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

[Nate13]

Let me reiterate this here in case my earlier posts have been overlooked:

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Luke 12:47-48

From those who have been entrusted with more influence, much more will be asked.

Parable of the Talents.

Person A has 10 talents and gains 10 more
Person B has 5 talents and gains 5 more

Person A has more responsibility than Person B. They both are expected to give the same in relation to how much they have been given though.

If we use the same %/relation of gifts to what is expected while talking about influence…
Person A has X amount of influence
Person B has 2 times X amount of influence

Person A is expected to turn X amount of influence into X amount of results
Person B is expected to turn 2 times X amount of influence into 2 times X amount of results.

Does this clear up the concept? There were at least 3 people that completely wrote me off earlier and this is important to understand.

If we just blindly say “we are all equal!” without understanding how we are all equal it could be trouble. You may show up to the pearly gates and look at the guy next to you who has 5 talents and think your fine because you also have 5 talents. However when you get to the gate you come to realize that he only had 5 talents to begin with while you had 10 talents to work with and you have failed to use your talents as wisely as you should have.

If we are clear on this we can discuss the implications this has on modesty.

 

[Debora123]

Let me reiterate this here in case my earlier posts have been overlooked:

From those who have been entrusted with more influence, much more will be asked.

Parable of the Talents.

Person A has 10 talents and gains 10 more
Person B has 5 talents and gains 5 more

Person A has more responsibility than Person B. They both are expected to give the same in relation to how much they have been given though.

If we use the same %/relation of gifts to what is expected:
Person A has X amount of influence
Person B has 2 times X amount of influence

Person A is expected to turn X amount of influence into X amount of results
Person B is expected to turn 2 times X amount of influence into 2 times X amount of results.

Does this clear up the concept? There were at least 3 people that completely wrote me off earlier and this is important to understand.

If we just blindly say “we are all equal!” without understanding how we are all equal it could be trouble. You may show up to the pearly gates and look at the guy next to you who has 5 talents and think your fine because you also have 5 talents. However when you get to the gate you come to realize that he only had 5 talents to begin with while you had 10 talents to work with and you have failed to use your talents as wisely as you should have.

I’m not sure how that excerpt can prove that some people have a bigger responsibility than others to lead a moral life. Such is not Catholic teaching. We ALL have that responsibility, and we ALL have it equally.

So I continue to disagree.

 

[chevalier]

In your first sentence you have made the presumption of a woman dressing to arouse someone.

I absolutely did not. You made the presumption that I judged everybody wearing problematic clothing to have the intent of arousing others.

By contrast, in reality, I was talking about an abstract case. I cannot tell you who of all the people who dress or act this way has the intent (although I can guess with some reliability based on how the person behaves). However, whenever someone actually does have that intent, then it is wrong. This is because that intent is wrong, because intentionally arousing non-spouses is a morally wrong action.

I assume you did not mean ‘the general public’. That in itself is wrong. It is not like saying “I think that woman likes dogs” seeing a woman wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a dog on it.

Again, your presumption that I presumed what you say I did is wrong. However, to give you as much of an answer as possible: when I see a person spicing it up (sexualised behaviour that doesn’t seem to focus on a single target), I am inclined to conclude that, in light of what I see, the person is causing mild to moderate levels of arousal in random people in order to obtain an ego boost. When I say “causing” I imply some measure of intent, but it may be subconscious and not thought out, not consciously realised.

Do you really think it is ok to say that a woman has reduced herself to a ‘piece of meat’ by her ‘immodest’ dress?

You would not want to use that language with her directly unless you really knew what you were doing. On the other hand, drastic metaphors and offensive descriptions have been used in Christianity.

For the record, no one can successfully reduce himself to a piece of meat because no one has the power to abdicate his human dignity. On the other hand, the person may be treating himself as a piece of meat. This is done, for example, when a person capable of hard work decides that prostitution is easier and pays better. Does that person not treat his own body as a commodity? This is not as clear with a person who “flaunts assets” (I’m talking about extreme cases) but at some point the analogy may become fitting.

