S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Still no feedback on my all-Catholic Nudist Colony, eh?
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Why do you draw the conclusion you do? Immodest dress ceratinly may lead another into impure thoughts. Why is this hard to understand?
F
fix
Guest
Your joke actually serves a good point. If immodest dress cannot lead another into sin, then one may argue nudism is not sinful. Of course, I have never heard a Catholic argument in favor of nudism, yet.
S
SavedByHim
Guest
What conclusion? I asked a question. I really don’t mean to be thickheaded, and I’m not being argumentative. I really want to know if the church really holds me accountable for the abuse?
According to Mercygate’s response, I’m gathering the answer is no because as she said, “the neighborhood rapist is an outlier” and it doesn’t matter what someone wears. An abuser will still abuse. A rapist will still rape.
I understand the question of the original poster was meant to be a question posed for the normal population, but it sent red flags up to me, wondering how my situation related.
I get the feeling that you all think I’m purposely being difficult here, by not understanding the difference, but I’m asking this question in all sincerity. Please be patient with me.
God Bless.
S
SavedByHim
Guest
See, this is where I guess I am really naive and uneducated in this area of the faith. While I wouldn’t want to attend, much less live in, a nudist colony, I don’t see it as sinful. But it is, eh?
F
fix
Guest
I am sorry if you were attacked. You can’t blame yourself if you were attacked. That is a separate issue. Please see the links I posted. I think they will help clear up our misunderstanding.
Intentionally dressing provocatively is at least a venial sin. I would guess most women do not intentionally dress to be provacative, yet if they wear immodest clothing they can unknowingly lead men into sin.
My complaint is with women, or men, who make the claim they may wear whatever they wish and if men have a problem it is totally the men’s fault. That is to overlook the obligation we each have not to give scandal or cause another to fall into sin. That is my sole point.
D
DailyBread
Guest
What are people’s opinions on wearing tankinis? Are these considered way too immodest as well?
S
sarcophagus
Guest
The way I figure, orignally adam and eve were naked until they sinned…then they felt shame in being naked. God’s intended plan was for nudity to be completely acceptable. I believe it was satan who felt that nudity was immodest and should not be accepted…so really, nudist colonies aren’t that sinful. I could almost say, though not positive, that nudists a far less likely to “sin” because another is naked because they are used to it and don’t give it a thought. When we are constantly covered, there is a mystery and stigma attached to the naked form that causes us to sin.
That being said, i wouldn’t join a nudist colony, i don’t have a will that strong…lol
That being said, i wouldn’t join a nudist colony, i don’t have a will that strong…lol
S
SavedByHim
Guest
OK. I think I’m seeing the difference… the big difference being in the intent of the woman wearing the immodest clothes. I haven’t had a chance to check out your links yet, but I will.
Thanks for your responses. I have so much to learn.
L
lovesfall
Guest
Well I am an “awful prude” as well because I agree with everything you said!
I read a very good book, “Dressing With Dignity” by Colleen Hammond. She is a former model that is Roman Catholic and her book deals with her experiences in the modeling industry. She has several links to sites on the internet that sell modest clothing. The link to her site is
dressingwithdignity.blogspot.com/
L
lovesfall
Guest
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but as a mom with two young women (ages 19 & 21) I have always made certain that they dressed modestly. Their peers (the females) that didn’t dress modestly seemed to always have difficulty dating young men that respected them. As they would tell my daughters…the boys always wanted “one thing”.Couple of thoughts:
To me, we start running on a slippery slope when we say that women’s immodest apparel is why men have impure thoughts. Does anyone see how this could be misconstrued as “Well, she was wearing a skimpy swimsuit so she was just begging to be raped?” I know the two are different: having thoughts vs. acting on the thoughts, but it really scares me when we put so much fault on the women for what really should come down to a man’s own self-control.
- I wonder what the average age is fo those who think modern swimwear is immodest vs. those who don’t? For example, I’m 26 and while I think some swimwear is immodest, (really skimpy string bikinis for example) I think a simple one-piece suit is fine and appropriate beachwear.
- I’m really baffled by the idea that women are somehow responsible for impure thoughts that enter a man’s mind
I agree that certain outfits/swimsuits are definitely immodest and I would not want my daughter running around in them, but is it really the girl’s fault if a man cannot control his thoughts? (This is a genuine question by the way.)
I know I will probably get a lot of flack by saying this, but I feel some women are their own worst enemy. I am so sickened by the lack of morals in today’s society…I can’t read the newspaper or take a drive without seeing ads for adult bookstores, adult entertainment, etc. There couldn’t be these “dens of sin” without women.
God Bless
S
SavedByHim
Guest
I’ve always dressed modestly too, though I’ve never given any thought as to why. Had someone asked me, I would have said because I was embarrassed to show off too much of my body. It was more of a “I’m not skinny enough” thought process rather than a “I don’t want to cause someone an occasion to sin” way of thinking.
