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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys are not listening to mama Truelight.

And things are getting worse and worse.

😦
 
Debora123 said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
40.png
passer_by:
Haha did you think that simply re-iterating something makes it logically valid?

If its logically fallacious, it is fallacious.

All your example shows at best is that Clothes ALONE do not deter lust. It in no way shows that Clothes do not deter lust.

As for what the church teaches, I have made clear what it teaches. If someone lusts, the sin of lusts is not transferable. But if someone dresses immodestly, that sin is also not transferable. Both have to bear responsibility for TWO DIFFERENT sins.

Try to keep up with the discussion please and not forget what was said before.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Again-- your condescending attitude --is not of help to you. Trying to raise yourself up – via diminishing another-- is not a good sign.

I too have noticed this condescending attitude quite a few times.… 🤷
Click to expand...
Yep-- and it seems like it may be getting more predominant.
 
Walking_Home said:
Yep-- and it seems like it may be getting more predominant.
Click to expand...
This is some serious logical thought going back and forth. It’s been quiet a while since I got to witness a completely all over the place discussion… I will observe from the sidelines. We have had wedding photos, accusations of condescension, memory losses… can’t wait for what is next 🍿
 
lil_flower_luv said:
You and others are justifying a woman’s right to wear whatever she wants, because all men are going to devalue her anyway. Think about that.

Yes, we HAVE fallen. We ARE in need of grace. But God has never said, nor will he EVER say to us, “Well, since you cannot do any better, you might as well not try.”
Click to expand...
I really really am sure that if women were guilty of “never try to do anything at all”, the only thing they have tried hard for centuries is to dress well.

But why would you insist that women should dress IN ORDER to get SOME respect from men? By doing this, you agree that womens dignity is depend on their dresses.
 
passer_by said:
I… c…nt… brea…the…[gasps]…
Click to expand...
If the shoe fits…😉
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.
Click to expand...
We are in the moral theology section here. You cannot get away from logic.
 
Walking_Home said:
It is what is present in a person’s mind – that causes one to lust. Lust comes from the inside. It is not the exposed flesh-- but how people have been “taught” to view that exposed flesh. Every time someone says – “look at the “immodest” person” and/or makes any type of derogatory description of a person for the clothes worn—they teaching to internalize a negative image of a human being – that can be expressed via lust.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I always want to say, I just couldn’t find words to say it clearly enough.
 
LilyM said:
Uh, no. Look, imagine that I decide to commit an armed robbery.

Imagine that my mate knows that I am thinking of doing this, and decides to buy a gun for me, knowing that that gun will most likely be used in the robbery. Say my mate decides to drive me in a car to the nearest bank, knowing that there’s a good chance I will choose to rob that bank.

Does any of this mean if caught and punished I will get a lighter sentence? That I will say ‘my mate helped me, so go easy on me your honour, because they bear part of the responsibility’ and the judge will do so?

No. On the contrary, in my jurisdiction the fact that you ‘acted in company’ (ie not alone) will make your sentence even heavier.

But - does it mean that person who helped you will not be guilty of ANYTHING? Depending on the circumstances and their level of knowlege they will almost certainly get tried and punished appropriately for their own recklessness - perhaps as an accessory to your crime, perhaps on some other charge.

The fact that they weren’t 100% certain that I would use THAT gun, or rob THAT bank, likely won’t matter that much.

In the same way, someone driving drunk won’t get lenient treatment because they didn’t think they would hit THAT power pole or THAT child who was crossing the road.

Drunk drivers rarely if ever intend to hit anyone or anything. However, they know that it is a real risk which accompanies the driving of a vehicle whilst intoxicated, and as long as they intend to drive whilst drunk, the chips fall where they may and their lack of positive intent will not save them from guilt.

In short: two different levels and types of culpability. Neither participant detracts or transfers a single blessed thing from the other. And no, lack of positive intent to sin does not (or not completely) remove culpability, if one is reckless or negligent.
Click to expand...
Robbery analogy assumes immorality. Women’s attempts to look good is a holy calling from God.

Tell me if there is any woman try to dress to look ugly.

On the other hand, men’s prejudice over women’s intention to look beautiful is sinful.

I really hope the church would not fall into a teaching that will measure women’s holiness based on what she wear. What a shallow teaching.
 
