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

[LilyM]

Because me wearing a bikini might be completely fine to some people, while very offensive to others.

Just like me wearing pants vs a long dress might be completely fine to some people, while apparently very offensive to others. (See the Traditional Catholicism section )

Calling someone an IDIOT, however, is offensive by it’s very nature and almost always sinful. It is a derogatory term.

…That is why I think there’s is a difference.

Well, if I DO something stupid in front of another person (which I may do within seconds of meeting them) and THEN they call me an idiot, I won’t be offended by them at all - they will simply be telling the truth.

Similarly, if I meet someone for the first time while dressed in a police officer’s or chef’s uniform, a nun’s habit or a judge’s robes, I must reasonably expect that people are going to take me to be what I look like - and can’t reasonably get offended if they’re wrong.

Unless it’s in the context of a theatre, a film set or a fancy dress party, of course.

 

[Debora123]

The problem is that you are assigning a relationship that is not there.

In my experience, clothing has little to do with any other personality trait/moral/etc.

Same here.

 

[chevalier]

That is clearly not true, and honestly offensive to me – a male. It’s the idea of sexual objectification and the appearance of near-fetishization of “innocence” and “chastity” that is problematic, as has been noted. Why is the alternative of simply not drawing gender distinctions with reference to innocence and chastity so unreasonable a solution?

Read my posts above. You will find plenty of conscious gender-balancing by providing examples referring to men too. In fact, I keep underscoring all the time that we are all obliged to be chaste. You’re looking for the offence very diligently if you’re seeing any. I would also appreciate if you didn’t try to compare me to a fetishist, thank you.

Given that girls who sleep around are called sluts while men who sleep around are called players, I would think that the focus on males is even more important. But no, it is always about the women.

Fornication is fornication and a sin is a fall regardless of the sex of the sinner.

 

[BellsMom]

I have the lyrics of Janis Ian’s song At Seventeen going through my head now.

Pity the poor ugly girls who through no fault of their own are unable to invoke the more “noble” and protective character of the men they know.

This article is way too focused on “appearance”. We are all as god made us for better or worse.

This use of “innocence” strikes me as directly related to women who are meek, quiet, appreciative virgins. Otherwise, why not include men in the discussion?

Clean, pure, innocent = virgin

On a side note, how did the state of non-virginity get such a bad wrap in religion when God himself commands us to multiply? Why are virgins holy and pure? Why are women who have had sex unclean? I read a post on a thread questioning Marys perpetual virginity where the writer ask a doubter “Why must you insist on defiling our holy mother?” Defile? Really? Hmmmm.

This author seems to imply that ugly girls are somehow “less” then other women. Shameful.

And please don’t everyone pretend to ignore the virgin / whore allusions. They are painfully obvious.

 

[Debora123]

Well, if I DO something stupid in front of another person (which I may do within seconds of meeting them) and THEN they call me an idiot, I won’t be offended by them at all - they will simply be telling the truth.

Similarly, if I meet someone for the first time while dressed in a police officer’s or chef’s uniform, a nun’s habit or a judge’s robes, I must reasonably expect that people are going to take me to be what I look like - and can’t reasonably get offended if they’re wrong.

Unless it’s in the context of a theatre, a film set or a fancy dress party, of course.

I suppose we can agree to disagree. I still think calling someone an idiot is a lot more likely to be a sin than accidentally offending someone by wearing (insert article of clothing here… choices being anything from bikinis to a pair of pants).

 

[AnneTeresa]

I do believe that it is prurient interest that leads us to constantly discuss taut young virgins and immodesty. It gives CAF a good pretext for obsessing over sex.

So true.

 

[Debora123]

I have the lyrics of Janis Ian’s song At Seventeen going through my head now.

Pity the poor ugly girls who through no fault of their own are unable to invoke the more “noble” and protective character of the men they know.

This article is way too focused on “appearance”. We are all as god made us for better or worse.

This use of “innocence” strikes me as directly related to women who are meek, quiet, appreciative virgins. Otherwise, why not include men in the discussion?

Clean, pure, innocent = virgin

On a side note, how did the state of non-virginity get such a bad wrap in religion when God himself commands us to multiply? Why are virgins holy and pure? Why are women who have had sex unclean? I read a post on a thread questioning Marys perpetual virginity where the writer ask a doubter “Why must you insist on defiling our holy mother?” Defile? Really? Hmmmm.

This author seems to imply that ugly girls are somehow “less” then other women. Shameful.

And please don’t everyone pretend to ignore the virgin / whore allusions. They are painfully obvious.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for wording it so well.

 

[Baelor]

Your entitled to your experience.

I am entitled to charity and to reality. In fact, I and everyone are called to live by both.

Depending where your at it may mean more than it would in another place. I take where I’m at into account when I form an opinion.

