I say intention does matter— and you’ve noted it yourself. Folks who dress inappropriately for the weather or situation. Note, there are tribes in hot climates who do wear very little-- its the norm and not an invitation to anything and well understood by the populace. Perhaps the women at your school do intend to emphasize their sexuality, that’s what they feel is important about themselves and want folks to notice. From a Catholic perspective, not appropriate. From a secular perspective- their right to do so, just don’t want to hear them whine when folks react to their visual cues. Because it will be observed, and those with a proclivity towards casual sex may act on the cues and proposition them, ask them out. All within the norms of expected human behavior. Of course, nothing a woman (or man) for that matter wears grant any sort of permission for any activity of a physical nature. But you can’t, IMHO, dress to emphasize something and then complain when folks notice and act on that. Similar to my having recently grown a beard and folks, many complete strangers, commenting on it.
I’m not usually a fan of quoting myself, but since all the “puritan” and “uptight” comments are coming out…I think too that it matters that cultures where almost everyone goes around bare-chested are made up of darker skinned people who live close to the equator. It’s easy to point fingers at (historically) white/European/Western cultures and say, “Oh, you guys are so repressed,” but is it any surprise that cultural norms about clothing developed the way they did when the people who lived as part of those cultures had to deal with things like winter and bad sunburn?
I also note that whatever is done about tops, almost all cultures cover the genitals, which does serve a practical purpose but also IMO points toward a general human understanding of the importance of modesty.
And over time even in Western cultures showing the breasts has been a bigger “deal” than others. Actually until recently, almost nobody batted an eye over a visible breast - if it was being used to feed an infant.
)They can be. Although I don’t think it matters. Women shouldn’t have to dress like nuns because some men can’t control themselves.
I don’t think anyone is presenting those as the only two options.
)But modesty is demanded by the Church, whether it is uncomfortable to be modest or not. I know that people do dress more revealing for the sake of comfort in the heat and don’t intend to make people sin over them, my apologies if it seemed I was trying to discount that. What I was trying to say is that, whether it is hot or not, people still need to realize that their body is tempting to others whether they are trying to be or just being comfortable. And these laws still apply to the secular people as these are not just Church disciplines but a law that all must follow, like not committing adultery.
No apologies necessary. I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. But I do believe this is cultural, I would agree that you are correct in that culture in the US would currently tend to interpret outright nudity or semi-nudity as sexual and a temptation.
Yes, the rules of modesty are sort of tricky if you look at the whole world. In one place, exposing your ankles may be super tempting while in another being topless is like nothing. I agree that in these cases, there are different codes of modesty that Catholics must obey.
Well, so many threads on CAF about modesty in dress, probably better to refer to those than duplicate them here, we’ve kind of wandered from the topic of women without shirts.
I don’t wear shorts either. I just prefer to wear pants, never been a fan of shorts.
I think this is one area where moving the goalposts is actually a legitimate thing to do. If what we mean by ‘modesty’ or indeed what associations breasts (etc) have, change - if attitudes throughout society shift - then the point becomes moot. While I am a supporter of toplessness as a rule, (when it’s appropriate, obviously), what is often ignored is that while we would very much like social attitudes towards breasts to change, they haven’t, and these things don’t change over night. One way or another, as you say, time will tell.I don’t wear shorts either. I just prefer to wear pants, never been a fan of shorts.
Yes, I suppose time will tell. I can only hope that more modest dress becomes the fashion, but if these current styles continue the code of modesty will eventually change.
Disagree.Actually I think it’s precisely the same. In Papua New Guinea or at least with the particular people John Paul was with at that time, breasts weren’t (aren’t) sexual objects. They’re just…breasts. Things mothers use to feed babies with. Why should it be impossible to conceive of a society closer to home which takes a similarly enlightened attitude?
