tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post788955745265120366..comments2024-03-14T11:50:14.761-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Immodesty != ManureDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-53263273159779523502012-08-09T11:05:20.649-04:002012-08-09T11:05:20.649-04:00GK,
All other things being equal, I'm often c...GK,<br /><br />All other things being equal, I'm often content to let people sort out the fight they pick. In the case you cite, Crude brought up the "rape culture" concept first, saying:<br /><br /><i>The problem is, if you so much as breathe a word in this direction, you risk setting off the "slut-shaming, rape-culture, blaming the victim" bomb. And most people are not really prepared for the heat that comes with that sort of thing, even (especially) if it has nothing to do with what's really being claimed.</i><br /><br />Clare argued with him on it, and I didn't see feel the need to intervene on either side. <br /><br />Come to that, if you're going to complain about someone taking Crude to the woodshed, I'm not clear why you went after Clare rather than Brandon. Or are you only complaining about Clare because she's a girl? <br /><br />I'm going to address one or two specific items you bring up here, and then I may address the more general concept you seem concerned about (the supposed moral necessity and virtue of calling out people in public over their perceived bad behavior) in a post later if I have the time.<br /><br /><i>I mean, for all of your hemming and hawing over angels and pins I'd argue that a true classicist would point out "rape culture" can't even exist as such. That is, rape as an evil is by definition uncultured. This is the level of critique that is being aimed at crude but _NOT_ the level of critique aimed at Clare. </i><br /><br />From what I know if it (which isn't much) "rape culture" is a term developed in feminist theory for a set of cultural assumptions that suggest that under circumstances rape is, while perhaps not acceptable, a predictable result of the woman's (victim's) behavior, and thus her fault rather than that of the rapist. The idea is that the culture is at least partly responsible for the rape, in that it enforces expectations such that under certain circumstances a man can assume that "no" means "yes" and force intercourse, on the theory that some aspect of the woman's behavior (say, how she's dressed) indicates that she "wants it" regardless of what she actually says or does.<br /><br />I'm not an expert on feminist theory, and I'm not sure that the term is necessarily the clearest, but I'm not clear that your objection actually takes the meaning of the term into account.<br /><br /><i>So to Clare, if that Latina in question was dressed, as they'd call it in my neck of the woods, like a hoochy-moma, she has moral responsibility for that dress full stop. That no one here can voice the same (even Crude!) is sad.</i><br /><br />I didn't see that anyone is claiming that people are not responsible for how they themselves dress, Latina or otherwise. What Clare was objecting to was the tendency (all too common) to believe that one can classify people's moral and personal worth based on a quick assessment of their looks.<br /><br />So, for instance, wearing hoop earrings and heavier make-up is by no means more immodest than any number of typically "anglo" modes of women's fashion, but there's a tendency in certain circles to equate Latina with "easy" and thus assume that if a girl looks that way she can be treated as such. <br /><br />Now, you seem eager to jump to another conclusion "I bet she <i>was</i> dressing immodestly, and Clare's just unwilling to admit it!" but there's really no evidence here one way or another. I'd tend to take the phrase "nice, WASP, J-Crew skirted girls" in describing the accusers to mean we're just talking about cultural disconnect (and perhaps a little racial prejudice) here.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-31886996792250240212012-08-08T19:42:07.917-04:002012-08-08T19:42:07.917-04:00You know, its been a long time now since I posted ...You know, its been a long time now since I posted here. But I want to point out that Crude has been logical and largely "uncrude" while you've totally let "Clare" derail the discussion. Why? Because she is a girl? He's never said anything (in this thread anyway) that "supported rape culture". I mean, for all of your hemming and hawing over angels and pins I'd argue that a true classicist would point out "rape culture" can't even exist as such. That is, rape as an evil is by definition uncultured. This is the level of critique that is being aimed at crude but _NOT_ the level of critique aimed at Clare. <br /><br />And for those that are interested in the history of the stern correction I'd argue that St. Chrysostom takes the cake. Go read some of him (or St. Paul for that matter) before you argue for a limited application of correction. St. Paul in the agora wasn't concerned about his relation to the men there and calling them on their disordered religion. <br /><br />I'm more than a little amazed that you would let "feelings" trump salvation. If the person in question is being immodest does being silent result in _any_ good (as Darwin is arguing)? I could see an argument for words, "seasoned with salt," but that is distinctly NOT what is being argued. Silence is being presented as a virtue based on relationship to the listener. That's hogwash. Nor is your comment about children blurting out things relevant. Children are immature and should not correct their elders _lest they introduce error_.