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

[severus68]

So true.

I second that.

 

[severus68]

…Then perhaps it would be better to make more threads that emphasize not judging people by what they wear, and less threads that analyze clothes and the people who wear them.

I so agree Debora .

 

[severus68]

So if your area happens to be the red light district of your city, the fact that the majority of women dress like strippers or prostitutes (since they will BE strippers or prostitutes) will make it OK for you to dress like a streetwalker too?

Appropriate has nothing to do with blending in with the crowd.

That is an offensive, personal remark.

 

[Nate13]

Really? Read the article again and some posts.

The article advocates for women to wish to be pretty, beautiful, innocent, and virtuous.

Originally Posted by severus68 View Post
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.

coy: (esp. of a woman) Making a pretense of shyness or modesty that is intended to be alluring but is often regarded as irritating.

simpering: Smile in an affectedly coquettish, coy, or ingratiating manner. (seems like a synonym for being “fake” to me…)

demure: (of a woman or her behavior) Reserved, modest, and shy (modest yes, other two no)

Your description is what is called “spin”.

 

[chevalier]

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.

Not demure, simpering or coy. Just not sexually active or available or unrestrained.

 

[LilyM]

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. *

Well, nudity is necessary in some situations. Can’t really have a bath without disrobing. So of course it’s not invariably sinful. Just like sex isn’t, however there are more than a few restrictions as to when and with whom we may have sex.

But you are here implying that I as a Westerner could go wander around an African village stark naked and it not be sinful. No I could not, any more than I could sleep with whomever I chose if I were among a tribe that practiced free love. My sense of what is due to God and to the dignity of my own body remains unaltered, and I owe it to myself and Him regardless of who may be around me or what they may think.

If I come across a stone that I know to be a diamond, it doesn’t matter that everyone around me might think it is a piece of glass. Knowing its true nature and true value it would be wrong for me to pander to their ignorance, say by offering to buy it for a few cents when it is really worth many thousands of dollars.

There is a reason Jesus said ‘to whom much is given, of him shall much be expected’. As a Christian and a Catholic I have been given priceless treasures, and knowing their worth

 

[Nate13]

If modesty is not important why did Adam and Eve choose to cover their nakedness once it was realized? I would argue that the topless African woman is sinning but is not culpable.

 

[Baelor]

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.

I am saying this: someone’s dress is not enough to form a reliable opinion, nor can it form a reliable opinion in conjunction with other things in any way that adds value. In other words, someone’s dress tells you nothing new.

 

[Debora123]

Well, nudity is necessary in some situations. Can’t really have a bath without disrobing. So of course it’s not invariably sinful. Just like sex isn’t, however there are more than a few restrictions as to when and with whom we may have sex.

This is not really what I meant, but I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here.

But you are here implying that I as a Westerner could go wander around an African village stark naked and it not be sinful. No I could not, any more than I could sleep with whomever I chose if I were among a tribe that practiced free love. My sense of what is due to God and to the dignity of my own body remains unaltered, and I owe it to myself and Him regardless of who may be around me or what they may think.

I never said ANY Westerner could go wander around stark naked and it not be sinful. I was talking about the people of that tribe themselves, not the tourists, visitors, etc. A Westerner going out there and doing that would be completely different because it is not within their cultural boundaries of modesty.

If I come across a stone that I know to be a diamond, it doesn’t matter that everyone around me might think it is a piece of glass. Knowing its true nature and true value it would be wrong for me to pander to their ignorance, say by offering to buy it for a few cents when it is really worth many thousands of dollars.

This is true, of course, though I’m not sure how this pertains to our particular discussion.

There is a reason Jesus said ‘to whom much is given, of him shall much be expected’. As a Christian and a Catholic I have been given priceless treasures, and knowing their worth

…Nor this.

Here’s the thing, Lily.

We both agree that we cannot please everyone when it comes to how we dress. There are always going to be groups of people, cultures, religions (even Catholics themselves), etc etc, who will disapprove of what you wear, and find your clothing immodest.

We both acknowledged and agreed on that.

