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

[fix]

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

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.

I would say what I indicated in the other post. The Pope accepts people where they are currently, but does not leave them there. He wants to draw them closer to Christ.

The CCC states the forms taken of modesty may vary from culture to culture. Does that mean that every culture we encounter automatically has modest customs simply because they exist?

My point is that subejctivity cannot be the sole measuring stick used in this issue. There must be objective standards as well.

 

[Nate13]

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.

Accidents happen. Deleting it though negated the part of it which hurt the point you were trying to make, which is why I objected haha.

 

[Debora123]

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

And here I disagree that their custom is not healthy (as you seem to think), given that to them, there is nothing sexual about breasts. It is simply not a sexual part to them in their culture, just as ankles are no longer a sexual part to us in our culture. (though they used to be).

We can disagree on that as well.

 

[Nate13]

And here I disagree that their custom is not healthy (as you seem to think), given that to them, there is nothing sexual about breasts. It is simply not a sexual part to them in their culture, just as ankles are no longer a sexual part to us in our culture. (though they used to be).

We can disagree on that as well.

Haha alright lets avoid a discussion on breasts because I will concede there are valid points for both sides. I think a reasonable debate can be had on whether breasts are sexual, or if they have been made sexual but lets just agree to not go there. I will say that if you could show me evidence that suggested the males of the tribe saw nothing sexual in breasts I would concede that point in their case, subjectively. If however it was shown that breasts are objectively sexual, and that their behavior towards breasts as unsexual was a learned behavior, it would still be wrong objectively.

Lets talk about what is undeniably sexual though. If the natives walked around stark naked would you agree that it is not healthy morally for them to do so? You would not also argue that they don’t see each others genitals sexually would you?

I also saw a good question asked in response to the idea that people say breasts are not sexual, mostly because of the fact that their obvious purpose in breastfeeding. However if that is the argument there do you also apply that argument to our rear ends?

 

[Debora123]

Haha alright lets avoid a discussion on breasts because I will concede there are valid points for both sides. I think a reasonable debate can be had on whether breasts are sexual, or if they have been made sexual but lets just agree to not go there. I will say that if you could show me evidence that suggested the males of the tribe saw nothing sexual in breasts I would concede that point in their case, subjectively. If however it was shown that breasts are objectively sexual, and that their behavior towards breasts as unsexual was a learned behavior, it would still be wrong objectively.

I have no solid “proof” to show you, as I have not conducted a study on them. But it IS common knowledge amongst us westerners that breasts are not sexual parts to them. For argument’s sake I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and say that we can’t know for sure, given the lack of substantial evidence for either side. We must then drop the subject and leave it up to God’s judgement.

Lets talk about what is undeniably sexual though. If the natives walked around stark naked would you agree that it is not healthy morally for them to do so? You would not also argue that they don’t see each others genitals sexually would you?

I don’t know if they do/would or not. I’d have to actually study up on the whole thing, do some interviews, etc etc. I don’t know enough about it to come to a conclusive, fail proof, 100% certain answer of “YES, it IS immoral” or “NO, it is not immoral.”

Either way, it doesn’t matter because it does not apply to us or our lifestyles. God will judge them accordingly, and that’s all that matters.

 

[Nate13]

I have no solid “proof” to show you, as I have not conducted a study on them. But it IS common knowledge amongst us westerners that breasts are not sexual parts to them. For argument’s sake I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and say that we can’t know for sure, given the lack of substantial evidence for either side. We must then drop the subject and leave it up to God’s judgement.

I don’t know if they do/would or not. I’d have to actually study up on the whole thing, do some interviews, etc etc. I don’t know enough about it to come to a conclusive, fail proof, 100% certain answer of “YES, it IS immoral” or “NO, it is not immoral.”

Either way, it doesn’t matter because it does not apply to us or our lifestyles. God will judge them accordingly, and that’s all that matters.