Anyone who reduces a woman to a piece of meat or says that a woman is reduced to a piece of meat by her dressing, has issues.

Thank you very much. I have my issues. Are you satisfied? Now let’s move on.

Is it ok to rape a prostitute who does dress to attract men, then?

That is a shameful extrapolation. I wonder if you even realise how you are insulting me or bordering on it seconds after being offended by my strong language. Anyway, it is never okay to rape anybody. This is not something I should be having to say, really. In fact, it is not okay to have consensual sex with a woman who is asking for it and is not your wife.

The above does not mean, however, that it is okay to choose prostitution as a career (and before you venture to cover that angle, yes, it is often very far from any career choice and is sometimes the result of despair by someone who thinks he has no other options—this is why I stress the part about “choosing” and as “career” as opposed to perceived necessity). There are probably many prostitutes who have fewer moral issues than many people in respected profession. “Whoever of you is without sin let him first cast the stone,” comes to mind. On the other hand, the former was followed by, “go and sin no more,” which is sometimes forgotten.

Where I am, it is “beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal law".

Yes and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is satisifed by showing a hypothetical video footage of the accused loading his rifle, raising it, aiming and shooting his neighbour in the head. No additional evidence is collected, shown or needed to establish that he intended to do so. If he wants to claim he didn’t intend to do so (e.g. he somehow shot his neighbour between the eyes without having the intent), he needs at least to “raise the issue” (adduce some evidence and then the ball is in the prosecutor’s court) or even actually prove it. This is because it is presumed that in an adult person external actions conform to internal intent. This is not actually true in every single case but the generalisation is justified. (And, as I said, sufficient to secure a criminal conviction believed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.)

(Side comment: a fanciful claim that intent was different from external action would cause a doubt. However, it would be an unreasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt requires something more than a fanciful, remote possibility that nothing seems to support.)

 

[Nate13]

I’m not sure how that excerpt can prove that some people have a bigger responsibility than others to lead a moral life. Such is not Catholic teaching. We ALL have that responsibility, and we ALL have it equally.

So I continue to disagree.

Person A has more responsibility than Person B. They both are expected to give the same in relation to how much they have been given though.

Have you ever seen that optical illusion painting that is in black and white, where you look at it and depending on the perspective you choose to look at it with you either see a vase, or two faces? That is what is your looking at right now.



If you only look at the painting and concentrate on the white you see a vase. If you look at it and concentrate on the black, you see two faces.

You are only looking at the idea of responsibility like that. You are fully focused on the white, and refuse to look at it from the perspective of the black. Take a chance and change your perspective so you don’t miss something important.

 

[Debora123]

Have you ever seen that optical illusion painting that is in black and white, where you look at it and depending on the perspective you choose to look at it with you either see a vase, or two faces? That is what is your looking at right now.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/2012669_f260.jpg

If you only look at the painting and concentrate on the white you see a vase. If you look at it and concentrate on the black, you see two faces.

You are only looking at the idea of responsibility like that. You are fully focused on the white, and refuse to look at it from the perspective of the black.

Nate, I don’t think we have much else to say to each other. I disagree with your notion that some people have a greater responsibility to be moral people than others. Plain and simple.

 

[Debora123]

I absolutely did not. You made the presumption that I judged everybody wearing problematic clothing to have the intent of arousing others.

By contrast, in reality, I was talking about an abstract case. I cannot tell you who of all the people who dress or act this way has the intent (although I can guess with some reliability based on how the person behaves). However, whenever someone actually does have that intent, then it is wrong. This is because that intent is wrong, because intentionally arousing non-spouses is a morally wrong action.

Again, your presumption that I presumed what you say I did is wrong. However, to give you as much of an answer as possible: when I see a person spicing it up (sexualised behaviour that doesn’t seem to focus on a single target), I am inclined to conclude that, in light of what I see, the person is causing mild to moderate levels of arousal in random people in order to obtain an ego boost. When I say “causing” I imply some measure of intent, but it may be subconscious and not thought out, not consciously realised.

You would not want to use that language with her directly unless you really knew what you were doing. On the other hand, drastic metaphors and offensive descriptions have been used in Christianity.

