Typical!
#31
(07-02-2019, 10:32 AM)Blind Horus Wrote: Piscis said-And your post would have effectively made the same point without the photograph at all.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una imagen vale mas que mil palabras.

You completely missed the point. Is it necessary to post pictures of immodestly dressed people in order to discuss modesty? Do we need to start posting pictures of girls who are showing half of their butts through mini shorts because that articulates more than a verbal discussion of modesty could? An image speaks but to a different order than words do. Verbal, conceptual discussion is necessary and is at the heart of this discussion or any discussion of virtue because these are of the intellectual, and therefore moral, order. An image is of the sensible. Men are more affected by the visual. It was men who objected to the display of what everyone agrees is immodest dress, certainly not as bad as it could be, but immodest anyway.

jovan66102 Wrote:
Bollocks! I don't know why the snowflakes got their knickers in a twist. There is absolutely nothing in that photo to identify the subject. It could be a photo of any of thousands of young women, at any Mass, in any Church in the US or Canada (I have no experience of other countries). What's the big deal?

Well, that was only one line of the objections. The other line of objections was--if we're talking about immodesty, in this case, everyone already agrees and there's no need to actually show a photo. It doesn't help the post. It detracts. The fact that this discussion is happening proves that. Call it whatever sensitivity you want. Moral theologians were rightly very circumspect in how they discussed sexual matters, even when it was only blocks of text. In fact they were so circumspect that the average person who picks up a manual today and reads anything on "unnatural sexual acts" will have no idea what the theologians are discussing because that's how cautious they are. Were they snowflakes? Perhaps in this secular, digital age, we have seriously lost the sense of modesty and propriety that should accompany these discussions. Yablabo should reflect on that if she cares about modesty so much. Modesty of speech is a real virtue, and I demonstrate I don't have it every day.
Reply
#32
(07-06-2019, 01:45 PM)piscis Wrote: Perhaps in this secular, digital age, we have seriously lost the sense of modesty and propriety that should accompany these discussions. Yablabo should reflect on that if she cares about modesty so much. Modesty of speech is a real virtue, and I demonstrate I don't have it every day.

Perhaps.

I have removed the photograph for the sake of peace amongst everyone.

However, I do not believe that there was a break in modesty to share the photograph. 

I regret if I have made someone feel bad in this thread.

I still do not believe that the general thread of negative responses were anything more than dislike of me sharing the photo of the anonymous people without their knowledge.  I did not memorize the thread, so there could well be some objection to the woman's immodesty which was captured.  What remains clear in my mind was that some of the male response to this was simply outrage at the covert photography and its subsequent publication.  Perhaps next time I should clip a photo of such a couple from the diocesan newspaper and post it? 

The wedding photos in the paper are usually the best demonstration of the disparity I was trying to point out in the original post.

The male insecurity I was referring to early on is manifested in defending the double standard or disparity which I mentioned in my first post; defending the disparity by shutting down discussion.  The whole purpose was to discuss with other women what motivates men (i.e., fathers, brothers, fiances, etc.) to excuse this behavior in women.  What motivates men to tolerate their female relatives who appear thus?  What keeps men, especially fathers, from fostering in their daughters (or other female relatives) a greater appreciation of their feminine beauty in accordance with the purpose for which it was made?

I get if men feel insecure about this topic because if these men take a stand then immodest women will not allow them nearby, or some other negative effect will occur, but still, it seems like there is a cultural effeminacy which cripples western men.
[-] The following 2 users Like yablabo's post:
  • divinesilence80, jovan66102
Reply
#33
A laudable subject, agreed, but it strikes me as odd that you would ask women about men's motivations. Why not just ask the men?

