Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lesee, you compare people who struggle with lusts to people have a suffered a car accident or have lost a loved one.

That should be enough for anyone to tell how much sympathy you show perverts: Too much.

I call a spade a spade. If you steal something because you’re greedy, what do you wanna be called, a missionary?

Likewise, if you can’t put a lid on your hormones and start lusting after random women, what do you wanna be called, a saint?

You know, I pity how much you continue to reduce yourself with these arguments. You’re looking for Politically Correct labels for bad people. That’s just sad.
So you couldn’t deliver on your accusation. Period. I don’t need your pity. Didn’t ask for it, don’t want it. You couldn’t actually deliver it…you can’t even back up your own statements. How are you going to give pity!
 
So you couldn’t deliver on your accusation. Period. I don’t need your pity. Didn’t ask for it, don’t want it. You couldn’t actually deliver it…you can’t even back up your own statements. How are you going to give pity!
:rotfl:

Wow you really want me to quote you don’t you? :rolleyes:

You asked for it.
So, you witness an accident. You have no responsibility to help. So you don’t, because that’d be assuming responsibility, and that’d be collectivism?

You cut no one slack because that’d be assuming some responsibility that you believe is entirely someone else’s…and that’d be…collectivism.

In fact, in your little non-Catholic morality, you run quickly into a problem that there’s no real charity, no mercy.

If you study the problem deeply that’s what your little non-Catholic moral theology devolves into.
So your charity is limited to “an obviously insane person”

You don’t extend generosity to a person
who is sleepy, who shows laziness,
who has just had a bad day,
who can’t seem to control their eating,
whose father just died and now is not working hard at work,
who just had a miscarriage,
who had a hard upbringing
who is from an underprivileged environment.

You hold each to the same level of “no excuses” standards…despite their weaknesses and stumblings.
 
A man here from CAF messaged me, criticizing me on my views of modesty (that it is cultural) and making some pretty rash judgements about me, asking if i dress the way I do bc i like the attention or if i do it to purposely incite lust. (and by “dressing the way I dress” he means the fact that I wear shorts on a hot day and bikinis to the beach).
I’m sorry, but there simply isn’t any way a bikini can be considered modest by any definition.
 
So now anyone who struggles with lust is a pervert, and lusting after random women makes you an evil person?

Do you not realize that sexually explicit images and content (particularly of women) are ALL over the place, from ads, product covers, movie covers, songs, to conversation by other people, and the way people dress. Have you no sympathy for the massive scale onslaught on purity a Catholic man has to deal with in this modern time?
Oh I’m sure he realizes, as he is a man himself. Maybe he realizes this SO much that he is able to say that it’s really not that impossible to keep from lusting after random women. My husband says the same thing.
 
Oh I’m sure he realizes, as he is a man himself. Maybe he realizes this SO much that he is able to say that it’s really not that impossible to keep from lusting after random women. My husband says the same thing.
That is a true statement. Your point?
 
:rotfl:

Wow you really want me to quote you don’t you? :rolleyes:

You asked for it.
This doesn’t support your point that I want to mollycoddle people.

This in fact was part of a larger point about Catholic moral responsibility…we are all members of the Body of Christ. When the hand is injured it affects the whole body.

But this is too deep and Catholic for you. Let’s not try to go down that road yet. You’re not ready.
 
So now anyone who struggles with lust is a pervert, and lusting after random women makes you an evil person?
Well yes. Everyone has inner pervert that they have to deal with. Do you remedy the solution by justifying it or admitting it and realizing your responsibility?
Do you not realize that sexually explicit images and content (particularly of women) are ALL over the place, from ads, product covers, movie covers, songs, to conversation by other people, and the way people dress. Have you no sympathy for the massive scale onslaught on purity a Catholic man has to deal with in this modern time?
Onslaught of purity? That’s a laugh. Purity goes beyond physical appearances. In fact, once you start tying purity with physical appearances, you are in fact in danger of repeating many historical atrocities. (Racial purity. Cultural purity. Physical purity. All such crusades were accompanied with mass bloodshed, persecution, and genocide.)

You are right that I have no sympathy. I have no sympathy for shallow people who let themselves be swept away by the sensations of the eyes.

People who judge others by their looks just make me sick.
 
I’m sorry, but there simply isn’t any way a bikini can be considered modest by any definition.
Is there some sort of church doctrine that deems bikinis as immodest and sinful? Seems like if wearing one was a sin, the Church would have made it quite clear by now.

Another thing that is interesting is this:

Pope John Paul II -------in Love and Responsibility:
While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. **If then we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. **Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so.
For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.
since JPII was on the subject of swimming attire and modesty, I find it quite strange that he didnt’ mention “…except if those bathing costumes consist of 2 pieces, in which case it is always immodest and always a sin. even in a bathing place.”

strange indeed.
 
