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

[Nate13]

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.

1. I repeatedly said this was a generalized statement.
2. I repeated it more specifically by saying both men and women that had more influence, had more of a responsibility to be virtuous.

Stop slandering me.

 

[severus68]

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 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.

I thought the parable of the Talents was about the more you have been given, ( as in gifts/talents, money, opportunities), the more you should give. I recall reading about how the Kennedy children were taught that they had so much and they were obliged to give back.

 

[Nate13]

I thought the parable of the Talents was about the more you have been given, ( as in gifts/talents, money, opportunities), the more you should give. I recall reading about how the Kennedy children were taught that they had so much and they were obliged to give back.

Hallelujah!!! More gifts = Giving more = more responsibility

That is the first perspective.

 

[Debora123]

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.

The bolded is key.

One word: EXACTLY!

 

[Debora123]

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.

But we are speaking specifically in the area of being a MORAL person.

In that specific area, we all have that responsibility equally.

If you agree with this, than we have nothing else to disagree on in this respect.

 

[chevalier]

The bolded is key.

One word: EXACTLY!

Please note that when I say “very hard”, I rather explicitly say “but still possible”. Otherwise I’d say something like “impossible” or “hardly possible”. Make sure you’re still in agreement, okay?

But we are speaking specifically in the area of being a MORAL person.

Umm, I would say someone better catechised (and equipped with more intelligence to understand morality, or a naturally strong will that helps him resist temptations if he wants to etc.) has a bigger responsibility of being a moral person. I believe our theology gives basis to expect that he’d be judged more strictly on his morality than a hypothetical barely catechised savage (while they are both called to holiness and both are told to be holy as Father is holy, which basically means no upper limit to the calling itself, so it could be said to be infinite for both).

 

[Bearontherun]

Jumping in late (having not read all of the thread).

The notion that some of us will be held to higher standards and judged more severely can also be supported by this IMHO…

James 3:1 & 2, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. NIV.

I think that this means that those of us who hold power and influence will held to extra account for our behaviour.

 

[Debora123]

Hallelujah!!! More gifts = Giving more = more responsibility

That is the first perspective.

Now you are changing your argument. Before, we were talking specifically in regards to being a moral person.

Sure if you have more money, you should give more money. Etc etc. That is something completely different.

When it comes to being a moral person, I still stand that we all have that responsibility equally.

 

[Debora123]

Please note that when I say “very hard”, I rather explicitly say “but still possible”. Otherwise I’d say something like “impossible” or “hardly possible”. Make sure you’re still in agreement, okay?

I still think that you are just trying to argue at this point.

 

[Nate13]

Now you are changing your argument. Before, we were talking specifically in regards to being a moral person.

Sure if you have more money, you should give more money. Etc etc. That is something completely different.

When it comes to being a moral person, I still stand that we all have that responsibility equally.

Go back and look at my statements. I have repeatedly used the word virtuous not moral. The only one using moral is you. If I slipped it in there somewhere point it out, and I will apologize profusely for accidentally misleading you. Yes I would agree that we are all held accountable equally with morals because the idea of culpability is built into morals. The idea that culpability can vary depending on the circumstances corrects for the innate differences between us.

The difference between virtues and morals:

A virtue is a quality the person has.
He’s an honest man.
Morals tend to behavior.
Be honest don’t lie.
They are related. Someone with the virtue of honesty will not lie it shows up in his morals.
However someone without the virtue of honesty can have as part of his morals be honest don’t lie.
Lacking the virtue of honesty he will have a much harder time being successful.

 

[Debora123]

Umm, I would say someone better catechised (and equipped with more intelligence to understand morality, or a naturally strong will that helps him resist temptations if he wants to etc.) has a bigger responsibility of being a moral person. I believe our theology gives basis to expect that he’d be judged more strictly on his morality than a hypothetical barely catechised savage (while they are both called to holiness and both are told to be holy as Father is holy, which basically means no upper limit to the calling itself, so it could be said to be infinite for both).

Yes, and this is ignorance, and we’ve already covered that. Please look again at my last post about this to know what it is exactly I am disagreeing with here.

I will show it to you again:

** 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]

I still think that you are just trying to argue at this point.

No, I am trying to avoid the kind of agreement that omits some important detail for the sake of agreement. I have valid reasons for sticking with those certain “details”.

As for the quote above, if women actually had a greater influence, they would actually had a greater responsibility. This is analogous to people who are in the spotlight and are looked up to as examples and thus, I suppose, have a greater obligation to act morally on account of the fact they’re examples to others. But Nate is arguing his points competently, so let’s leave it to him.