So from there you drew the conclusion that while not everyone will find your clothing modest, you can conclude that probably 99% of the population would. I then in turn said the same thing - that I believe 99% of the population would also find my clothes to be appropriate. To be more accurate, I also specified that the 99% that approved would be within my part of the world, and my culture. My “area.”

I made this specification simply to be more accurate, because I know of a lot of cultures and countries (especially Muslim for sure) who would think I was NOT being modest - and there are lots and LOTS of muslims in the world. Muslims just being ONE of many example.

You seemed to have an issue with me having made that specification, and then seemed to reject my statement that modesty differs from culture to culture when I tried explaining to you what I meant.

So I think that is where we stand now. If you disagree that modesty has anything to do with culture, time, and place… well then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you agree, however, then we have nothing further to discuss and appear to be on the same page.

So, which is it?

Either way, I think our little discussion is over.

 

[Debora123]

If modesty is not important why did Adam and Eve choose to cover their nakedness once it was realized?

No one here is saying modesty isn’t important. We are simply saying that we shouldn’t judge others on how they dress. We can only control our own modesty, so once again, sitting here and complaining about what so and so wore the other day is very pointless.

But to answer your question, Adam and Eve covered themselves because they realized they were no longer free of sin and they could use each other. So they clothed themselves to a certain extent, not because nakedness is sinful, but because they didn’t trust each other fully anymore and wanted to protect themselves.

I would argue that the topless African woman is sinning but is not culpable.

.

I disagree. I don’t think a topless African woman is sinning at all. The body itself is not dirty or sinful. IMMODESTY is sinful. But for her to be topless in that time/place/culture is not considered immodest. And remember, modesty is dependent on culture. Therefore no sin is being committed.

 

[Nate13]

No one here is saying modesty isn’t important. We are simply saying that we shouldn’t judge others on how they dress. We can only control our own modesty, so once again, sitting here and complaining about what so and so wore the other day is very pointless.

But to answer your question, Adam and Eve covered themselves because they realized they were no longer free of sin and they could use each other. So they clothed themselves to a certain extent, not because nakedness is sinful, but because they didn’t trust each other fully anymore and wanted to protect themselves.

.

I disagree. I don’t think a topless African woman is sinning at all. The body itself is not dirty or sinful. IMMODESTY is sinful. But for her to be topless in that time/place/culture is not considered immodest. And remember, modesty is dependent on culture. Therefore no sin is being committed.

My point is that if it was immodest for Adam and Eve it would be immodest for even the African woman out in the middle of who knows where. Does she need to take off her bottom covering as well before you will agree its immodesty? By your definition of immodesty nudist colonies are perfectly fine and no one is being immodest there.

I don’t understand how you can jump on me for believing what a person wears in self-expression is something that I can use when forming a first impression of them, when you are ready to judge someone who calls you an idiot?

I would argue that what someone is wearing is a surer sign to evaluate someone on than what they say. It could just be that the person struggles with censoring what comes out of their mouths. It could have just been a time of weakness for that person where emotion got the better of them. It may they have just formed a bad habit, and are having a hard time breaking it. It could also be that idiot has a completely applicable time to be used and they thought something you were doing was self-defeating/completely counterproductive.

What a person wears though was far more likely to have been thought out beforehand as opposed to something they say.

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.

 

[Nate13]

I am saying this: someone’s dress is not enough to form a reliable opinion, nor can it form a reliable opinion in conjunction with other things in any way that adds value. In other words, someone’s dress tells you nothing new.

Reality would disagree. If what someone was wearing said nothing about them, fashion would not exist. Is not what you wear a form of self-expression? Why do you dress up for an interview if it says nothing about you? Why do many jobs require a uniform? Why do some parents go nuts when people start talking about school uniforms?

 

[socialcath101]

Blame it on the Feminists and their “Sexual Revolution”

Personally Id rather settle down with a more sweet, wholesome, girl rather than “some hot young thing”. Often times the latter are flashes in the pan and fade rather quickly whilst true beauty lasts forever.

You make it sound like your future wife is a commodity

 

[Baelor]

What a person wears though was far more likely to have been thought out beforehand as opposed to something they say.

Uh, I take issue with this. Can you prove it? And is it 100% accurate? Why this need for a metric at all?