For the record, no one can successfully reduce himself to a piece of meat because no one has the power to abdicate his human dignity. On the other hand, the person may be treating himself as a piece of meat. This is done, for example, when a person capable of hard work decides that prostitution is easier and pays better. Does that person not treat his own body as a commodity? This is not as clear with a person who “flaunts assets” (I’m talking about extreme cases) but at some point the analogy may become fitting.

Thank you very much. I have my issues. Are you satisfied? Now let’s move on.

That is a shameful extrapolation. I wonder if you even realise how you are insulting me or bordering on it seconds after being offended by my strong language. Anyway, it is never okay to rape anybody. This is not something I should be having to say, really. In fact, it is not okay to have consensual sex with a woman who is asking for it and is not your wife.

The above does not mean, however, that it is okay to choose prostitution as a career (and before you venture to cover that angle, yes, it is often very far from any career choice and is sometimes the result of despair by someone who thinks he has no other options—this is why I stress the part about “choosing” and as “career” as opposed to perceived necessity). There are probably many prostitutes who have fewer moral issues than many people in respected profession. “Whoever of you is without sin let him first cast the stone,” comes to mind. On the other hand, the former was followed by, “go and sin no more,” which is sometimes forgotten.

Yes and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is satisifed by showing a hypothetical video footage of the accused loading his rifle, raising it, aiming and shooting his neighbour in the head. No additional evidence is collected, shown or needed to establish that he intended to do so. If he wants to claim he didn’t intend to do so (e.g. he somehow shot his neighbour between the eyes without having the intent), he needs at least to “raise the issue” (adduce some evidence and then the ball is in the prosecutor’s court) or even actually prove it. This is because it is presumed that in an adult person external actions conform to internal intent. This is not actually true in every single case but the generalisation is justified. (And, as I said, sufficient to secure a criminal conviction believed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.)

(Side comment: a fanciful claim that intent was different from external action would cause a doubt. However, it would be an unreasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt requires something more than a fanciful, remote possibility that nothing seems to support.)

Looks like there is a lot of misunderstanding going on here. I’m willing to bet we all agree on this more than we think we do…

 

[Nate13]

Nate, I don’t think we have much else to say to each other. I disagree with your notion that some people have a greater responsibility to be moral people than others. Plain and simple.

Are you not condemning those who have never heard of God though? If we are all held to the same exact standard and the native out in the middle of the Amazon is expected to achieve the same standard of virtue you are, is that not unfair? If you don’t accept the principle I put forward you effectively condemn them.

 

[chevalier]

A woman who goes to the grocery store in short shorts and a tank top - should she still be treated like a person, made in the image and likeness of God? Absolutely. Do we have some sort of moral right to treat her as anything less? Absolutely not.

I absolutely agree. What I would add though is that it wouldn’t be wrong for a hypothetical elderly lady running the cash desk to say something within proper limits if she believed she were helping the (presumably) younger one “see the light”. (For the record, I don’t immediately associate “short shorts and a tank top” with a need for such intervention but let’s suppose the hypothetical elderly lady did.)

Using a secular analogy: we generally all understand free speech which has been turned into a right to expression (this is actually a remotely fitting analogy because according to the US Supreme Court free speech actually covers clothing, although Scalia had to perform a lot of gymnastics to phrase it). On the other hand, free speech includes the freedom to speak about someone else’s speech, right? Let alone does it restrict the right to hold opinions of someone else’s speach internally.

A man who goes to the grocery store in short shorts and a tank top - should he still be treated like a person, made in the image and likeness of God? Absolutely. Do we have some sort of moral right to treat him as anything less? Absolutely not.

Umm… yeah. But suppose he goes to church for mass and is turned away by the usher standing right next to a poster that shows the appropriate dress. That doesn’t violate the man’s dignity and his image of God. It rather helps him appreciate his own dignity and image of God.