I have lived in different states, different countries, and different continents, under different forms of government, in different cultures. If you are trying to say that you “know” everyone in your area well enough to make judgments like that, you are kidding yourself.

There are factors too numerous to list, so please don’t get upset if you feel I’m leaving out something.

You are correct. The factors are too numerous to list, and clothing is simply not an accurate one at all. And I am not upset because I feel you are leaving something out, I am outright stating that you (and I, and all) are incapable of making a judgment based on what someone is wearing that is in any way accurate, except in extreme cases that definitively suggest something unusual – e.g. nudity, costumes, a bra and undies.

 

[LilyM]

I have no idea, I don’t live in such area.

What I mean is, something that might be appropriate to wear in Rio de Janeiro, might not be so appropriate in Canada,

…just as something that might be appropriate to wear in the middle of a tropical jungle amongst indigenous tribes, may not be so appropriate to wear in Western Civilization.

That’s why I specified “area.”

For someone who doesn’t know any better you might be right. Eg if you go naked in a tribal area because you ARE a tribesperson native to that area who has never been in contact with Westerners and knows nothing of Western or Christian standards of dress.

But for a Christian, modesty is about your relationship to God, and your awareness of the sacredness of your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. It has much less to do with what secular society in your area might think is fashionable or appropriate (might I ask, appropriate for what purpose? Certainly the last thing most clothing manufacturers have in kind is Christian values and the dignity and chastity of women!)

And just as in our churches we cover the altar with a cloth and enclose and lock (and often cover as well) the Tabernacle, while making them as beautiful as possible, so it behoves us to keep our bodies well covered, and even in the contexts of swimming and sports and hot climates and working among native tribes this can be done, although of course we are free to make those coverings as attractive as possible.

 

[Debora123]

I am entitled to charity and to reality. In fact, I and everyone are called to live by both.

I have lived in different states, different countries, and different continents, under different forms of government, in different cultures. If you are trying to say that you “know” everyone in your area well enough to make judgments like that, you are kidding yourself.

You are correct. The factors are too numerous to list, and clothing is simply not an accurate one at all. And I am not upset because I feel you are leaving something out, I am outright stating that you (and I, and all) are incapable of making a judgment based on what someone is wearing that is in any way accurate, except in extreme cases that definitively suggest something unusual – e.g. nudity, costumes, a bra and undies.

Great post! Especially the last paragraph.

 

[Nate13]

You are correct. The factors are too numerous to list, and clothing is simply not an accurate one at all. And I am not upset because I feel you are leaving something out, I am outright stating that you (and I, and all) are incapable of making a judgment based on what someone is wearing that is in any way accurate, except in extreme cases that definitively suggest something unusual – e.g. nudity, costumes, a bra and undies.

(shakes head) You are trying to find something to being upset about where there is nothing to be upset about. Unless you are arguing that what a person is wearing is a completely negligible factor in the process of forming an opinion about someone, we are not in disagreement. If you are then I’m sorry, but you are the one outside of reality. You are also denying the Church which teaches that modesty is something to care about.

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.

2527 "The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ."316

 

[Debora123]

For someone who doesn’t know any better you might be right. Eg if you go naked in a tribal area because you ARE a tribesperson native to that area who has never been in contact with Westerners and knows nothing of Western or Christian standards of dress.

But for a Christian, modesty is about your relationship to God, and your awareness of the sacredness of your body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

And just as in our churches we cover the altar with a cloth and enclose and lock (and often cover as well) the Tabernacle, while making them as beautiful as possible, so it behoves us to keep our bodies well covered, and even in the contexts of swimming and sports and hot climates and working among native tribes this can be done, although of course we are free to make those coverings as attractive as possible.

The Church realizes that there is nothing wrong with nudity in and of itself.

There is no “christian standard of dress.”

The Church realizes that the forms of modesty change from one culture to another. (again, this is why I specified, “my area”). There is no standard.

A woman who walks around topless in her African tribe is not sinning, NOT because she “doesn’t know any better” and therefore is ignorant of the sin. She is not sinning because given the entire scenario, there is *no immodesty whatsoever taking place. *

 

[chevalier]

Pity the poor ugly girls who through no fault of their own are unable to invoke the more “noble” and protective character of the men they know.

True. On the other hand, a gentleman does not deny kindness where he’s not attracted. A gentleman might be slightly offended if a woman attributes his kindness to her power of attraction actually.

This article is way too focused on “appearance”. We are all as god made us for better or worse.

That article is not about unelective aspects of our appearance, such as height or eye colour or race or whatever. The way I see it, it is more about style (e.g. a classicial notion beauty as opposed to turpism).

This use of “innocence” strikes me as directly related to women who are meek, quiet, appreciative virgins. Otherwise, why not include men in the discussion?