I can tell you one answer I've seen, and I sometimes share it myself, why men remain silent--stubbornly opinionated women who insinuate that men have all sorts of personal insecurities whenever they try to bring up the subject! That's a little tongue in cheek, but true, and it bears out in almost every discussion on modesty that you can find online. You're a case in point! You're the one who first insinuated something about male insecurities and then didn't budge an inch when people, other men, disagreed with your approach to the topic. If we were talking in person in a group setting, I wouldn't bring any of this up, especially if other women were present, for fear of the social hell that would descend upon my head swifter than fire and brimstone came down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Most women think men are being too sensitive when they discuss modesty. Granted, many if not most men are exaggerating. Not few husbands are positively harsh and borderline abusive when it comes to this issue. I know of one father who had his daughters do manual labor, like chop and load wood, in full dresses. Is it any wonder they all grew up to be very masculine in their personalities? (They also dress immodestly like anyone else in secular culture now too.) Of course, now the dad is scratching his head about why his daughters are the way they are.  :dodgy:

(On a tangential note, I know another rad-trad father who complained to me that he *just* discovered that his daughters, who are in their early to mid 20s now, are all "feminists"--whatever he might mean by that. Of course, the father had just finished complaining to me and the other guys at the table that younger men these days are all wimps, snowflakes, and jobless losers. He also admitted that he had no idea what his daughters learned while they were in school and suspects they were corrupted by their education. Now he's scratching his head why his daughters are feminists who look down on men and why everyone else in the world except himself failed his daughters' formation. I think my point in bringing up this anecdote is also to point out that sometimes men are just plain dumb when it comes to any number of issues around raising a healthy family...)

But men's inability to properly articulate their struggles with the issue of modesty is only compounded by women who exaggerate the personal offense taken rather than trying to see through to the core issue. Men are too sensitive to immodesty. Women are too insensitive about it. This leads to problems. See for example this article by a woman who went to Franciscan (I think) and had horrible experiences in its "purity culture." Now she is a crusader against Franciscan and all things conservative Catholic. https://www.racked.com/2017/3/28/1498257...ty-culture

And the fact of the matter is dressing modestly often is uncomfortable, physically and socially. Sometimes dressing modestly "backfires" for women because it draws more male attention, often undesired and socially awkward attention. For introverted or shy women, this sort of attention can be overwhelming. I've had a conservative Catholic girl tell me that she dresses in tight pants like everyone else because she gets less men approaching her for her number that way...!!

And also, in terms of fathers/husbands allowing immodest dress, often it boils down to two things: 1) he doesn't think the dress is immodest; 2) the husband and wife disagree on what constitutes immodesty or how to raise their children with this value, and the wife always wins. There is no way in today's society for a man to actually win such an argument. A woman has all the power. It's extraordinarily hard for a conservative, single male to find a woman who agrees on a value as touchy and delicate as modesty. And to be fair to women, it's extraordinarily hard to find a conservative, single man who has strong values on modesty and isn't socially weird himself... Sometimes I suspect with newer or younger couples, if a man just took some time to make himself not weird, a lot more things would go smoothly.
Reply
#34
(07-07-2019, 04:26 AM)piscis Wrote: A laudable subject, agreed, but it strikes me as odd that you would ask women about men's motivations. Why not just ask the men?

I can tell you one answer I've seen, and I sometimes share it myself, why men remain silent--stubbornly opinionated women who insinuate that men have all sorts of personal insecurities whenever they try to bring up the subject! That's a little tongue in cheek, but true, and it bears out in almost every discussion on modesty that you can find online. You're a case in point! You're the one who first insinuated something about male insecurities and then didn't budge an inch when people, other men, disagreed with your approach to the topic.

I did not insinuate anything.  I stated explicitly that I hoped the discussion would be with women to avoid male insecurities.

Next time, I'll simply post that I'm only seeking discussion with fellow women (either in the title or the first post).

Also, human nature is universal, whether male or female, even though there are sexual and personal distinctions from one human person to another.  It is just as valid a discussion with women alone as in mixed company.

You may find my discussion of the topic unpleasant, and so may some others, however that does not necessarily imply that I am stubborn or opinionated.  You don't like what I have to say, fine.  Say that.  You don't like what I do, fine.  Say that.  If you think I've sinned in some way, then name the sin.  Don't act as if the topic or its discussion is nefas, or that taking exception with unreasonably negative views is being stubborn or opinionated.