Now, did this man and woman wear those clothes purposely to make people lust? Perhaps, or perhaps not. (I’ve gone into a grocery store wearing such when I was coming back from a park, and my intention wasn’t to make anyone lust, neither did I think I looked immodest in the least bit.) It is God’s judgement to make, and God will judge them fairly. And what is OUR part in this? Our part is to treat them both like human person’s, regardless of what they were wearing, or of what sin they may or may not have committed.

That is true but please remember we’re talking about what-ifs here. We are expressing speculative opinions about some hypothetical conduct. We are bound to appear judgemental when we are doing this. And when we make one point, this may be interpreted as denying another.

Do you disagree with that?

Nope, but as you see, I’ve made a ton of reservations and comments.

Looks like there is a lot of misunderstanding going on here. I’m willing to bet we all agree on this more than we think we do…

We probably do.

And this question applies to men as well, of course. If a man is wearing something you consider immodest, how should he be treated, if not like a gentleman?

On second thought, I can imagine circumstances in which I would not consider such a man to be a gentleman. To a point, he would still be treated like a gentleman but this wouldn’t be infinite. There is indeed a point at which we can and should provide a manifest sinner with a strong admonition and refuse to appear to validate sin. This does not mean that somebody should be refused to be sold food. But this does mean that as the shop owner we can ask him not to come again unless in more appropriate clothing. (But I’m talking about extreme cases, a t-shirt advertising condoms and one night stands would be a likelier candidate than anything that merely seemed too short or clingy, which is way too subjective to make harsh judgements on.)

 

[Debora123]

Are you not condemning those who have never heard of God though? If we are all held to the same exact standard and the native out in the middle of the Amazon is expected to achieve the same standard of virtue you are, is that not unfair? If you don’t accept the principle I put forward you effectively condemn them.

Once again, I believe we all have an equal responsibility and calling to live a moral life. Some people may be judged differently by God due to ignorance, but this does not mean they don’t have the same calling as everyone else.

And besides, the issue this started off as the argument you were making was influence specifically. Not ignorance. So again, no. I do not think that people with “more influence” or whatever have a greater responsibility to be good people than the rest of us.

You are free to have that opinion if you’d like, but the Church does not teach this, and I don’t agree with it.

 

[Debora123]

I absolutely agree. What I would add though is that it wouldn’t be wrong for a hypothetical elderly lady running the cash desk to say something within proper limits if she believed she were helping the (presumably) younger one “see the light”. (For the record, I don’t immediately associate “short shorts and a tank top” with a need for such intervention but let’s suppose the hypothetical elderly lady did.)

Using a secular analogy: we generally all understand free speech which has been turned into a right to expression (this is actually a remotely fitting analogy because according to the US Supreme Court free speech actually covers clothing, although Scalia had to perform a lot of gymnastics to phrase it). On the other hand, free speech includes the freedom to speak about someone else’s speech, right? Let alone does it restrict the right to hold opinions of someone else’s speach internally.

But we are not talking about “helping someone see the light,” or about speech or any of that. Such was not even mentioned. We are talking about treating people as anything but what they are - as people.

I’m glad you agree.

 

[chevalier]

Once again, I believe we all have an equal responsibility and calling to live a moral life. Some people may be judged differently by God due to ignorance, but this does not mean they don’t have the same calling as everyone else.

I very much like that statement. When I was talking about material sin, it was a way of saying that even though many people may be doing something wrong unintentionally, and so we shouldn’t blame them (to the extent they are thus “excused”) but we can’t accept the wrong thing itself and we should try to educate those people to know better.

But we are not talking about “helping someone see the light,” or about speech or any of that. Such was not even mentioned. We are talking about treating people as anything but what they are - as people.

I’m glad you agree.

Yes, of course. But I still wanted to prevent a couple of possible interpretations of what I said. It seemed important to me to avoid them.

I’m not sure how that excerpt can prove that some people have a bigger responsibility than others to lead a moral life. Such is not Catholic teaching. We ALL have that responsibility, and we ALL have it equally.

So I continue to disagree.