By all means include men in the discussion. Also, there is nothing wrong being a virgin. Whoever is a virgin should not be ashamed of being so and shouldn’t be made to feel less adult. Electing a chaste lifestyle (regardless of being a virgin or not) is stigmatised in our culture, a reflection of which I see here. Reading some answers here, I feel like it’s bad to project a commitment to chastity and yes, sexual innocence (I associate sexual innocence not with past history but with the present and especially with future aspirations, by the way), and like it’s wrong to appreciate that in others. Almost as if chastity were a weakness.

Clean, pure, innocent = virgin

Not necessarily. I love to see clean, pure, innocent in women (in men too except that I’m not attracted to them, so can’t look from that angle with much reliability). Do I concern myself with their past sexual history? Nope. That history is made irrelevant by a clean, pure, innocent present. I very much appreciate and respect people who have the courage to aspire to be clean, pure, innocent. Who can defy the pressure to make themselves look the opposite.

On a side note, how did the state of non-virginity get such a bad wrap in religion when God himself commands us to multiply?

The state of non-virginity did not enter the article and is far from the subject.

For the record, God told us to multiply in marriage. He did not tell us that specifically in that sentence but He established marriage for us. Modern fashion too often looks like it appreciates a sexually liberated life more than marriage.

Why are virgins holy and pure? Why are women who have had sex unclean? I read a post on a thread questioning Marys perpetual virginity where the writer ask a doubter “Why must you insist on defiling our holy mother?” Defile? Really? Hmmmm.

Marriage is not defilement but fornication is. This is not to deny in any way God’s forgiveness or the integrity of a person. However, sex other than in marriage is not a morally neutral activity. I do not believe that people who have committed sexual sins and been absolved thereafter are unclean. But premarital or extramarital sex is indeed unclean. Equally unclean for men and women by the way.

This author seems to imply that ugly girls are somehow “less” then other women. Shameful.

Nah. He was talking about aspirations and mourning the death of aspiration to beauty. He has a point there, although he might be too pessimistic.

And please don’t everyone pretend to ignore the virgin / whore allusions. They are painfully obvious.

Not to me and I’m not educated, also in literature.

 

[severus68]

I think the problem a lot of people are having is the type of vibe they got from the article. Innocence as you describe above is important for everyone, and everyone should strive to be that type of innocent (free of sin, close to God, etc etc…).

However, to some people (myself included), the article makes it seem that by “innocence,” the author actually means virginal, quiet, delicate, submissive, and maybe having a pretty/innocent “doll like” appearance. Maybe that’s not what he meant at all, and maybe he actually did mean what you were suggesting. But the tone of the article, and the fact that it was aimed at women only (no mention of men being “innocent”) gave off a bad impression to some of us. Not to mention one that seems very focused on appearances.

I for example, by nature, simply do not have the type of look the author seems to idealize. I’m South American and have dark eyes, dark hair, strong facial features, and a darker skin tone. I don’t think I’d fit this author’s ideal of a pretty/innocent look… regardless of what I’m wearing.

I agree on your opinion on the article. I posted a line which makes it rather clear what he meant - the Madaonna/whore dichotomy. On your looks, the ones who would think that would be the ones that also think Mary was white with blue eyes and blond hair, lol.

 

[Nate13]

I agree on your opinion on the article. I posted a line which makes it rather clear what he meant - the Madaonna/whore dichotomy. On your looks, the ones who would think that would be the ones that also think Mary was white with blue eyes and blond hair, lol.

There is a lot of opinion forming going on here tsk tsk.

 

[severus68]

That is clearly not true, and honestly offensive to me – a male. It’s the idea of sexual objectification and the appearance of near-fetishization of “innocence” and “chastity” that is problematic, as has been noted. Why is the alternative of simply not drawing gender distinctions with reference to innocence and chastity so unreasonable a solution?

I have not seen much press here or elsewhere focusing on the importance of an “innocent” and “virginal” appearance for men. Given that girls who sleep around are called sluts while men who sleep around are called players, I would think that the focus on males is even more important. But no, it is always about the women.

There is no such thing.

I agree, great post. There is nothing to be valued in requiring women to look ‘virginal’ and ‘innocent’ by being demure, simpering and just looking coy.

 

[Nate13]

I agree, great post. There is nothing to be valued in requiring women to look ‘virginal’ and ‘innocent’ by being demure, simpering and just looking coy.

Straw man. No one has advocated for such.

 

[severus68]

There is a lot of opinion forming going on here tsk tsk.

And you know/have the truth, lol.

 

[severus68]

Straw man. No one has advocated for such.

Really? Read the article again and some posts.

 

[Nate13]

And you know/have the truth, lol.

No, just stating it slightly dampens your chastising effect when you turn right around and do exactly what you are chastising others for.