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. (CCC) …emphasis mine

More here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8R.HTM
 
Debora123,

You look stunning in that HOT wedding dress. And I do mean very very beaufitful, girl !
 
ahs said:
Catechism on modesty
Click to expand...
Don’t worry ahs, that thread from the Catechism was put forward and debated repeatedly already haha. I also slipped in the part about scandal and the implications of that from the Catechism as well, but it was interestingly enough ignored…😃
 
passer_by said:
Not to start a conversation with you but the average man usually doesn’t outwardly disrespect a woman. He will just have some degrading stuff to say about women who he knows dresses immodestly when he is with his fellow pals when that person is missing.

Just letting you know because you seem to have a naive view of judging everything by your experience as being sole dictator of what is true.

Oh and think about this for a bit, all the people on this forum according to you, look at you and your form of dress disrespectfully. So not everyone who knows you technically speaking considers your dress respectful.

Again, I am just pointing out because you seem to some how exclude the people here when you talk about people who know you.
Click to expand...
You are maligning men. No, not all men are hypocritical , judgemental cowards making disparaging comments behind someone’s back .

Why should anyone not look to his/her experience but just ignore it.

No, not all here agree with you.
 
francisca said:
Robbery analogy assumes immorality. Women’s attempts to look good is a holy calling from God.

Tell me if there is any woman try to dress to look ugly.

On the other hand, men’s prejudice over women’s intention to look beautiful is sinful.

I really hope the church would not fall into a teaching that will measure women’s holiness based on what she wear. What a shallow teaching.
Click to expand...
Looking good or beautiful emphatically does not equate to looking ‘hot’, ‘sexy’, ‘bootylicious’ or any equivalent term implying that one is open to inappropriate glances or thoughts of the opposite gender.

Nor does it equate to wearing skimpy clothing that is likely to attract such glances or provoke such thoughts.

One rarely wears such clothing, or indeed any clothing, in public without some thought as to how others are likely to perceive it. One might of course think about it and then dismiss the thought - in which case one may well be reckless or negligent and as such may not escape moral culpability.
 
TrueLight said:
Well, this is true. I don’t buy the “let’s protect men from sin” viewpoint and I don’t believe in denigrating women in any way, obviously. However, I do believe both men and women know when they’re wearing things that are immodest. It just so happens that we women have a lot more to look out for because, we have more interesting bodies.

For me, the primary reason for modesty is that we are to be the lights of the world and we need to be beyond reproach in all. Wearing skimpy clothing that puts our sexuality front and center is wrong.

In the words of Chris Brown, “That ain’t right”.
Click to expand...
I do think women are prettier than men.🙂
 
Nate13 said:
Don’t worry ahs, that thread from the Catechism was put forward and debated repeatedly already haha. I also slipped in the part about scandal and the implications of that from the Catechism as well, but it was interestingly enough ignored…😃
Click to expand...
I figured it had been, but I could not scan through all the posts to see for sure (I’m ADD…seriously… ). Oh well, it never hurts to keep the Church’s thoughts fresh on our minds. 🙂

Scandal? Whatever do you mean? Now if you’ll please excuse me, my wife and are going to take a nude stroll through the neighborhood. 😉 (For those wondering…I’m joking… )
 
Yeah, and use cathecism to FORBID women wearing stunning wedding dress?

Use cathecism to force women to dress according to THE TASTE AND STANDARD OF THE BEHOLDER.

Use cathecism to devalue women who do not dress according to ones own idea of modesty?
 
LilyM said:
Yet the Church DOES teach that dressing immodestly is a sin. It doesn’t, to my knowledge, define ‘immodest’ as ‘purposely worn in order to incite lust in the opposite sex’ or ‘which DOES in fact incite lust in the opposite sex’.

That is because there are many reasons to dress modestly - one being that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. And as the Tabernacle is always kept closed and locked (and often covered) and the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem was always screened off by curtains, we cover and protect that which is sacred.

Which is the BODY, or the most part of it, and not just the GENITALS!
Click to expand...
Then really both men and women should cover up head to toe as the Tabernacle is covered.
 
LilyM said:
Looking good or beautiful emphatically does not equate to looking ‘hot’, ‘sexy’, ‘bootylicious’ or any equivalent term implying that one is open to inappropriate glances or thoughts of the opposite gender.
Click to expand...
Is it a sin to look sexy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top