While the commandments and then moral law are binding on all, still of some people indeed more is required because they have been given more opportunity. This indeed seems to go back to Our Lord’s own words when He essentially said that more will be asked of those who received more. For example, more is required of somebody who received a lot of catechesis and plenty of general schooling to equip his intellect well, than is from a barely instructed “savage”. When it comes to sin, ignorance is harder to claim for the former, this I’m sure you agree with. On top of this, those with more “talents” are expected to do more good, in a way “according to ability”.

 

[francisca]

Have you ever seen that optical illusion painting that is in black and white, where you look at it and depending on the perspective you choose to look at it with you either see a vase, or two faces? That is what is your looking at right now.

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/2012669_f260.jpg

If you only look at the painting and concentrate on the white you see a vase. If you look at it and concentrate on the black, you see two faces.

You are only looking at the idea of responsibility like that. You are fully focused on the white, and refuse to look at it from the perspective of the black. Take a chance and change your perspective so you don’t miss something important.

Nate,

If you go back to OP, there was mentioned “some expectation” for women to be “innocent” without ANY expectation for men’s part to be “innocent” whatsoever. I can tell who is refusing to look from which perspective.

If only there is an expectation for men to be innocent, men would not dare to complain about women’s dress.

Immodesty has never been in the person’s body, because all of us are created modest in the eyes of God. Yet “immodesty” Enters the heart of men and women. Whoever has “immodesty” concept in their minds has sinned.

Think about it.

“Medesty and Immodesty concept” will not be able to banish sin in the heart of men and women. Instead it will magnify sin, and give it power over us all. If you want to banish sin in your heart, you should free yourself from such thinking.

 

[Debora123]

Umm… yeah. But suppose he goes to church for mass and is turned away by the usher standing right next to a poster that shows the appropriate dress. That doesn’t violate the man’s dignity and his image of God. It rather helps him appreciate his own dignity and image of God.

Once again, we are not talking about violating dress code and being asked to leave. I specifically mentioned the grocery store. We are talking about whether or not is should be morally acceptable to treat people badly and with a lack of respect, due to what they are wearing.

It really seems like we are all in agreement here on this, but you seem to be digging up arguments where there are none. Is this a correct assessment?

 

[Debora123]

Nope, but as you see, I’ve made a ton of reservations and comments.

Good. If you don’t disagree that people should always be treated like people created in the image and likeness of God regardless of their clothes, then you, Severus, Walking Home, and I, are all on the same page here. Because that is ALL we were trying to say.

 

[chevalier]

If only there is an expectation for men to be innocent, men would not dare to complain about women’s dress.

Innocent fathers would be teaching their daughters to dress modestly. They wouldn’t accept just about anything the daughter saw in a journal or on a friend. Fathers would be negligent if they did that.

 

[Debora123]

On second thought, I can imagine circumstances in which I would not consider such a man to be a gentleman. To a point, he would still be treated like a gentleman but this wouldn’t be infinite. There is indeed a point at which we can and should provide a manifest sinner with a strong admonition and refuse to appear to validate sin. This does not mean that somebody should be refused to be sold food. But this does mean that as the shop owner we can ask him not to come again unless in more appropriate clothing. (But I’m talking about extreme cases, a t-shirt advertising condoms and one night stands would be a likelier candidate than anything that merely seemed too short or clingy, which is way too subjective to make harsh judgements on.)

…And that is ALL we were trying to say. That he should still be treated as a gentleman, regardless of whether we think he is acting like one or not. No need to look for arguments when there aren’t any.

 

[Nate13]

Once again, I believe we all have an equal responsibility and calling to live a moral life. Some people may be judged differently by God due to ignorance, but this does not mean they don’t have the same calling as everyone else.

And besides, the issue this started off as the argument you were making was influence specifically. Not ignorance. So again, no. I do not think that people with “more influence” or whatever have a greater responsibility to be good people than the rest of us.

You are free to have that opinion if you’d like, but the Church does not teach this, and I don’t agree with it.

Perspective, perspective, perspective. I’ll reiterate this one more time, for not only you but anyone else reading this and then I’m getting off before I pull my hair out haha.

Perspective 1
Person A has 10 talents, and is expected to produce 10 more talents.
Person B has 5 talents, and is expected to produce 5 more talents.