<br /><br />It is a sad day when we've descended to such a barbarous level that silence is better than virtue. I've been corrected by enough random old women in my life that I am thankful for the stranger offering a good word of insight (my fly is now up!). Unfortunately the young women of this world have turned any sort of correction into humiliation as presented by Clare. In such a way obedience has become a vice and women have become uncorrectable.<br /><br />We have, as Crude pointed out, a positive duty not to stumble others. Yet this duty is deemed almost irrelevant by the majority of the commentariate here. Yes a man who looks at a slutty woman and develops desire is wrong, but the Fathers and even the Pagan philosophers were not lax in calling out such women and assigning them blame. Instead we've become so infected with feminism that we can't do that without endless qualifications.<br /><br />So to Clare, if that Latina in question was dressed, as they'd call it in my neck of the woods, like a hoochy-moma, she has moral responsibility for that dress full stop. That no one here can voice the same (even Crude!) is sad.<br /><br />The post started off good, the comment thread degenerated. Now I'll happily wander off for a few months.GK Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11412564496846777444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-63324597740286025022012-07-14T03:33:22.406-04:002012-07-14T03:33:22.406-04:00Also--guess what I think when men run past me in s...Also--guess what I think when men run past me in short shorts or no shirt. I want to screw them, a lot. <br /><br />But as a woman I have no cultural entitlement to whatever bodies catch my eye, nor license to critique their arousing behavior, so I guess I should just shut up and let down my skirt.Clarehttp://babesinbabylon.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-15846557707545726322012-07-14T03:29:06.870-04:002012-07-14T03:29:06.870-04:00Crude--
The point is not that you can't constr...Crude--<br />The point is not that you can't construct a good modesty argument pithily. You can't. It's a complex subject that doesn't lend itself to sound bites. The point is that if you are really worried about how hindered you are in your pithy arguments by all these women and their rape stories, then the problem is huge, and entirely yours.<br /><br />Also, no, I have never actually seen an attack (in the non-sequitur, ad hominem sense) that incorporates an understanding of rape culture. I'm not saying it's theoretically impossible, but that I've never seen it happen. What I have seen is a lot of men refusing to address what's problematic in their approach to policing women's dress because the women were just so *mean* to them, dammit.<br /><br />And no, I don't think legitimate and informed disagreement is impossible. However, with some issues the moral imperative seems so clear that those who resist it must be construed as suffering from a failure of vision rather than will. This is nothing new--see the way Catholics treat abortion supporters. Again, you are really not the one being victimized here.<br /><br />Your "but sometimes, people overreact" comment is a perfect example of such. Why you are so unwilling to incorporate victims' accounts of how certain ideologies made their suffering more intense and difficult to overcome, why you are so eager to insist that there are no hard and fast rules and so far from questioning what in your own arguments has drawn heated responses from those on the front lines of the intersection of culture war and violence--all this is beyond me. I am happy to argue any specific point, but as far as I deal with attitudes, presuming ignorance still seems the most charitable response.Clarehttp://babesinbabylon.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-80668444192236240932012-07-12T23:36:08.439-04:002012-07-12T23:36:08.439-04:00Well put and charitable. Thanks. There are a lot o...Well put and charitable. Thanks. There are a lot of posts and comment threads these days re: modesty and so much of it is hysterical or intolerably boring. Fussing over what is or isn't modest is pedantic no matter which side of the debate you're on. Your comment is a refreshing and inspiring perspective.Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-29304046596060971192012-07-11T14:10:04.894-04:002012-07-11T14:10:04.894-04:00mrsdarwin wrote:
"If your right eye causes y...mrsdarwin wrote:<br /><br /><i>"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away."<br /></i><br /><br />I was waiting for the "blame the victim" meme to surface.<br /><br />As a man, God made me visual. Women know this. When they dress in provocative ways, they make it difficult for me to remain chaste.<br /><br />The attitude seems to be: "I can dress like I want and of you don't like it it's your problem." Sure, it's my problem. But it is supremely uncharitable to make yourself a near occasion for sin for me. Maybe I'll get more purgatory points for fighting the good fight. But in any event, it's cruel.<br /><br />We had an interesting discussion last weekend. One of our female friends asked what the protocol was if a host was dropped down some woman's cleavage. There were the obvious jokes: "You call the priest to retrieve it!", but I said: "If women dressed modestly it wouldn't be a problem." I then launched into "dressing modestly at the firing range to avoid the 'hot brass dance' when one of the ejected shells drops down your shirt".Tonyhttp://www.manlymen.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-5825092785275456592012-07-11T13:25:38.948-04:002012-07-11T13:25:38.948-04:00Matthew,
Since everything is a matter of prudence...Matthew,<br /><br />Since everything is a matter of prudence, I would agree that it's relevant. But if we put it in terms of prudence itself, the game gets even more complicated. Something's being prudent doesn't imply that its opposite is imprudent, and something's being less prudent doesn't imply that it's wrong. This is pretty well established -- the Church condemned, for good reason, rigorism, which eliminated the primary work of prudence by holding that only the most morally safe actions were acceptable (in effect, that our actions must always be the most prudent actions possible). Thus it's entirely possible to say that for some reason it's better not to wear X without also saying that it is morally wrong to wear X.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-51958595124884389462012-07-11T13:12:23.544-04:002012-07-11T13:12:23.544-04:00I think people are right about clothing is communi...I think people are right about clothing is communication, but I don't think therefore the right approach is to shame a woman by saying: x dress makes you a slut or something. <br /><br />Instead, it is important to emphasize the value of truth, and teach women real current social communication queues. As such, a woman who values truth and knows what clothing communicates will dress in a way that expresses her inner self. <br /><br />Not all women who dress immodestly are ignorant of this -- some are expressing something real about their interior disposition. You cannot change *that* just by tossing a sweater on her.Maikihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00136891953810280076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-74990418560968089282012-07-11T12:56:04.867-04:002012-07-11T12:56:04.867-04:00Whether communication is moral or not does not dep...<i>Whether communication is moral or not does not depend on how other people interpret it but on the disposition of the communicator's character in interpreting it.</i><br /><br />Sorry, that should be 'disposition of the communicator's character in communicating it'.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-63430383231972408722012-07-11T12:55:09.562-04:002012-07-11T12:55:09.562-04:00I'll steal another: clothing conveys something...<i>I'll steal another: clothing conveys something. It is a form of communication, and it can be done morally or immorally. </i><br /><br />Yes, Crude, obviously, and by placing your argument on this ground, you've merely strengthened the argument against you. Whether communication is moral or not does not depend on how other people interpret it but on the disposition of the communicator's character in interpreting it. Any other criticism of communication has nothing to do with the morality of communication. The most such criticism could be is either (a) a purely political criticism, solely in terms of widespread negative consequences that in some way threaten the peace and order of society, which does not reflect on the character of the person being criticized unless they are deliberately intending to contribute to those consequences; or (b) a purely aesthetic criticism, solely in terms of bad taste, with no moral implications at all. If, however, these are the criticisms, it needs to be made clear and not muddled together with moral terms. The only other thing that is left is that the criticism is merely the claim that a communication happens to be unfortunate; but the fact that something done just happens to be unfortunate is not something for which anyone can actually be criticized.