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

[severus68]

Did I say they were dumb?

On the contrary, they are (or some) no better than very CUNNING animals, just as some women are. And in the same way can create a false impression of being nice, decent, genuine people if it serves a purpose. Such as getting near a good-looking person of the opposite gender?

Hey, if all those massively dysfunctional Hollywood actors can appear ‘normal’ in their movies and interviews, why not?

Well, you might’ve attracted him sooner if you DID stand out by reason of more modest dress, rather than looking exactly like every other dime-a-dozen girl out there? Something to ponder.

Cunning animals? Animals are not really cunning, some are rather intelligent. So it would appear that you have insulted humans and animals.

Aren’t you making personal comments and why? Debora has been very polite notwithstanding the discoutersy shown her.

 

[ahs]

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?

I’ve seen plenty “stunning” wedding dresses that are modest. My wife looked stunning in hers; and it was quite modest.

I don’t think the Catechism usage implies that women should be forced to dress a certain way, not does it devalue women in any sense. Rather, it calls us to focus on the importance of keeping secret things secret, and teaches us that there is more to a woman than how she looks. It teaches us to save certain things for our spouse and to keep those things only for him/her.

 

[Nate13]

Cunning animals? Animals are not really cunning, some are rather intelligent. So it would appear that you have insulted humans and animals.

Aren’t you making personal comments and why? Debora has been very polite notwithstanding the discoutersy shown her.

Haha I agree with LilyM’s point in general here:

On the contrary, they are (or some are) very CUNNING, just as some women are. And in the same way can create a false impression of being nice, decent, genuine people if it serves a purpose. Such as getting near a good-looking person of the opposite gender?

I have personally seen this when I was in college not too long ago in the dorms, and yes it is more rampant than you would think. Its a game and sometimes men really do bring themselves down to the level where they are barely acting more morally than cunning animals.

Also she was insulting men, not Debora, so I’m not sure what your last comment is about. We can take being called names, however I fixed it just in case someone isn’t

 

[severus68]

So St Peter’s and my school have a more stringent code - my point is that we need to be asking why.

Are they more important places than your church and therefore one should dress up better for them? No.

Are they just places where joyless soulless party-poopers who enjoy hassling others about their clothing tend to congregate? That’s the last thing I’d call JPII, or the people around him.

Or do the people there perhaps just care a tad more about modesty? Can’t answer that one, not knowing the folks at your church. Some parishes are definitely a lot more lax on all kinds of matters, including doctrine and dogma as well as discipline, than others.

Should and would the Pope refuse to see someone wearing a sleeveless dress who wishes to see him with an open heart? I think it is the people who surround him that come up with rules and strictures.

It is really not acceptable to make such comments about churches and the priests who run them. How can you say allowing bare shoulders means being lax about doctrine.

 

[ahs]

Is it a sin to look sexy?

Actually, that depends. If you know, for example, that “looking sexy” will attract the attention of men in an immodest way, then you are leading them to sin…and that is a sin.

But I don’t think most women who dress immodest think that way…it’s not something intentional. I have cousins, for example, who grew up thinking they had to dress “cute” or “sexy” for the guys. This got them lots of attention, and they liked the attention, so they continued the behavior. They never think about it in terms of “am I leading someone to sin?”. Rather, they are starving for attention (their ultimate conclusion, not mine) and have learned that dressing immodest gets them that attention. “Looking sexy” draws men’s attention to them.

So is that sinful? Let’s put that in a Mass setting where men are focusing on them more than they are focusing on the Altar during the Consecration…is looking sexy sinful? Is competing with God for men’s attention a sin? It all depends on the context you put it in.

ETA: Refer to the Catechism to help you decide if it is a sin or not.

 

[severus68]

I’m Australian by the way, not American - but plenty of men here will go to places like Thailand to indulge themselves rather than risk getting caught out at home. I daresay American men do too. And we’re one of the supposedly ‘sexually liberated’ cultures

So no surprise that Saudi men do also.

And the fact that so many of them feel that it is SO taboo that they cannot even do it in their own country - that there is that level of public disapproval and intolerance of sexual sin - still puts them a step ahead of us.

We can claim no sort of moral highground when we make it available on practically every street corner and when people become celebrities BECAUSE of who they are intimate with, or rumoured to be intimate with/how frequently they change partners/filming their sexual encounters and putting the film on the internet

I know, I did edit it to Australia almost immediately so am not sure why the original still appeared - my apologies.

I was just replying to you on your comment about society.

 

[francisca]

I’ve seen plenty “stunning” wedding dresses that are modest. My wife looked stunning in hers; and it was quite modest.

Are you implying that Debora should have chosen similar to your wife’s dress?

I don’t think the Catechism usage implies that women should be forced to dress a certain way, not does it devalue women in any sense. Rather, it calls us to focus on the importance of keeping secret things secret,

Keeping our “shoulders” secret?

and teaches us that there is more to a woman than how she looks.

