alone is the one who commits an impure act. Impurity of body only occurs when nuditity plays a negative role with respect to the value of the person. One can say that what happens then is a de-personalization.

Even knowing that nudity is not identical to impurity of the body, a real interior effort must be made to avoid assuming an impure attitude before a nude body. We should also add that impurity of action is not identical to the spontaneous reaction of sensuality that considers the body and sex as possible objects of joy. The human body per se is not impure, nor is the reaction of sensuality, nor sensuality itself. Impurity begins when the will appropriates the reaction of sensuality and reduces the other person - because of his or her body and sex - to an object of pleasure.

 

[chevalier]

Honestly, I believe that 99% of the people within my cultural boundaries would see nothing inappropriate or scandalous in the above image.

There is nothing inappropriate or scandalous in that image. It’s a very pretty image and I like it a lot. I see nothing sexual in it and I honestly can’t comprehend how one could have a problem with it. And I come from a traditional Catholic culture (Polish).

On the other hand, nothing in her outfit is designed to be arousing or sexualised, unlike a lot of outfits in the street.

Forgive me then, “protect each other” did not equate to help prevent lustful thoughts when I read it although I can see how that is what you intended now.

Helping prevent lustful thoughts in others is one thing. Not actively trying to incite those thoughts in others is a different one. The two are very often equated or the distinction simply fails to be seen. One sex can’t lump on women a heavy duty of helping prevent lustful thought in the other sex. However, it is a perfectly valid request that the other sex abstain from trying to incite those thoughts (regardless whether we do give in or not: for example, I don’t give in but I’m still offended when someone tries to cause me to, which as I said a while ago is a form of sexual assault, as light as it may be but the principle is forcing unwanted sexual interaction—causing others to be aroused without asking them is basically forcing one’s sexuality on them and attempting to interact with their bodies while skipping their brain, personality and character).

 

[Debora123]

There is nothing inappropriate or scandalous in that image. It’s a very pretty image and I like it a lot. I see nothing sexual in it and I honestly can’t comprehend how one could have a problem with it. And I come from a traditional Catholic culture (Polish).

On the other hand, nothing in her outfit is designed to be arousing or sexualised, unlike a lot of outfits in the street.

Thank you very much.

I only posted it because there were a couple people here who were specifically targeting “daisy dukes” (as worn in the pic) and saying they are always immodest/sinful.

 

[Debora123]

Your correct in that there is no XX inches of skin requirement. There is a principle there though that is all-encompassing and in my opinion rules out public nudity because of the his statement that “in practice it also arouses concupiscence”. Thus unless proven otherwise to not be cause for arousing concupiscence, we should reject the notion of public nudity/partial nudity.

I would not consider the Vatican images to be public nudity. If you don’t want to walk in and see the images you don’t have to. Its the same idea as a private beach. If you can’t handle it, don’t go. There is also a large difference between the effectiveness of still image and a living breathing, real life person in terms of causing concupiscence. Also with a still image painting the thing that would be objectified is a lifeless image, as opposed to a real person. We treat living breathing people a lot differently than we do images, and there are different standards.

Don’t forget, pornography is all images.

 

[Nate13]

Don’t forget, pornography is all images.

Are the nude images in the Vatican of real people?

 

[Debora123]

Are the nude images in the Vatican of real people?

No, but neither is anime porn.

Nonetheless, this isn’t my point. I only mentioned those paintings in order to make a point about the naked human body not ALWAYS reinforcing lust. It depends on the context, not objectively on the nakedness itself.

Those naked paintings, in the context they were in, are not immodest.

Naked anime porn, for instance, IS.

Context, context, context:

The concrete application of this simple and evident principle relies on the individuals, means, and society. Dressing is always a social problem and, therefore, depends on the customs. Dress is always a social question, a function of (healthy or unhealthy) social customs.

 

[Nate13]

No, but neither is anime porn.

Nonetheless, this isn’t my point. I only mentioned those paintings in order to make a point about the naked human body not ALWAYS reinforcing lust. It depends on the context, not objectively on the nakedness itself.

Those naked paintings, in the context they were in, are not immodest.

Naked anime porn, for instance, IS.

Context, context, context.

There is also a choice involved in someone putting themselves in that arena. Public nudity neglects a person’s choice to try and avoid what may be a near occasion of sin for them.

 

[Nate13]

Quote:
The concrete application of this simple and evident principle relies on the individuals, means, and society. Dressing is always a social problem and, therefore, depends on the customs.

Why did you delete part of it in your quote?

Dress is always a social question, a function of (healthy or unhealthy) social customs.

Just because it is a custom does not make it healthy and right for that society.

 

[Debora123]

There is also a choice involved in someone putting themselves in that arena. Public nudity neglects a person’s choice to try and avoid what may be a near occasion of sin for them.

You will always think that topless tribal women are being immodest, because you seem to have some sort of standard in your head that shouldn’t be crossed.

I will always think that they are not being immodest, because in their culture, it is normal thing, and not a sexual thing whatsoever.

We have exhausted this enough and are about to go in a circle once more.

At this point we must agree to disagree. Deal?

 

[chevalier]

Thank you very much.

I only posted it because there were a couple people here who were specifically targeting “daisy dukes” (as worn in the pic) and saying they are always immodest/sinful.

I don’t think that any standard clothes with a real functional purpose are inherently immodest. It takes some kind of a special “enhancing” device or design to achieve that effect.

 

[Nate13]

You will always think that topless tribal women are being immodest, because you seem to have some sort of standard in your head that shouldn’t be crossed.

I will always think that they are not being immodest, because in their culture, it is normal thing, and not a sexual thing whatsoever.

We have exhausted this enough and are about to go in a circle once more.

At this point we must agree to disagree. Deal?

Great its a custom, but is it a healthy custom that builds up the dignity of the human person? No.

 

[Debora123]

Why did you delete part of it in your quote?

Just because it is a custom does not make it healthy and right for that society.

I did not delete it. I just didn’t copy and paste the entire page. I’ll go back and edit it in if you’d like.