I've expressed my position.  You've expressed yours.  Thank you.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#35
(07-03-2019, 12:31 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Bollocks! I don't know why the snowflakes got their knickers in a twist. There is absolutely nothing in that photo to identify the subject. It could be a photo of any of thousands of young women, at any Mass, in any Church in the US or Canada (I have no experience of other countries). What's the big deal?

Because one day perhaps she will see it.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#36
Well, we most definitely don't have cross-dressers serving at our TLM, but today at Mass I saw a new female visitor dressed extremely inappropriately:  tight, very revealing, and very scanty work-out clothes -- completely skin-hugging and rear-hugging leggings along with a workout halter top (!) -- bare arms, bare shoulders, bare midriff--, coordinating running shoes.  

WHAT WAS SHE THINKING?  I was so appalled.  

I mean, to an extent -- a limited extent -- I can understand "vacation" clothes if you are traveling and don't have Sunday Best with you because your vacation is especially rugged.  But one has to dress very specifically for the kind of athletic purpose I describe, and by the way, it was not a local marathon day in the region, or anything like that.  You seriously dress for your workout before you go to Mass?  Every gym I know of is open many hours after our last Mass is over on Sundays.

Here's a thought, oh Lady with her Water-Bottle-snapped-to-her-waistband at a Traditional High Latin Mass, go to Mass and go home and change for your workout.

How lazy can one be?
Reply
#37
(07-01-2019, 12:26 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 10:47 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: I just wish people would realize they could be modest and beautiful at the same time. It’s difficult to attract people to tradition when you’re at a traditional Latin Mass with a friend and a family of 12 pulls up dressed like they robbed the set of Little House on the Prairie. That makes us look more like a weird, brainwashed cult than a group of educated, informed Catholics who embrace an ancient expression of worship.

The people dressed immodestly at Mass can be distracting, although I’m glad they at least bothered to go at all. That woman shows too much arm and too much leg and if she’s showing that much from the back I don’t want to imagine the front. Still, I can’t help but think at least she bothered to go. I used to think that wasn’t good enough- and it isn’t- but as I’ve grown older, I’ve realized that simply going really is a good place to start. Just going helps a person remember that God is real, and that church is important. Maybe after going enough times, and with enough prayer from themselves and others, they will grow up a little more, and learn to dress up a little more.

I don't agree on simply going to Mass.  There is an objective quality and purpose to the Mass that precludes treating Mass and the consecrated space as one's boudoir. 

I don't have a problem with the Little House on the Prairie families.  They look weird, yes, but they've got a greater decorum and care showing through than a rich woman in cloutie bottoms as pictured above.  :)

There are plenty of dresses out there that go to the ankles and down the arm to the wrists if that’s what you want. There are plenty of those same dresses that don’t have a plunging neckline. I’ve seen plenty of women’s clothes that are attractive, yet modest and inexpensive. I swear it’s like some women go out of their way to be as plain as possible. Women like that do not look modest, they look like they are ashamed of themselves for simply being.

Prudishness is not better than immodesty. They are both vices in opposite extremes.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • yablabo
Reply
#38
(07-08-2019, 03:31 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 12:26 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 10:47 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: I just wish people would realize they could be modest and beautiful at the same time. It’s difficult to attract people to tradition when you’re at a traditional Latin Mass with a friend and a family of 12 pulls up dressed like they robbed the set of Little House on the Prairie. That makes us look more like a weird, brainwashed cult than a group of educated, informed Catholics who embrace an ancient expression of worship.

The people dressed immodestly at Mass can be distracting, although I’m glad they at least bothered to go at all. That woman shows too much arm and too much leg and if she’s showing that much from the back I don’t want to imagine the front. Still, I can’t help but think at least she bothered to go. I used to think that wasn’t good enough- and it isn’t- but as I’ve grown older, I’ve realized that simply going really is a good place to start. Just going helps a person remember that God is real, and that church is important. Maybe after going enough times, and with enough prayer from themselves and others, they will grow up a little more, and learn to dress up a little more.