<br /><br />The irony of it all is that we both know that you regularly engage in communication that certain segments of society would consider morally offensive (and that this consequence is easily foreseeable), but your argument directly implies that you are morally wrong to do so, whereas mine doesn't, because your argument makes the morality of communications dependent on how other people interpret them. Mine, on the other hand, does not: since I actually have a coherent account of virtue and vice, accepting as I do the traditional account, I am not committed to anything of the sort, since what matters is actual disposition of character in communication, not whether anyone is offended. If, as your defense of standard criticisms of immodesty implies, (1) the real problem with immodesty is vicious communication; and (2) whether something is vicious depends on how people other than the communicator interpret it, rather than on what the communicator is deliberately doing in communicating; then that gets us into an account of what's moral and immoral in communication that I really don't think you want to be committing yourself to.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-16809734894179546572012-07-11T12:44:33.012-04:002012-07-11T12:44:33.012-04:00Matthew,
Yeah, I agree that it's important to...Matthew,<br /><br />Yeah, I agree that it's important to have regard for the effect of one's clothing on others. And with a house full of girls, you can bet that there are rules for what can be worn by members of the family here. My main beefs on this topic (and since I figure that basic propriety is a given around here, that's mostly what I end up talking about in regards to modest) are two:<br /><br />1) While I think it's important to give thought to what effect one's dress would have on those one encounters, I think there has to be a clear and reasonable limit on how far this goes, based on what the <i>reasonable</i> (and reasonably virtuous) person one meets might think. Otherwise, we get all sort of odd arguments based on the claim that, "You may not fully appreciate how guys think, but let me assure you that as soon as some guys see [fill in the blank] they can't help but be completely consumed by lust." This gives us things like <a href="http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2010/09/problem-of-pants.html" rel="nofollow">the absolute prohibition of pants</a> (because by looking at pants guys might get the idea that women have legs and crotches and things like that. Horrors! Also, I don't like the general line of thinking that we men are incapable of policing ourselves and women are to blame for everything we think.<br /><br />2) While agreeing that it is quite possible for a woman to actively try to incite lust through how she dresses, I don't think the line of thinking that goes, "Now that we've established it's wrong, can't I please, please be really rude to that woman so she'll see how bad she is? Or even just a bit rude? How about just forceful?" I think the vast, vast majority of the time this urge finds its root not in a real desire (much less ability) to help or improve the person dressing immorally, but rather out of a strong desire to mark out the difference between that person and oneself. So I just don't see that as a virtuous urge. Sure, Christ could be pretty hard on people at times (the argument goes). But then, given Christ was perfect I'm pretty confident that he was acting with the best interests of the other in mind. I'm less confident in the rest of us in that regard.Darwinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-16633025321836773852012-07-11T12:01:55.870-04:002012-07-11T12:01:55.870-04:00Ha! A bunch of comments happened in between when ...Ha! A bunch of comments happened in between when I started typing and when I posted.Matthew Lickonahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01073464100061129072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-29952862160282143602012-07-11T11:58:10.160-04:002012-07-11T11:58:10.160-04:00Aw, c'mon Darwins. Crude shouldn't call n...Aw, c'mon Darwins. Crude shouldn't call names, but isn't there something to what he/she says? If you want to couch it in terms of classical notions of virtue and vice, couldn't we say that deciding what to wear is a matter of Prudence, that queen of virtues? Isn't it prudence that suggests a bathing suit at the beach, but not in the office? It does not seem to me irrelevant to suggest that clothing is a form of communication (and the truth of that claim seems obvious to me). It is true that we cannot control how our communication will be received - that part indeed seems to be outside the bounds of virtue and vice. But we can consider others, and make efforts to be charitable toward them, so as not to "lead one of these little ones astray." My oldest son loves his Alien t-shirt, but I've asked him not to wear it in the house, because the image is frightening to my younger children.<br /><br />As to the question of tradition - I remember when I first encountered C.S. Lewis' notion of the gluttony of delicacy. It was unlike anything I had read before on gluttony, but it made sense. Some of the olde-timey theologians weren't always the best disposed toward the ladies; this may help to account for a paucity of discussion on the subject?<br /><br />Finally, if one was to be pithy on the subject of modesty, would it be enough/okay to say: "It is wise to consider what you want people to notice about you, where you want to draw their attention, and what message you want to send with your attire."Matthew Lickonahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01073464100061129072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-65601608037208883952012-07-11T11:45:08.441-04:002012-07-11T11:45:08.441-04:00Crude,