This debate has been enjoyable but I think I will bow out at this semi conclusion. I hope everyone who has been apart of it has something new they have taken away from it.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

One of my favorite actresses of Classical Hollywood Cinema, with her “girl next door” looks, said something that I was reminded of while reading the article:

I have big teeth. I lisp. My eyes disappear when I smile. My voice is funny. I don’t sing like
Judy Garland. I don’t dance like Cyd Charisse. But women identify with me. And while men
desire Cyd Charisse, they’d take me home to meet Mom. - June Allyson

I think the author was referring to this type of ‘pretty.’ The lasting kind. I smile whenever classic Hollywood actors or actresses talked about “taking someone home to meet mom” because it showed they wished for more than a consumable ‘hotness’ the author mentioned. You’ll find they said this, not when they were in their seventies or eighties, but at the height of their fame, in interviews, etc. - when the world considered them ‘hot.’ Granted, we live in a fallen world, and there were few actors and actresses back then who upheld these kind of values (as there are few of them today). June Allyson was just another girl who wanted to be cherished. She was smart enough to know how temporary ‘hotness’ can be…and longed for ‘pretty.’ I just love the above quote.

Something to think about.

 

[LilyM]

This is completely different, Nate, and you are an intelligent enough person to know it.

There’s a big difference between seeing someone in a Doctor’s UNIFORM and concluding that they are a doctor, and seeing someone in daisy dukes and forming an opinion on their character or morality.

By the way, here’s a picture my husband took of me flying a kite at the beach… in… daisy dukes!

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1146&pictureid=11497

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

Well, you ARE on the beach. It’s better than most of what is worn IN the context of being on the beach. Although a pretty sarong type skirt would be equally cool and more modest - and after all, we are not called simply to a bare minimum of modesty.

To wear to mass? No. To work? Probably not, unless you work in a surfwear shop or as a lifeguard or something.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I agree with you, lil_flower_luv.

I had *such a crush *on June Allyson growing up, even though she was old enough to be my mom.

 

[asd72]

I don’t know about pretty. I think I prefer the term beauty, because it is a word which expresses the whole person, there is both inner and outer beauty, it’s more body and soul.

I don’t personally like the term hot, but each to their own in a marriage situation. I got the impression though that the person in the article was referring to singles looking to attract the opposite sex, and I would agree there is a certain trend towards this.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I agree with you, lil_flower_luv.

I had *such a crush *on June Allyson growing up, even though she was old enough to be my mom.

She was very lovely and had a heart of gold.

 

[CatholicFireman]

She was very lovely and had a heart of gold.

And there lies the attraction.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

And there lies the attraction.

Are you *trying *to prove the point of my post?

 

[CatholicFireman]

Are you *trying *to prove the point of my post?

You already have, my dear. :tiphat:

 

[severus68]

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.

Agreed. Polygamy is also practised in the US by people who have their women cover so there is absolutely no relationship between womne culturally going topless. I would also request Nat to provide evidence of those tribes in Africa whose women go topless and polygamy is practised. It is too easy to malign other cultures.

BTW there are cultures like in Borneo where some of the old women still go topless. Nothing sexual or scintilating. Some are Christian even Catholic. People in the West should stop sexualing everything in other cultures. This idea of making the “natives” see sin and cover up was practised by misguded missionaries in the past. Further breasts in women are meant to nourish babies.

 

[Bezant]

And here I disagree that their custom is not healthy (as you seem to think), given that to them, there is nothing sexual about breasts. It is simply not a sexual part to them in their culture, just as ankles are no longer a sexual part to us in our culture. (though they used to be).

To add to your point, ironically there was a time in the West when women’s exposed ankles, arms, and shoulders was revealing but the breasts were not.

 

[chevalier]

To add to your point, ironically there was a time in the West when women’s exposed ankles, arms, and shoulders was revealing but the breasts were not.

Yes, and at times dresses worn at court showed much more cleavage than most of the tops worn nowadays. But ankles were taboo. I almost typed “idiotic” but I don’t actually know whatever they were thinking.