 

[Debora123]

Go back and look at my statements. I have repeatedly used the word virtuous not moral. The only one using moral is you. If I slipped it in there somewhere point it out, and I will apologize profusely for accidentally misleading you. Yes I would agree that we are all held accountable equally with morals because the idea of culpability is built into morals. The idea that culpability can vary depending on the circumstances corrects for the innate differences between us.

The difference between virtues and morals:

You specifically said that women have a greater responsibility to be virtuous than men do, because you are somehow convinced that women have a greater influence on people.

I disagree with that. Period. End of discussion.

 

[passer_by]

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.

Strictly speaking from a Sexual point of view, its much more problematic when a woman goes topless than a man doing the same thing. Men also tend to view things more sexually than women.

So even in terms of dress, how they conduct a relationship with the opposite sex, women have more to watch-out for. The very fact that women in the Western cultures are usually totally unaware of these things which usually get passed down from Culture i.e. generation to generation, is probably why there is such a breakdown in family in Western society.

One can now of course disagree, but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to provide reasons for us to agree with you, right?

 

[francisca]

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.

Interesting opinion.

I would prefer “innocent fathers” to teach their sons to look at women with innocent hearts.

 

[Debora123]

No, I am trying to avoid the kind of agreement that omits some important detail for the sake of agreement. I have valid reasons for sticking with those certain “details”.

It seems like you are nitpicking at specific people, such as Severus, Walking Home, and myself.

Unless of course, you have been in 100% absolute and total agreement with what the other posters here have said (such as Nate and lil flower), you seem to be specifically nit picking at US for some reason.

It is hard to have an intelligent conversation when you notice unfair biases like that, and when it seems like the other is purposely trying to be as inagreeable as possible to a specific group of people he does not favor.

If this is the case, then I am out of this discussion - as it turns into just a waste of time.

 

[passer_by]

Interesting opinion.

I would prefer “innocent fathers” to teach their sons to look at women with innocent hearts.

Which is impossible to do when women dress provocatively. There is something called Concupiscence at work here you know

 

[Nate13]

You specifically said that women have a greater responsibility to be virtuous than men do, because you are somehow convinced that women have a greater influence on people.

I disagree with that. Period. End of discussion.

You also wrote this off a long while back:

I have a compromise for you in wording

men and women who have more of an influence over members of the opposite sex or just more influence in general, have more of a responsibility to be virtuous than those who don’t.

You could probably replace “more of an influence” with “more charismatic” if you wanted to.

(I still hold that this is more often the case with women than it is men though )

If you get the point, I don’t care if you hate me. Accept you made a mistake, and lets move on. I have acknowledged I was completely wrong on multiple occasions on this website, and I can assure you from personal experience no one will think any less of you because of it.

Besides I refuse to be out-stubborned in a thread (And no, I don’t think out-stubborned is a real word)

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I have noticed the glib use of the term’ strawman’ arguement.

:yawn:

This is what happens when people jump in on a thread they haven’t been following 100% from the beginning.

I’m pretty good at filling in the blanks.

All I meant from the above statement was that everyone is equally responsible for their sins. And this was a response to a poster who said that people who have more influence on others have a greater responsibility to be virtuous than the rest of us. This is not so. We ALL have that responsibility, and we all have it equally.

Two things:

1.) God judges us according to what we know.

2.) “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much,
and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” Luke 12:48

I never said, in this entire thread, that dressing immodestly was good, or not sinful. Please do not accuse me of such, and please do not make claims when you haven’t been following a thread all the way and thus don’t know what you are talking about.

Please don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve noticed you say that to people who simply don’t agree with you. So, try to see our side as we try to see yours.

Lil Flower, I have a question for you.

If a woman does not act in accordance to your definition of a lady, (let’s say she’s wearing a mini skirt with a red spaghetti strapped tank top) how do you think she should be treated?

Who/what do you think she should be treated like, if you don’t think she should be treated like a lady regardless?

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?

Do you think I’m going to say she should be treated like the scum of the earth? Of course she should be treated respectfully regardless of what she’s wearing, saying, or doing. HOWEVER, if she goes out of her way to dress immodestly for a certain type of attention, or is irresponsible in her clothing choices, I’m saying she herself will be held accountable.

 

[Debora123]

Strictly speaking from a Sexual point of view, its much more problematic when a woman goes topless than a man doing the same thing. Men also tend to view things more sexually than women.

So even in terms of dress, how they conduct a relationship with the opposite sex, women have more to watch-out for. The very fact that women in the Western cultures are usually totally unaware of these things which usually get passed down from Culture i.e. generation to generation, is probably why there is such a breakdown in family in Western society.

One can now of course disagree, but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to provide reasons for us to agree, right?

We are not talking of specific incidences, nor even of modesty on this.

A general statement made by another member here was that women have a higher responsibility to be virtuous people than men do. I do not agree with that. I believe they have equal responsibility.