This doesn’t support your point that I want to mollycoddle people.

This in fact was part of a larger point about Catholic moral responsibility…we are all members of the Body of Christ. When the hand is injured it affects the whole body.

But this is too deep and Catholic for you. Let’s not try to go down that road yet. You’re not ready.
Yes it does. You compare people who struggle with lust to people who deserve sympathy after suffering an accident or that they lost someone dear.

Stop trying to come off as philosophical and deep by making obscure references to solidarity. It is you who are not ready.

Anyone who thinks appearances aren’t to be bypassed shouldn’t even be entitled to use the word deep.
 
Well yes. Everyone has inner pervert that they have to deal with. Do you remedy the solution by justifying it or admitting it and realizing your responsibility?
People do not have “inner perverts.” We are human, and can be affected by disordered desires, which is the result of our fallen nature. Society today encourages it so much, it is very hard to fight back.
Onslaught of purity? That’s a laugh. Purity goes beyond physical appearances. In fact, once you start tying purity with physical appearances, you are in fact in danger of repeating many historical atrocities. (Racial purity. Cultural purity. Physical purity. All such crusades were accompanied with mass bloodshed, persecution, and genocide.)

You are right that I have no sympathy. I have no sympathy for shallow people who let themselves be swept away by the sensations of the eyes.

People who judge others by their looks just make me sick.
Actually that’s onslaught “on” purity, but I assume you understand that. I clearly did not tie purity only to physical appearance, as I mentioned conversation and music as well.

The virtue of purity is totally separate from the concept of purification, as in racial purification. Please do not add confusion to this conversation.
 
Is there some sort of church doctrine that deems bikinis as immodest and sinful? Seems like if wearing one was a sin, the Church would have made it quite clear by now.

strange indeed.
Yes, this point from the Pope has been over-quoted a lot and I seem to remember the Pope didn’t actually mention bikinis and g-strings. I think he figured that most of us could use common sense and our conscience. Our beloved Pope was wrong, apparently.

There are many things the Church doesn’t define precisely. I think there’s actually a strain of “Bible only” in some of these Catholics. “If the Pope didn’t precisely say something…etc.”

Sola Papa.
 
Oh I’m sure he realizes, as he is a man himself. Maybe he realizes this SO much that he is able to say that it’s really not that impossible to keep from lusting after random women. My husband says the same thing.
Indeed. In fact, I’ve had plenty of women walk by me dressed in ways that would make the Party of Modesty scream (and run) in terror.

The best those girls have gotten out was a couple glances in the span of two seconds at most.

Besides, all them models and junk with the sleazy advertisements are made by shallow perverts anyways who think hot chicks are the best way to sell any product. :rolleyes:
 
Yes it does. You compare people who struggle with lust to people who deserve sympathy after suffering an accident or that they lost someone dear.
No I compared people who struggle with their limitations and weaknesses. I’ve laid this out in a number of ways above.

We are all sinners, we all have limits and weaknesses, we all need to grow in holiness, no one is a saint until their soul is in heaven. And we all need to help each other struggle.

None of this is mollycoddling.

Earlier in this thread…I quoted Jesus…“be perfect as your Father is perfect”.

This is our call to holiness…and we’re also called to get everyone we meet to heaven. To help them learn to love God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength.

You just like to argue. You’d rather argue than help someone struggle toward sanctity.

You’d rather label someone as a pervert, or as “scum”.

**Back in the day…you’d have the same opinion about lepers.

Don’t lie to yourself that you’d be any better than the people who treated them like "perverts and “scum”

If you don’t think the lepers have a lesson for you in your understanding of your responsibility as a Christian, I hope you figure it out. **
 
Indeed. In fact, I’ve had plenty of women walk by me dressed in ways that would make the Party of Modesty scream (and run) in terror.

The best those girls have gotten out was a couple glances in the span of two seconds at most.

Besides, all them models and junk with the sleazy advertisements are made by shallow perverts anyways who think hot chicks are the best way to sell any product. :rolleyes:
I can say the same for myself, but surely you must realize that personal experiences do not amount to much when speaking of general modesty? Do you support a man or woman’s decision to wear immodest clothing? If not, why do you simply ignore the issue as if it didn’t exist?
 
Is there some sort of church doctrine that deems bikinis as immodest and sinful? Seems like if wearing one was a sin, the Church would have made it quite clear by now.

Another thing that is interesting is this:

Pope John Paul II -------in Love and Responsibility:
Quote:
While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so.
For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.
since JPII was on the subject of swimming attire and modesty, I find it quite strange that he didnt’ mention “…except if those bathing costumes consist of 2 pieces, in which case it is always immodest and always a sin. even in a bathing place.”
strange indeed.