clothing conveys something. It is a form o...Crude,<br /><br /><i>clothing conveys something. It is a form of communication, and it can be done morally or immorally. </i><br /><br />I don't think anyone here disputes that. (And although the t-shirt you link to doesn't look immodest in its design as a garment, the sentiment expressed can certainly be agreed to be extremely crass -- and would make one think twice about shaking hands with the wearer.) <br /><br />My disagreement, a fairly strong one, is in relation to when and how one's standards in regards to dress should be conveyed to those who aren't complying with those standards. I see ever day people who don't dress in a way I would allow my daughters to, however I must confess I can think of no occasions when it would have been helpful or appropriate for me to bring up the topic with a girl or woman who wasn't close friend or family (and those who are close friends or family I like too much to provide advice in the form of "Stop dressing like you're some low-class trash.")<br /><br />Though MrsD has already put it much more pithily, so I'll leave it at that.Darwinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-9009082000910915172012-07-11T11:27:37.756-04:002012-07-11T11:27:37.756-04:00I'm not jumping into the modesty argument, but...I'm not jumping into the modesty argument, but just had to say that I love this line:<br /><br />The "correction of faults need not take the form of brutality"<br /><br />That one is going into long-term memory.Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12507330852895229468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-59927381414945989092012-07-11T11:21:24.353-04:002012-07-11T11:21:24.353-04:00Some of us aren't quite that intellectually ho...<i>Some of us aren't quite that intellectually hobbled - or more likely, some of us aren't quite that animated by petty internet grudges.</i><br /><br />Really? You're going to pull the "It's just internet lulz, stop arguing" card? That's the kind of stuff teenagers do when they run out of arguments about why their favorite band is the best ever.<br /><br />You make a lot of good points. You don't need to resort to this.Kristinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-69696211965893460512012-07-11T09:20:39.613-04:002012-07-11T09:20:39.613-04:00Crude, is this precious attitude the same you plan...Crude, is this precious attitude the same you plan to use to correct wayward women in tight shirts and short shorts? It's hard to imagine that you'll get much of a hearing, if the hearing is actually of more interest to you than the humiliation of naughty women.<br /><br />You say above: "I am saying that how a person dresses, and how they compose themselves in general, can and should take into account the general reaction to what they do - it should, to some degree, inform their acts and attire, and that they can damn well make bad choices that are in fact bad based in part on that consideration or lack thereof." Apply this statement to your own comments here and try to see why an attitude of "Can't I shame these sluts just a little?" goes over very poorly with those of us who believe that correction of faults need not take the form of brutality, and that gentleness is not equivalent to laxity or to permissiveness.MrsDarwinhttp://darwincatholic.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-9112112320213087112012-07-11T00:38:54.050-04:002012-07-11T00:38:54.050-04:00Brandon,
Your agreement or disagreement is not re...Brandon,<br /><br /><i>Your agreement or disagreement is not relevant to the question. The notion that other people's responses are essential to immodesty is entirely inconsistent with the general tradition of theological and philosophical commentary on the subject; merely insisting on the opposite does nothing to change that. </i><br /><br />Oh, for the love of God, Brandon - blah, blah, blah. The general theological and philosophical commentary you speak of is barely relevant to the actual point, to steal one from you and smack you with it.<br /><br />I'll steal another: clothing conveys something. It is a form of communication, and it can be done morally or immorally. YOUR agreement or disagreement makes no difference here. I am saying that how a person dresses, and how they compose themselves in general, can and should take into account the general reaction to what they do - it should, to some degree, inform their acts and attire, and that they can damn well make bad choices that are in fact bad based in part on that consideration or lack thereof. Tighten your buttcheeks, lift your chin, and do your damndest to glare at me over the internet while you inform me that what I speak of when I talk to the image and effects conveyed by acts or attire is not modesty, but rather scandal, or something else entirely. I promise you, it will be difficult for me to care less about how you prefer to categorize it.