Also, an example of the perils of assuming dress is thought-out:
some site:

For example, in December 2005 Benedict XVI once sported the camauro, a thick woolen cap last worn by Pope John XXIII. Several commentators touted it as an example of Benedict’s traditionalism, but in the Seewald interview the pope says the reality was far more prosaic: It was a cold day, Benedict has a sensitive head, the camauro was lying around, and he simply put it on.

If what someone was wearing said nothing about them, fashion would not exist.

But it doesn’t tell you anything. Someone wearing a $3k dress could not care about fashion at all and just threw it on because it was a gift from a relative. As soon as I can confirm verbally their interest in fashion, the dress becomes irrelevant. Someone people do not care what they wear. Some people just like a band. Some people wear whatever their parents buy them and whatever they get as gifts. Some people really care. But the two groups will look the same.

Is not what you wear a form of self-expression?

It can be. But not in a meaningful way. My conclusions about dress are limited to the following: “Person X is at least indifferent to wearing A.” Nothing else is certain, and therefore I don’t bother going beyond that point. Someone dressed like a goth likes dressing like a goth. Nothing else is possibly determinable from the way they dress.

Why do you dress up for an interview if it says nothing about you?

What does it say?

Why do many jobs require a uniform?

Because of the expectations of others.

 

[Debora123]

My point is that if it was immodest for Adam and Eve it would be immodest for even the African woman out in the middle of who knows where. Does she need to take off her bottom covering as well before you will agree its immodesty? By your definition of immodesty nudist colonies are perfectly fine and no one is being immodest there.

Your point falls flat. God didn’t tell Adam and Eve to cover themselves because they were being immodest. They covered themselves on their own, to protect themselves of the other. The fact that they were ashamed of their own nakedness actually made God sad, which is why he responded to Adam by saying “Who told you you were naked??”

Besides, the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical to a certain extent. We don’t know how the whole thing played out exactly, nor do we know how much they covered themselves or what they wore after the fall. It may have very well been just the bottom half.

I don’t have a particular position on nudist colonies, and neither does the Church. I don’t know enough about them, their intentions, their hearts… heck, I’ve never even met one! So I will not make a judgement on them on my own. I’ll leave that up to God.

I don’t understand how you can jump on me for believing what a person wears in self-expression is something that I can use when forming a first impression of them, when you are ready to judge someone who calls you an idiot?

Nate, what in heaven’s name are you even talking about??

I would argue that what someone is wearing is a surer sign to evaluate someone on than what they say. It could just be that the person struggles with censoring what comes out of their mouths. It could have just been a time of weakness for that person where emotion got the better of them. It may they have just formed a bad habit, and are having a hard time breaking it. It could also be that idiot has a completely applicable time to be used and they thought something you were doing was self-defeating/completely counterproductive.

What exactly is your point? All I said in the past in reference to what you mention above is when we briefly discussed name calling. And all I said about name calling is that it is most likely a sinful behavior, and is offensive to the person being called the bad name.

What a person wears though was far more likely to have been thought out beforehand as opposed to something they say.

I honestly have no idea where you are going with this or what precisely you are trying to say. So I will just leave it at that.

 

[LilyM]

Your point falls flat. God didn’t tell Adam and Eve to cover themselves because they were being immodest. They covered themselves on their own, to protect themselves of the other. The fact that they were ashamed of their own nakedness actually made God sad, which is why he responded to Adam by saying “Who told you you were naked?”.

True, but God didn’t say ‘y’know guys, nakedness is fine by me, so you don’t need the fig leaves after all’, did He?

On the contrary, He made more clothes for them Himself, out
of animal skins, which I imagine would cover them better than a bunch of fig leaves! Doesn’t take a genius to see the lesson in that - cover up!

 

[Debora123]

True, but God didn’t say ‘y’know guys, nakedness is fine by me, so you don’t need the fig leaves after all’, did He?

Well it WAS fine by Him until the fall of man came, when man found out they could use each other. They then covered up to protect themselves of each other, not because God told them it was a sin to not wear clothes.