Good idea.
How about men learn this topic first, then come back again to re-read this thread.

It teaches us to save certain things for our spouse and to keep those things only for him/her.

Yup. Men’s must learn to keep their “certain” thoughts only for their spouse. As for women, they don’t commit sin by putting on the dress they like period.

 

[LilyM]

Then really both men and women should cover up head to toe as the Tabernacle is covered.

Well, obviously when needed that cover is opened - during communion time at Mass, on Good Friday etc.

And that’s not a bad way to approach things - 'is there any real NEED being served by this flashing of flesh?

If I am not motivated by need, am I serving a truly worthwhile and godly purpose, with my choice of clothing?

Am I glorifying Him by worthily adorning His temple, my body, or simply mindlessly going along with what everyone around me is wearing?’

 

[ahs]

Are you implying that Debora should have chosen similar to your wife’s dress?

Nope. I was responding to your statement that I was using the Catechism to forbid women from wearing a stunning wedding dress.

You said:

Yeah, and use cathecism to FORBID women wearing stunning wedding dress?

Keeping our “shoulders” secret?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I said nothing of “shoulders”.

Yup. Men’s must learn to keep their “certain” thoughts only for their spouse. As for women, they don’t commit sin by putting on the dress they like period.

We are our brothers’ keepers, so to speak. We can lead each other to sin. If you know a man will look immodestly at you if you wear a certain dress, you share in his sin if you decide to wear it. The same as if I know that I could lead you to sin by doing something…then I do it anyway, I am as guilty as you are in that sin, if not more guilty. Scripture tells us this…in Christs’ own words. …but woe unto him who leads the least of these astary…better a millstone be tied around his neck and he be thrown into the sea…] (brackets because I probably don’t the quote exactly right).

 

[severus68]

Haha I agree with LilyM’s point in general here:

I have personally seen this when I was in college not too long ago in the dorms, and yes it is more rampant than you would think. Its a game and sometimes men really do bring themselves down to the level where they are barely acting more morally than cunning animals.

Also she was insulting men, not Debora, so I’m not sure what your last comment is about. We can take being called names, however I fixed it just in case someone isn’t

Animals do not sin and they do not know to connive like humans.

Please re- read her post. She said to Debora : "Well, you might’ve attracted him sooner if you DID stand out by reason of more modest dress, rather than looking exactly like every other dime-a-dozen girl out there? "

 

[severus68]

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?

Dont they now. I agree.

 

[LilyM]

francisca:

Yup. Men’s must learn to keep their “certain” thoughts only for their spouse. As for women, they don’t commit sin by putting on the dress they like period.

So you think only a woman has any right to a say in what she wears? Not for a Christian. Your body is not your own, but God’s first and foremost.

Does God have any thoughts on the topic of what we wear? Well, let’s see …

Firstly He made clothes to cover Adam and Eve in Eden - clearly even the fig leaves weren’t enough!

Then He established a church and gave it full power to bind and loose in His name.

Then that church on His behalf teaches …

What? That people can wear whatever they want? Nope.

That people can wear whatever the people around them think is OK? Wrong again.

It teaches that they are to dress modestly and always in keeping with the inherent (not culturally determined) dignity and sacredness of the human body. Which IS inherent and not culturally determined because it derives from our bodies being His creation and temple of His Holy Spirit.

 

[ahs]

Dont they now. I agree.

How so? Please, give an example of how I (or they) have:

A. forbidden women from wearing a stunning wedding dress
B. forced women to dress according to the taste of the beholder
C. devalued women who do not dress according to an idea of modesty

 

[ahs]

So you think only a woman has any right to a say in what she wears? Not for a Christian. Your body is not your own, but God’s. Does God have any thoughts on the topic of what we wear? Well, let’s see …

Firstly He made clothes to cover Adam and Eve in Eden - clearly even the fit leaves weren’t enough!

Then He established a church and gave it full power to bond and loose in His name.

Then that church on His behalf teaches … What? That people can wear whatever they want? Nope. That people can wear whatever the people around them think is OK? Wrong again.

It teaches that they are to dress modestly and always in keeping with the inherent (not culturally determined) dignity and sacredness of the human body.

Yes, exactly. If you are upset about the issue of modesty, take it up with God and quit blaming the few Christians who desire to live according to His Word.

 

[severus68]

How so? Please, give an example of how I (or they) have:

A. forbidden women from wearing a stunning wedding dress
B. forced women to dress according to the taste of the beholder
C. devalued women who do not dress according to an idea of modesty

Fransisca was not singling you out, neither was I. I was agreeing with Fransisca who has explained what she means more than once.

Anyway:

A. Forbidding as saying it is wrong/immodest to wear a stunning wedding dress like Debora’s as it is strapless;

B. Forcing as in pressuring women to dress in accordance with some peoples’ ideas of modesty;

C. Not respecting women who dress “immodestly” accordance the views/rules of some.

 

[severus68]

Yes, exactly. If you are upset about the issue of modesty, take it up with God and quit blaming the few Christians who desire to live according to His Word.