<br /><br />And if you want to play the tradition game, I've got one for you: 1 Corinthians 8 and the discussion of how to deal with meat sacrificed to idols. Yes, I can hear it now - "That's not a modesty issue! Why, it's not even about clothing!". Fine, call it what you like, but it happens to be central to this conversation: keeping in mind how one's dress appears to others, what affects they have on the surrounding individuals and culture, how they lead to one being viewed, etc, is a legitimate concern, and one can be legitimately called out for it in some situations on moral grounds.<br /><br />I'm sure you need to consult no less than five hundred years of theological and philosophical discourse to judge whether or not <a href="http://www.yourfunnystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Fisting-T-Shirt-In-Wal-Mart.jpg" rel="nofollow">some attire may be morally questionable</a> or that someone wearing it may be reasonably criticized on moral grounds for doing so. Some of us aren't quite that intellectually hobbled - or more likely, some of us aren't quite that animated by petty internet grudges.<br /><br />Really, man. I can be an asshole, but good God, can you ever be a windbag.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-24040053753908981862012-07-10T23:11:32.899-04:002012-07-10T23:11:32.899-04:00Crude,
Your agreement or disagreement is not rele...Crude,<br /><br />Your agreement or disagreement is not relevant to the question. The notion that other people's responses are essential to immodesty is entirely inconsistent with the general tradition of theological and philosophical commentary on the subject; merely insisting on the opposite does nothing to change that. What matters with modesty, as with any other virtue, is the actual disposition of your character in acting and, as with any other virtue, that is <i>all</i> that is relevant. It's not wearing this or that which is immodest, but dressing vaingloriously, or for the sake of sensual pleasures, or frivolously treating clothes as more important than they are -- things like these are immodesty, these are what the best moral authorities have repeatedly identified as immodesty, and in speaking of vice and virtue how others see it is not relevant because virtue and vice are not matters of social perspective. Any notion of immodesty that is not of this sort is merely a made-up vice that no one has to pay any attention to. If it is good or bad depending on how other people see it, it is not a vice; and if it is a genuine vice, it does not depend on how other people see things. Any other account of the morality of modesty is incoherent nonsense.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-24920526261277869152012-07-10T22:20:41.333-04:002012-07-10T22:20:41.333-04:00Brandon,
Well, I think this is precisely the prob...Brandon,<br /><br /><i>Well, I think this is precisely the problem: immodesty is not about appearances that can be seen, and thus what viewers think is immodest is irrelevant.</i><br /><br />I disagree. It's not irrelevant if it's taken into account, or should be taken into account, by the person wearing the attire. I think in the first case, it clearly often is. I think in the second case, the reasonable stance is that yes, that should be taken into account - even if the popular sentiment is wrong, it should at least be considered and addressed.<br /><br /><i>And, again, this is not an easy judgment to make at all, particularly since lots of innocent things will have the appearance of scandal to people who aren't sufficiently virtuous.</i><br /><br />Again, I disagree - certainly on a case by case basis. Sometimes, it really is easy for the typical person to tell that something is scandalous or immodest. To keep up with the examples, I can imagine cases in the limit where reasonable people may argue if such and such move is pornography. "What, it's just nothing but a guy licking feet. Is this a joke?" etc. Other times? You have to be deluded to not know what's going on.<br /><br />MrsDarwin,<br /><br /><i>Jesus only told the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more," after he'd shown her the mercy necessary for her to hear and accept his message. </i><br /><br />If I recall right, this wasn't a case of Christ showing up and glaring at men for criticizing a prostitute for being tawdry. They were about ready to kill her. And he called her out as a sinner when showing her mercy. Christ could actually be pretty sharp-tongued with people, sinners and hypocrites alike.