I don't agree on simply going to Mass.  There is an objective quality and purpose to the Mass that precludes treating Mass and the consecrated space as one's boudoir. 

I don't have a problem with the Little House on the Prairie families.  They look weird, yes, but they've got a greater decorum and care showing through than a rich woman in cloutie bottoms as pictured above.  :)

There are plenty of dresses out there that go to the ankles and down the arm to the wrists if that’s what you want. There are plenty of those same dresses that don’t have a plunging neckline. I’ve seen plenty of women’s clothes that are attractive, yet modest and inexpensive. I swear it’s like some women go out of their way to be as plain as possible. Women like that do not look modest, they look like they are ashamed of themselves for simply being.

Prudishness is not better than immodesty. They are both vices in opposite extremes.

Opposite extremes are not equally "distant" from the virtue. It's true that by definition both are vices; but for every virtue the majority of mankind tends to fall towards one side. For temperance, most people tend towards gluttony rather than insensibility. However, insensibility is in two senses better.

First, because it "pays homage" to the rational principle of virtue more than does gluttony or lust, which make men like beasts. In other words, insensibility is more like the virtue of temperance than are vices of gluttony and lust.

Second, because when seeking the mean we often act towards the extreme opposite to that towards which we tend. What I mean here is that if a person struggles with lust, in seeking the virtuous mean he will naturally act "prudish" (to use your word) in an effort to avoid lust. I think this reason is particularly relevant to us given our cultural milieu.

I'm not disputing your point that prudishness is a vice, of course it is. And it can do wicked things to an individual or community. But it's not true to say that both extremes opposed to virtue are equally evil.

For Aristotle's explanation:

Quote:To the mean in some cases the deficiency, in some the excess is more opposed; e.g. it is not rashness, which is an excess, but cowardice, which is a deficiency, that is more opposed to courage, and not insensibility, which is a deficiency, but self-indulgence, which is an excess, that is more opposed to temperance. This happens from two reasons, one being drawn from the thing itself; for because one extreme is nearer and liker to the intermediate, we oppose not this but rather its contrary to the intermediate. E.g. since rashness is thought liker and nearer to courage, and cowardice more unlike, we oppose rather the latter to courage; for things that are further from the intermediate are thought more contrary to it. This, then, is one cause, drawn from the thing itself; another is drawn from ourselves; for the things to which we ourselves more naturally tend seem more contrary to the intermediate. For instance, we ourselves tend more naturally to pleasures, and hence are more easily carried away towards self-indulgence than towards propriety. We describe as contrary to the mean, then, rather the directions in which we more often go to great lengths; and therefore self-indulgence, which is an excess, is the more contrary to temperance. 

-Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 8
Dissolve frigus ligna super foco
large reponens atque benignius
     deprome quadrimum Sabina,
          O Thaliarche, merum diota.

Permitte divis cetera...
[-] The following 1 user Likes Filiolus's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#39
(07-08-2019, 03:31 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Prudishness is not better than immodesty. They are both vices in opposite extremes.

I certainly agree with this, and I do think there is a confusion among the traditionalist communities and coming from one traditional Order as well.  That Order recently published something very close to this paraphrase:  "At no time, and in absolutely no way, should a woman ever dress as to reveal her shape."

Excuse me?  God created a shape He wanted forever hidden?  

As a traditionalist woman I cannot disagree more with the above paraphrase.  A woman's shape -- if attractive -- glorifies God.  While it's not necessary to wear Lycra, it's also not necessary to wear a burka in order to be modest.

It is not incumbent upon women to protect men from the necessity of developing custody of the mind, eyes, and heart.  This 21st century world is filled with temptations to the flesh -- the vast majority of them not present in Catholic churches but on the local and national news, in images on the Internet (and I don't mean visited porn), and while merely walking down the street or stepping into a grocery store.  We women, as well as men, might well have to develop our own custody of the senses because we are prone to verbal incitements and temptations, as well as visual.  Men are not required to wear oversized shirts and baggy pants just because I happen to be very attracted to chests, backs, and the rear ends of men who are basically in shape. If I can't control my wandering eyes and heart when around a nicely proportioned man, it is my problem, not his.