I feel a Hallelujah coming for these few good Christians.

 

[francisca]

So you think only a woman has any right to a say in what she wears?

Ofcourse. Who else?

Not for a Christian. Your body is not your own, but God’s. Does God have any thoughts on the topic of what we wear? Well, let’s see …

Firstly He made clothes to cover Adam and Eve in Eden - clearly even the fig leaves weren’t enough!

Wrong. God created man and women NAKED, and NAKED will we come back to Him.

Adam and Eve found out about their nakedness after the fall. Sin make them think about immodesty.

God make them clothes to shelter them from death which rule over the earth after the fall.

Then He established a church and gave it full power to bind and loose in His name.

And how did He established His church? By condemning the adulterous woman? No my dear. He restore her dignity BY FORGIVING HER. Surely men of lust wanted to stone her!!!

Then that church on His behalf teaches …

What? That people can wear whatever they want? Nope.

That people can wear whatever the people around them think is OK? Wrong again.

It teaches that they are to dress modestly and always in keeping with the inherent (not culturally determined) dignity and sacredness of the human body. Which IS inherent and not culturally determined because it derives from our bodies being His creation and temple of His Holy Spirit.

Is there anywhere in the 10 commandments God say “Dress modestly”? Never

Was it sexual sin adam and eve commited? No.

Church teaching of modesty shall not be used to condemn and corner women. Surely men of lust want to attack them for they are full of lust. The church should shelter women from such men.

 

[ahs]

Fransisca was not singling you out, neither was I. I was agreeing with Fransisca who has explained what she means more than once.

Okay. And I do admit I have not been following this thread until just this night.

A. Forbidding as saying it is wrong/immodest to wear a stunning wedding dress like Debora’s as it is strapless;

I can see your point here. This is where it’s important to keep in mind the Church’s view on modesty and preservation of purity. Is “strapless” immodest? Is any dress that is not strapless a dress that is also not stunning?

B. Forcing as in pressuring women to dress in accordance with some peoples’ ideas of modesty;

But Francisca said “using the Catechism to…”. In other words, it is not “some peoples’ ideas of modesty”, but the ideals of the Church…which come from God. And the Catechism doesn’t specify, per se, what exactly counts as immodest or not. This is true to be sure. But what it DOES say should be taken seriously…that there are things that should be kept covered and secret to preserve purity, etc…

C. Not respecting women who dress “immodestly” accordance the views/rules of some.

I have not seen that attitude here, but I admit I have not read through the thread. My impression was that women who dress immodestly are lacking a certain amount of respect for themselves (going back to the example of my cousins); not that others disrespect them. But I see your point that this gets into territory of “my views on immodesty are this while your view of immodesty is that…” This is why it is important to reflect on the Catechism paragraphs, so that a mature and conscientious decision can be made.

 

[LilyM]

Wrong. God created man and women NAKED, and NAKED will we come back to Him.

Dead wrong - God personally made clothes out of animal skins for her (and Adam) - and He did NOT do it out of necessity - most native tribes get along very well without furs, and in much harsher climates than the Middle East too.

And how did He established His church? By condemning the adulterous woman? No my dear. He restore her dignity BY FORGIVING HER. Surely men of lust wanted to stone her!!!

Of course he forgave her, my dear but He certainly didn’t say ‘oh you poor little dearie, look what that nasty evil lustful man did to you, it’s all his fault!’ No. He held her fully responsible for her sin and strictly warned her not to continue in that or any other sin.

Church teaching of modesty shall not be used to condemn and corner women. Surely men of lust want to attack them for they are full of lust. The church should shelter women from such men.

Modesty is for men too - the church teachings make no distinction.

Oh, and It IS sheltering women - and men - by reminding all of us that what we wear is important, it is a choice and something we are responsible for, it DOES have an effect on others, it DOES say things about us, and so whether we like it or not that we cannot escape moral responsibility for what we choose to wear.

 

[francisca]

We are our brothers’ keepers, so to speak. We can lead each other to sin. If you know a man will look immodestly at you if you wear a certain dress, you share in his sin if you decide to wear it. The same as if I know that I could lead you to sin by doing something…then I do it anyway, I am as guilty as you are in that sin, if not more guilty. Scripture tells us this…in Christs’ own words. …but woe unto him who leads the least of these astary…better a millstone be tied around his neck and he be thrown into the sea…] (brackets because I probably don’t the quote exactly right).

Women are innocent in their attempt to look attractive and beautiful.

You just can’t make them share the men’s guilt of lust from that area alone.

You yourself share about your cousins who think that they should dress cute and sexy, because they like guys attention, and in doing that they didn’t intent to make anyone to fall into sin.

Even flowers of the field are made that way (beautiful/ attractive) to draw attention.