Being that Blessed John Paul II --was such a well traveled Pope—he would have known what women wear as swimming attire. Yet – he did not make any exclusion- in what people can wear.
 
Yes, this point from the Pope has been over-quoted a lot and I seem to remember the Pope didn’t actually mention bikinis and g-strings. he mentioned “swimming costumes.” bikinis are the most popular form of swimming costumes I think he figured that most of us could use common sense and our conscience. Our beloved Pope was wrong, apparently.

There are many things the Church doesn’t define precisely. I think there’s actually a strain of “Bible only” in some of these Catholics. “If the Pope didn’t precisely say something…etc.”

Sola Papa.
G-strings aren’t considered a cultural norm. Have you ever been to the beach? I live at the beach. 90% of women here wear bikinis. the other 10% wear a 1 piece. I cannot recal ever seeing a g string worn to the beach though.

Anyway, my point is this - if bikinis are by far the most popular swimming attire in the world, it is quite strange that the pope wouldn’t mention, wouldn’t ONCE mention, that it is a sin to wear them. Especial while on the subject of swim wear and modesty.

to make the assumption that he didn’t mention it bc it’s “obviously a sin” is completely out of line. pre marital sex, for example, is quite obviously a sin. yet the late pope talked about it profusely and repetitively.

i ask you again, what exactly makes you think it’s so obviously a sin? isn’t it strange that this claim you make is not actually stated anywhere?
 
People do not have “inner perverts.” We are human, and can be affected by disordered desires, which is the result of our fallen nature. Society today encourages it so much, it is very hard to fight back.
And an inner pervert is not a disordered desire… how?

Also, let’s not confuse shallowness with integrity shall we? We do not fight the objectification of women by telling them what to wear. We fight it by focusing on what’s inside for it is what’s inside that makes us human and worthy of dignity. Modesty of appearance does not even come close to second to modesty of character.
Actually that’s onslaught “on” purity, but I assume you understand that. I clearly did not tie purity only to physical appearance, as I mentioned conversation and music as well.

The virtue of purity is totally separate from the concept of purification, as in racial purification. Please do not add confusion to this conversation.
No my point is, tis futile to make an absolute connection between concept and form. Just because virtues such as purity and modesty do not change, doesn’t mean their forms can’t. It’s like in language.

Just because, for instance, a dog will always remain a dog, it does not deny the reality that there are so many combinations of sounds and letters that connect with the concept of a “dog” (you have mutt, canine for English, aso for Filipino, inu for Japanese etc).

Therefore, it is not always wise to trust the temporal form of something.
 
G-strings aren’t considered a cultural norm. Have you ever been to the beach? I live at the beach. 90% of women here wear bikinis. the other 10% wear a 1 piece. I cannot recal ever seeing a g string worn to the beach though.

Anyway, my point is this - if bikinis are by far the most popular swimming attire in the world, it is quite strange that the pope wouldn’t mention, wouldn’t ONCE mention, that it is a sin to wear them. Especial while on the subject of swim wear and modesty.

to make the assumption that he didn’t mention it bc it’s “obviously a sin” is completely out of line. pre marital sex, for example, is quite obviously a sin. yet the late pope talked about it profusely and repetitively.

i ask you again, what exactly makes you think it’s so obviously a sin? isn’t it strange that this claim you make is not actually stated anywhere?
Oh so now, you read the Pope’s mind. CAF is so cool, full of people with gifts.
 
G-strings aren’t considered a cultural norm. Have you ever been to the beach? I live at the beach. 90% of women here wear bikinis. the other 10% wear a 1 piece. I cannot recal ever seeing a g string worn to the beach though.

Anyway, my point is this - if bikinis are by far the most popular swimming attire in the world, it is quite strange that the pope wouldn’t mention, wouldn’t ONCE mention, that it is a sin to wear them. Especial while on the subject of swim wear and modesty.

to make the assumption that he didn’t mention it bc it’s “obviously a sin” is completely out of line. pre marital sex, for example, is quite obviously a sin. yet the late pope talked about it profusely and repetitively.

i ask you again, what exactly makes you think it’s so obviously a sin? isn’t it strange that this claim you make is not actually stated anywhere?
Bikini’s are basically underwear in a beach setting, you can’t show too much more skin than that.

I’m curious to know at what point between bikini and naked you would consider inappropriate for a beach.
And an inner pervert is not a disordered desire… how?

Also, let’s not confuse shallowness with integrity shall we? We do not fight the objectification of women by telling them what to wear. We fight it by focusing on what’s inside for it is what’s inside that makes us human and worthy of dignity. Modesty of appearance does not even come close to second to modesty of character.
Modesty of appearance naturally follows modesty of character in my experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top