For some of us shapely women, it is indeed very difficult to find clothes which are modest but not actually ugly or ill-fitting.  I'm not going to wear a sack of potatoes for the sake of any man who wants a Catholic church to be the one place that women do not look like women -- and I don't mean sluts.
[-] The following 2 users Like Miriam_M's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux, St.Eliza
Reply
#40
(07-07-2019, 04:26 AM)piscis Wrote: A laudable subject, agreed, but it strikes me as odd that you would ask women about men's motivations. Why not just ask the men?

I can tell you one answer I've seen, and I sometimes share it myself, why men remain silent--stubbornly opinionated women who insinuate that men have all sorts of personal insecurities whenever they try to bring up the subject! That's a little tongue in cheek, but true, and it bears out in almost every discussion on modesty that you can find online. You're a case in point! You're the one who first insinuated something about male insecurities and then didn't budge an inch when people, other men, disagreed with your approach to the topic. If we were talking in person in a group setting, I wouldn't bring any of this up, especially if other women were present, for fear of the social hell that would descend upon my head swifter than fire and brimstone came down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Most women think men are being too sensitive when they discuss modesty. Granted, many if not most men are exaggerating. Not few husbands are positively harsh and borderline abusive when it comes to this issue. I know of one father who had his daughters do manual labor, like chop and load wood, in full dresses. Is it any wonder they all grew up to be very masculine in their personalities? (They also dress immodestly like anyone else in secular culture now too.) Of course, now the dad is scratching his head about why his daughters are the way they are.  :dodgy:

(On a tangential note, I know another rad-trad father who complained to me that he *just* discovered that his daughters, who are in their early to mid 20s now, are all "feminists"--whatever he might mean by that. Of course, the father had just finished complaining to me and the other guys at the table that younger men these days are all wimps, snowflakes, and jobless losers. He also admitted that he had no idea what his daughters learned while they were in school and suspects they were corrupted by their education. Now he's scratching his head why his daughters are feminists who look down on men and why everyone else in the world except himself failed his daughters' formation. I think my point in bringing up this anecdote is also to point out that sometimes men are just plain dumb when it comes to any number of issues around raising a healthy family...)

But men's inability to properly articulate their struggles with the issue of modesty is only compounded by women who exaggerate the personal offense taken rather than trying to see through to the core issue. Men are too sensitive to immodesty. Women are too insensitive about it. This leads to problems. See for example this article by a woman who went to Franciscan (I think) and had horrible experiences in its "purity culture." Now she is a crusader against Franciscan and all things conservative Catholic. https://www.racked.com/2017/3/28/1498257...ty-culture

And the fact of the matter is dressing modestly often is uncomfortable, physically and socially. Sometimes dressing modestly "backfires" for women because it draws more male attention, often undesired and socially awkward attention. For introverted or shy women, this sort of attention can be overwhelming. I've had a conservative Catholic girl tell me that she dresses in tight pants like everyone else because she gets less men approaching her for her number that way...!!

And also, in terms of fathers/husbands allowing immodest dress, often it boils down to two things: 1) he doesn't think the dress is immodest; 2) the husband and wife disagree on what constitutes immodesty or how to raise their children with this value, and the wife always wins. There is no way in today's society for a man to actually win such an argument. A woman has all the power. It's extraordinarily hard for a conservative, single male to find a woman who agrees on a value as touchy and delicate as modesty. And to be fair to women, it's extraordinarily hard to find a conservative, single man who has strong values on modesty and isn't socially weird himself... Sometimes I suspect with newer or younger couples, if a man just took some time to make himself not weird, a lot more things would go smoothly.

This 100%. Just go to the comment section on any news article about young girls running afoul of a dress code. You've got moms that probably wear less and take "my body my choice heck with you" to the nth power all the way.

(07-09-2019, 02:13 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(07-08-2019, 03:31 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Prudishness is not better than immodesty. They are both vices in opposite extremes.