The point of the topless movement is to call attention to the unflattering and unwanted (which women can be just as guilty of encouraging, don’t get me wrong) sexualisation of their bodies - primarily by men. I can’t say I walk around my city topless (the Midlands of England isn’t warm or dry enough for a start!) but if I’m not remotely bothered by breasts - as a gay woman no less - I think other people can probably get over it. I certainly wouldn’t seek out opportunities but it wouldn’t bother me if I encountered one, never mind took part.
This moves into a broader point in that I don’t really see how someone can be offended by nonsexual nudity. Children aren’t remotely bothered by toplessness or nakedness. I’m sure we as adults can find it in us. Our view of things like this is entirely culturally conditioned. (I went to a nudist camp once: long story but…frankly…most people young and old alike would have benefited in sexiness terms from any kind of clothing at all. Even a hospital gown).
The sexualisation of particular body parts is entirely cultural. You can find plenty of imagery (representing to a degree the court practice) of say Queen Anne of England/Great Britain, or many of the consorts of the contemporaneous French kings, with happily exposed breasts. (Heaven forefend if one shows an ankle, though). I’ve been to saunas in Sweden (mixed, to boot). Breasts or anything else aren’t really very sexual at all. If anything it’s both rather egalitarian (if you take off your Christian Louboutins and Victoria’s Secret underwear, it turns out everyone is exactly the same underneath) and rather comical (I’m sure the genitalia arrangements of both men and women are some kind of huge practical joke).
The idea of this movement is to try and move society away from fetishising body parts. I really think people can be grown up enough to well…grow up. I could write a long spiel about this but I’m sure I’d bore plenty of people. Point is, how about we stop being so puritan about it? It’s only the modern west that makes such an obsession with sex. If you normalise something, its interest diminishes. We break away from sexualisation by making “sexual” things no longer sexy. They’re just boobs.
Kendra once again the beacon of senseAlthough I look at it the opposite way - if men can be uncovered, why can’t women ? (practicalities aside of course; the mere idea of topless tennis sounds painful…)
My wife has forbidden me from appearing shirtless anywhere except for the pool or the beach. There is no way I will ever, ever be allowed to mow the lawn while shirtless. Several of the men in our neighborhood do it, and as she said, “The last thing I want to see when I drive into my neighborhood is THAT.”
)Uh—no. Guys in very short shorts would immediately be targeted as “gay.” I don’t even think gay guys would put up with a guy wearing short shorts. And women are pretty much grossed out by them. I have some old gym shorts that are in no way “short short” and whenever I put them on my daughter says, “Dad? Are you seriously going to wear those?”
see above. My wife and older daughter will only approve if the guy is a fitness model, and then for about the first three seconds. After that…forget it. If he’s not Chris Hemsworth they’d rather not have seen him shirtless in the first place.
Again, my wife, daughters, their friends are horrified at the sight of men in speedos. The girls all swimmers, and even then they would prefer it if the guys on the teams wore knee length lycra trunks instead of speedos.
My excuse is: my wife buys them for me.
I’ll only wear them to the gym. She feels I ought to be comfortable wearing them other places.
No it’s because they know a bunch of pearl-clutchers will write in and they simply can’t be bothered with it. “Think of the children!!!”What is interesting is that the liberal media institutions which advocate freedom of expression and topless women, are…yes, blurring out their photos of topless women in their reports.
This of course is because they know it is inappropriate to show this. They know that their advertisers think so, as do their readers. Case closed.
You bring up an interesting point. Adults in every generation make up social and cultural rules. So what’s wrong with a society saying that certain body parts should be kept private? Why must this particular rule be chucked?
It’s very interesting, I agree. I suppose this kind of thing is suddenly “important” (it’s not really important, of course) because we live in such an atomised, celebratory-of-personal-expression-of-choice, society? Nearly everyone, even the most diehard 21st century socialist, is I think a little bit libertarian at heart!You bring up an interesting point. Adults in every generation make up social and cultural rules. So what’s wrong with a society saying that certain body parts should be kept private? Why must this particular rule be chucked?
Personally, I’d like to see men put their shirts back on. But that’s mostly due to concerns about skin cancer, which is currently threatening a dear friend of the family.
God bless y’all.
Gertie