Anyway, where the goal is titilation there is a wrong goal at the start of the whole thing. And titilation seems to be the spiritus movens of much of modern fashion, another big chunk, I suppose, being mere compliance with established fashions and/or peer pressure and/or media brainwash making people quit thinking rationally.

 

[edwest2]

I am grateful that adult women are no longer forced to concern themselves with other peoples’ preferences when making decisions about what clothes to wear or not wear, or what makeup to apply or not apply.

I am even more grateful to live in a time when we understand that girls and women are not objects to be consumed or defended, despite what the author of The Death of Pretty suggests. He wants to make women commodities the same way he asserts feminism did, albeit commodities beyond the direct control of men.

Moreover, “innocence” is an affect projected by people with little to no power or autonomy. By lamenting the fact the women no longer look “innocent,” I think the author wishes for a time when women had diminished roles in society and were seen as childlike and harmless rather than powerful. I mean, who would describe Wangari Maathai, Indira Gandhi, Yingluck Shinawatra, Meg Whitman, or any other female leader, as “innocent?”

Luna

The radical feminist agenda insisted on “power.” That was why motherhood was looked down upon, men were not to be trusted and getting a “high-powered” career was considered more worthy.

A woman’s prettiness requires a common social standard that wrapped her appearance in modesty. A man was allowed to look at a pretty woman but, at the same time, had to consider her a whole person - polite, modest, decent and even demure. Both sexes were taught this standard and it was meant to be followed for the good and not out of any sense of force.

Peace,
Ed

 

[severus68]

The radical feminist agenda insisted on “power.” That was why motherhood was looked down upon, men were not to be trusted and getting a “high-powered” career was considered more worthy.

A woman’s prettiness requires a common social standard that wrapped her appearance in modesty. A man was allowed to look at a pretty woman but, at the same time, had to consider her a whole person - polite, modest, decent and even demure. Both sexes were taught this standard and it was meant to be followed for the good and not out of any sense of force.

Peace,
Ed

So was a man not allowed to look at a woman who was not pretty? Sorry, had to ask that.

Polite, modest and decent should apply to both men and women. Why does anyone hhave to be or look demure? In days past, a woman may have looked demure as she was taught, to show she was a good girl and to ‘catch’ a man. I think honesty trumps looking a particular way to satisfy some kind of archaic standard which has nothing to do with Christianity. Not referring to you or anyone in particular but it would appear that some prefer a woman with the characteristics of a cow, dumb, docile and doe eyed. My apologies to cows.

 

[John21652]

If the “death of pretty” is at the hands of hotness and raunch then this article explains why.

Sex in society: too much raunch, too young

The article is written by a woman in her 70’s, Jpan Bakewell, who was a BBC TV presenter and who was, self admittedly, at the very centre of sexual liberation in the 1960s and 1970s.

She says -

It could be that I have grown old. I am now in my late 70s; I no longer belong to the generation that rejoiced in outraging its elders…

In 2001, I made a four-part series for BBC Two called Taboo, which looked back at how censorship had changed over my lifetime. During filming, I broke several taboos of my own: using words that would normally be bleeped out; watching a porn film in production; and being filmed casting an appraising eye over a young male with a sturdy erection. I also had the ''fun’’ of pornography explained to me…

None of this, I argued, was harming my moral values. Sex I considered a life-enhancing activity, promoting pleasure, well-being and, if you were lucky, a lasting, loving relationship. But, most particularly, it was watched by adults who were able to judge for themselves, certainly not by children. That is what is different today. Children are the new target market. ,

Something has shifted in our culture to bring sub-teens within the orbit of suggestive sexual activity. T-shirts with cheeky, even lewd slogans – jokes that only adults can understand – are designed and sold to the under-10s. Children can hunt on a multitude of television channels for something that looks vaguely adult and vaguely transgressive. Can it be good for them? I for one would not be prepared to take the risk. …

There’s just too much raunch being marketed to those who are too young for it.

In this article she says her opponents were right to fear the sexual liberation of the 1960s.

she says girls have not used sexual freedoms as wisely as it was hoped.

Dame Joan concedes that women’s liberation had unintended consequences.