10 talents is more than 5 talents. Dealing with 10 talents involves more risk than 5 talents. Since 10 is more than 5…the person with 10 talents has more responsibility than the one with 5 talents.

Perspective 2
I have remembered another parable to help with this perspective.

The Widow’s Offering
1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
Luke 21:1-4

The poor woman put in more, because she gave a higher percentage of her overall gifts than the rich men did. The rich men had more responsibility than the woman because of the gifts they had been given, yet they failed to live up to it and be as generous as the woman even though she had been given so much less.

The poor woman and the rich men are equal in that God looks past amount values, but rather how much of a whole did they give.

It is still true though that the rich men were given more responsibility though in that they had to pay a higher amount value because of the gifts they had that the poor woman did not.

I rest my case

 

[Debora123]

While the commandments and then moral law are binding on all, still of some people indeed more is required because they have been given more opportunity. This indeed seems to go back to Our Lord’s own words when He essentially said that more will be asked of those who received more. For example, more is required of somebody who received a lot of catechesis and plenty of general schooling to equip his intellect well, than is from a barely instructed “savage”. When it comes to sin, ignorance is harder to claim for the former, this I’m sure you agree with. On top of this, those with more “talents” are expected to do more good, in a way “according to ability”.

Sure, but that is not what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with the notion that some people have a bigger responsibility to live a normal life than the rest. Nate seemed to be saying that he believed women have a greater influence on people than men do, and so because of that, women have a bigger responsibility to be moral than men do.

That is what this whole discussion originated from, and that is what I disagree with. I hope I have made myself clear.

 

[chevalier]

…And that is ALL we were trying to say. That he should still be treated as a gentleman, regardless of whether we think he is acting like one or not. No need to look for arguments when there aren’t any.

Umm… actually what I said is a bit more than that and I actually would say that at some point he needn’t be trteated like a gentleman. At some point he should be treated like someone refusing to a gentleman, in accordance with his actions, without precluding that he might once again become a gentleman again, which is basically what we hope for. In simpler words, while nobody ever forfeits human dignity (not even Hitler or Stalin or the Khmers Rouges), at some point he forfeits the perks. But as I said, this is not when we have relatively minor disagreements. It would be very hard to pull that off with the choice of apparel alone, but if someone male wore something clearly lewd, I would probably not be treating him as a gentleman. As a human, yes, but not a gentleman. No chance of enjoying perks similar to some that other people have earned with good behaviour or as a basis of a loan of confidence.

Sure, but that is not what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with the notion that some people have a bigger responsibility to live a normal life than the rest. Nate seemed to be saying that he believed women have a greater influence on people than men do, and so because of that, women have a bigger responsibility to be moral than men do.

That is what this whole discussion originated from, and that is what I disagree with. I hope I have made myself clear.

I see. Well, some people may have bigger responsibilities in this area and some in that one, according to their unique vocations. But grave matter is still grave matter.

 

[Debora123]

Perspective, perspective, perspective. I’ll reiterate this one more time, for not only you but anyone else reading this and then I’m getting off before I pull my hair out haha.

Perspective 1
Person A has 10 talents, and is expected to produce 10 more talents.
Person B has 5 talents, and is expected to produce 5 more talents.

10 talents is more than 5 talents. Dealing with 10 talents involves more risk than 5 talents. Since 10 is more than 5…the person with 10 talents has more responsibility than the one with 5 talents.

Perspective 2
I have remembered another parable to help with this perspective.

The poor woman put in more, because she gave a higher percentage of her overall gifts than the rich men did. The rich men had more responsibility than the woman because of the gifts they had been given, yet they failed to live up to it and be as generous as the woman even though she had been given so much less.

The poor woman and the rich men are equal in that God looks past amount values, but rather how much of a whole did they give.

It is still true though that the rich men were given more responsibility though in that they had to pay a higher amount value because of the gifts they had that the poor woman did not.

I rest my case

This is getting pretty annoying, no offense. I already told you my stance 9 million times, and that I don’t agree with yours. I am done arguing about this, because there is nothing left to argue. It is what it is.