I was never taught this “near occasion to sin” rule and I attended Catholic schools! (We didn’t have a dress code either, except that we couldn’t wear jeans, so maybe that would by why.)
L
lovesfall
Guest
Let me re-phrase this…I meant to say there couldn’t be dens of sin without women that lack morals.
I didn’t mean to criticize our entire gender…
H
hsmom2four
Guest
Hmmm… interesting “theology” here.
Adam and Eve didn’t KNOW they were naked until the ate from the tree of knowledge of good & evil. Their new-found knowledge was a result of Original Sin (something that’s still around and still affects us today), not some notion of the devil.
:ehh: If that were true, then why do porno magazines continue to sell? By that logic, we could look all we wanted, eventually become jaded, and overcome any infatuation with nudity. And yes, one can become desensitized to viewing nudity, but instead of it keeping one from sinning, the opposite is usually true - pornography usually just feeds the lust monster and makes one want more and more, and usually more graphic or abnormal views. It becomes an addiction.
I am no expert in this area, this is just my .02. I think a read on the Theology of the Body would be helpful. Anyone here more familiar with this?
S
sarcophagus
Guest
LOL…haven’t gotten that far yet!!!
I guess it’s because nudity is not accepted, which makes it thrilling. Hypothetically, if nudity became required, eventually, pornography lose it’s “excitement” and wouldn’t sell anymore.
It’s just a theory after all.
M
mercygate
Guest
Many moons ago, I knew a young resident obstetrician who confided to me: “You have no idea what allure the clothed female body holds for me.” It’s all in the perspective.
K
kmktexas
Guest
I met Colleen at a homeschooling conference. She is living, walking proof that “modest” doesn’t mean dowdy. Some of her tips were published in the Canicle magazine as well.
M
Marysgirl
Guest
"I’d like to get something like this for myself (and my daughter, when she’s old enough) : wholesomewear.com/"
I think I would prefer to wear cutoffs and a top. They are just as modest and I don’t think anyone would think one way or another about it. At the beach you will find alot of people swimming and playing who are not in swimsuits.
I think I would prefer to wear cutoffs and a top. They are just as modest and I don’t think anyone would think one way or another about it. At the beach you will find alot of people swimming and playing who are not in swimsuits.
C
chevalier
Guest
By the same logic which you are using in the sentence above, your kind of thinking is the one that got us the common belief that the victim of sexual assault is responsible because of attracting the offender.
Are you seeking the truth or are you just seeking to prove that your view is the right one?
Correct. But men should be expected to do the same amount of work to help keep women from looking and let’s add this tiny little adjective: sinful. Sinful looking. You can look on a completely naked female without sin.
When women are allowed to walk in briefs and boxers, which actually change shape when the man is aroused, around women, and women are required to cover next to all their bodies, then something is not exactly equal here. God created them man and woman, in His image. The female is as good an image of God as the male, neither of them is more prone to sin than the other and neither of them has a more sinful nature. In short, God created them equal.
What is immodest is pornography and advertisement reeking of sinful allusions. Also immodest is the whole mentality that promotes promiscuity, contraception and abortion and tends to believe that adultery is no big deal. Human body is not immodest. Human body is good (which God said), part of God’s image (also). In the end, human body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Does this mean it should be treated with reverence? Yes, by all means. But reverence to something holy doesn’t necessarily mean covering it from all sight as if it were sinful of nature. That sort of thinking creates misconceptions.
I wonder which one of us is confused if you’re pulling 50 year old dress codes on me.
If you are suggesting that what I am saying I am saying out of lustful desires, then that actually pretty well explains why we have the situation that we have today.
I’ve already said a couple of times on these boards that I am no big fan of extremely revealing garments. The problem with those is not that the flesh is uncovered however, but that the flesh is revealed. Making humans feel shame for their bodies and forcing them to cover themselves from one another was a deviously smart idea on Satan’s part to create a whole lot of new opportunities for sin. Some of the women who wear those would cause less opportunity to sin if they walked around in nothing at all than they do wearing what they wear.
But what is the motive of the person looked? Why does she want to wear that? Because it’s hot and because she wants more contact with the sun and water, or because she wants some freedom to walk around guys in skimpy clothing without being “stigmatised” as sinful?
Also, it’s a fact that some clothing provides better shelter from heat than simply exposing one’s skin. There is a reason why tropical clothes have been invented, for example.
Of course, I still maintain that lusting is the guy’s act and he is the one responsible for it. But if the woman behaved in a sexually seductive way (and there is more to it than just some nudity - paraphrasing Pope’s words on modesty when he said that it was not actually all about clothing or lack thereof, which also the Catechism supports), then she is responsible for getting what she wanted to get (i.e. lustful looks), even if she isn’t responsible for his perversion. However, so far as her behaviour was intended to make use of the perversion (even unconsciously) or would push a healthy unperverted man into lustful thoughts and sin, she has her own responsibility, as well.
- Status