I certainly agree with this, and I do think there is a confusion among the traditionalist communities and coming from one traditional Order as well.  That Order recently published something very close to this paraphrase:  "At no time, and in absolutely no way, should a woman ever dress as to reveal her shape."

Excuse me?  God created a shape He wanted forever hidden?  

As a traditionalist woman I cannot disagree more with the above paraphrase.  A woman's shape -- if attractive -- glorifies God.  While it's not necessary to wear Lycra, it's also not necessary to wear a burka in order to be modest.

It is not incumbent upon women to protect men from the necessity of developing custody of the mind, eyes, and heart.  This 21st century world is filled with temptations to the flesh -- the vast majority of them not present in Catholic churches but on the local and national news, in images on the Internet (and I don't mean visited porn), and while merely walking down the street or stepping into a grocery store.  We women, as well as men, might well have to develop our own custody of the senses because we are prone to verbal incitements and temptations, as well as visual.  Men are not required to wear oversized shirts and baggy pants just because I happen to be very attracted to chests, backs, and the rear ends of men who are basically in shape. If I can't control my wandering eyes and heart when around a nicely proportioned man, it is my problem, not his.

For some of us shapely women, it is indeed very difficult to find clothes which are modest but not actually ugly or ill-fitting.  I'm not going to wear a sack of potatoes for the sake of any man who wants a Catholic church to be the one place that women do not look like women -- and I don't mean sluts.

In the spirit of honesty, is the bold really true? I am not needling you, I really want to know. Every time the matter of male vs female appearance comes up we always hear that women are the fairer sex. I think the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is probably more accurate of reality, but I don't know. I mean there are some women that even if they were doing the sleaziest dance in their birthday suit would never elicit a reaction out of me. I also wonder though if women experience the same magnitude of attraction to the opposite sex that men do. How much of that is nature and how much is nurture again, I don't know. One of my friends who as he likes to say is "Catholic on paper only" says that women are the most attractive beings ever. Ok, sure as a straight guy I get that so we can't be objective.

What I find telling though is that we don't have a multi-billion dollar industry (cosmetics) dedicated to enhancing men's appearance. Men's attire hasn't changed much in the last 200 years. The ills of men's attire is usually wearing baggy clothes that don't fit showing off their baggy underwear where as women do the opposite. Most men would never feel "empowered" by walking around in a speed sporting an erection to get female attention. On the contrary a man walking around in speedo sporting an erection would probably get slapped by most women. I can't imagine most men necessarily being offended by a woman wearing dental floss. What is also telling is that you really don't have places where women can go to pay men for sex as you do the other way around. Granted, those places are sinful regardless of what the arrangement is but I digress. If you look throughout most of society you would be hard pressed to find an example where women demand or seek an experience of male sexuality with the same vigor and interest that men seem to seek an experience of female sexuality. Maybe women just haven't had a chance to express that desire?

____________________________________________________________________

My two cents on the issue for what its worth.... I often wonder if our excessive focus on this matter tempts women to rock the boat for the sake of attention even if negative. Or perhaps we (as men) revealed our hand by showing how much power the sight of naked female flesh has over us. I've accepted this is my cross to bare in life and if a woman doesn't give a darn about that, it says more about her character than mine. Being hypervulnerable to female influence is what keeps a husband in the know as far as his wife is concerned, and allows him to check out the daily drudgery rapidly to focus on her. The double edge sword is that thanks to sin sometimes its difficult to keep other women from exploiting that knowingly, unknowingly, obstinately, or ignorantly. Over time though I have come to terms with the fact though that most women who feel so "empowered" by advertising their body are trying to divert your attention from their otherwise nasty or unpleasant personality. A nice body is great, but it gets old after awhile (literally) especially if the woman has a rancid personality. 

Take Taylor Swift for instance. By society's standard (and many guys) the skinny blonde that struts around in tight clothes with provocative moves should be a trophy. If I saw her stark naked you might as well pronounce me dead by my reaction. She is a rancid snappy feminist whose time I would find of less value than a rock.
Local anti-feminist.....if you think women deserve special treatment without any accountability for their actions expect to hear from me!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)