On the contrary, He made more clothes for them Himself, out
of animal skins, which I imagine would cover them better than a bunch of fig leaves! Doesn’t take a genius to see the lesson in that - cover up!

You’re making it sound like I’m an advocate of people walking down the street completely naked. Of which I absolutely am not. I am merely saying that nakedness is not dirty or sinful in itself. IMMODESTY is. And immodesty depends on culture, because it is about our intent and what is in our hearts - not necessarily about skin exposure itself. Though you never answered my question on whether or not you agree with that.

 

[Nate13]

Uh, I take issue with this. Can you prove it? And is it 100% accurate? Why this need for a metric at all?

No, it was hyperbole. The point is to show that there are just as many unknowns in what a person wears, as there is to what a person says.

Also, an example of the perils of assuming dress is thought-out:

But it doesn’t tell you anything. Someone wearing a $3k dress could not care about fashion at all and just threw it on because it was a gift from a relative. As soon as I can confirm verbally their interest in fashion, the dress becomes irrelevant. Someone people do not care what they wear. Some people just like a band. Some people wear whatever their parents buy them and whatever they get as gifts. Some people really care. But the two groups will look the same.

You seem to think your making some grand point in showing that there are multiple reasons people wear things. I don’t care about all the possibilities I care about the most likely ones. I don’t go “oh she is wearing a $3,000 dress so she must be materialistic, and doesn’t care about the poor”. However you do take that piece of information add it to the rest of the information you have and allow it to make you wonder how it is she came to be wearing a $3,000 dress. You look at all possibilities and assign probabilities to each and as you learn more about the person you start narrowing in on the answer. This all happens in the blink of an eye of course and is something we all do naturally without even thinking about it. For the record I believe you would make a horrible detective

It can be. But not in a meaningful way. My conclusions about dress are limited to the following: “Person X is at least indifferent to wearing A.” Nothing else is certain, and therefore I don’t bother going beyond that point. Someone dressed like a goth likes dressing like a goth. Nothing else is possibly determinable from the way they dress.

I completely agree with the underlined. Nothing is determinable. You are still thinking in terms of final judgement. Like I said forming an opinion is a process. If I walk up to meet someone who is dressed like a goth, its going to bring to mind the traits normally associated with people who were goth clothing and I will start forming an opinion from there. You seem to be saying that you start from a complete blank sheet and completely ignore the fact that they are wearing goth clothing. The most likely reason a person would be wearing goth clothing is because they have the attributes most closely associated with people who are goth and wish to project that to others. You can deny this piece of information if you wish.

 

[Debora123]

Here are a couple quotes that may help get across what I’m trying to say. They do a much better job of explaining things than I have been able to.

There is nothing impure in clothing except that which, … while covering the essential values of the person [the sexual organs], provokes an inevitable reaction toward the person as a possible sexual object of pleasure.

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.

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.

Since we are speaking of dress in relation to purity and impurity, it is worthwhile to consider the functional role of the dress … To qualify a way of dressing from the moral point of view, one must take into consideration the function of the determined clothing. We should not qualify partial nudity of the body as impure if there is an objective reason for its use.

 

[Nate13]

Your point falls flat. God didn’t tell Adam and Eve to cover themselves because they were being immodest. They covered themselves on their own, to protect themselves of the other. The fact that they were ashamed of their own nakedness actually made God sad, which is why he responded to Adam by saying “Who told you you were naked??”

Yes but it describes the human condition. We are not like we were before the fall.

Besides, the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical to a certain extent. We don’t know how the whole thing played out exactly, nor do we know how much they covered themselves or what they wore after the fall. It may have very well been just the bottom half.

You should not deny the literal truth in the Bible unless you have a good reason to. Yes there can always be other deeper meanings, but the literal truth always stands unless otherwise said. Unless your saying that a man finding a woman’s breast to be sexual exciting is a learned behavior, it is safe to say Eve covered hers.

I don’t have a particular position on nudist colonies, and neither does the Church. I don’t know enough about them, their intentions, their hearts… heck, I’ve never even met one! So I will not make a judgement on them on my own. I’ll leave that up to God.

Saying something is sinful is not making a judgement. That still leaves culpability entirely up to God which is what counts.