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps because he looked at each person with such love that he was able to see past the sparkly "Little Slut" t-shirt to the very real person beneath it. </i><br /><br />Or perhaps He didn't think her being stoned to death was appropriate, but telling her to knock off the sinning was. Frankly, I think calling someone out for "sinning" would offend them a whole lot more, especially nowadays, than saying "Man, you kind of look like one of the Girls Gone Wild gals."<br /><br /><i>Any exhortation to modesty that doesn't respect the dignity of the women to whom the exhortation is addressed -- even, oh God, the one who has had "ten different sex partners each month" -- is likely to be ignored as a judgmental and cynical nudge toward the choir. That's fine if one's goal is primarily to punish slutty women for their slutty choices. It's not so fine if the ultimate goal is to affect behavior positively and lead souls to heaven.</i><br /><br />There's such a thing as being way too gentle, and "respecting" someone to a fault. Again, Christ did now and then quite pointedly call people out for their sins and mistakes.<br /><br />Let's flip the example: take a guy who has sex with ten different women each month. Is the concern only for his soul? Or for the ten additional souls he assists in causing some moral failings and sin with each month? Does this factor in?<br /><br />What's more, you say "likely to be ignored". Alright: and what if it's not? What if making him aware of his behavior, how it reflects on him, and what others think of him for it, happens to provide him with the strength and encouragement to shape up?<br /><br />No, sometimes it's important to tell the guy who drinks too much, "You're an alcoholic and you're ruining your life. You need help." Sometimes it's entirely valid to tell the thief, "No, you didn't 'borrow' anything. You're a thief." Let's not pretend that the gentle, soft, "respect people and do your damndest to never, ever try to admonish or, God forbid, punish them" move has been demonstrated as the most effective or even reasonable approach here.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-16173310387173963822012-07-10T21:15:12.694-04:002012-07-10T21:15:12.694-04:00On the other hand, there's a danger of getting...<i>On the other hand, there's a danger of getting ridiculous with this kind of approach, where every perceived appearance of immodesty or scandal is treated as some flaw on the viewer's part.</i><br /><br />Well, I think this is precisely the problem: immodesty is not about appearances that can be seen, and thus what viewers think is immodest is irrelevant. The one relevant judge is the prudent (and thus virtuous) person, and the only proper means of judging even for that person is sympathetic understanding of the other person's actual motives in acting, or in this case, dressing. Modesty is simply not a matter of what you wear but why you wear it.<br /><br />Likewise, scandal <i>always</i> has to be considered both ways: it's putting roadblocks in the way of the pursuit of virtue, and can be as much the work of the rigorist or the hypocrite as of the laxist or the libertine. And there too the only judgment that matters is the judgment of prudent, that is, virtuous people in general, sympathetically understanding the motives of those involved. And, again, this is not an easy judgment to make at all, particularly since lots of innocent things will have the appearance of scandal to people who aren't sufficiently virtuous.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-1615525042687911712012-07-10T19:51:05.412-04:002012-07-10T19:51:05.412-04:00Brandon,
If it were about the latter, this would ...Brandon,<br /><br /><i>If it were about the latter, this would be tantamount to holding virtuous people hostage to the vices of others, which many discussions of modesty come dangerously near doing, and some certainly do, especially given that many interpretations of dress as oversexed are due to the interpreter's excessive inclination to look at things sexually and not to anything being done on the part of the person wearing the clothes. </i><br /><br />I would absolutely agree that any topic of modesty or scandal is necessarily a two-way street - as I've said, sometimes a criticism is warranted, sometimes it's not. On the other hand, there's a danger of getting ridiculous with this kind of approach, where every perceived appearance of immodesty or scandal is treated as some flaw on the viewer's part.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VmtNntThPo#t=2m31s" rel="nofollow">For example</a>. (For those of you who don't mind a dirty joke.)<br /><br />That aside, I think - whether you're talking about modesty or scandal - there's a certain responsibility (and I'll grant it's not necessarily very clear cut, or easy) on the part of the person dressing to be mindful of how they present themselves, how what they wear will likely be taken, and so on. I can completely understand an argument which says that modesty has, first and foremost, to do with a person's attitudes, intentions and behavior first and foremost. There's just more to it than that.<br /><br />To use a non-sexual example: I think it's entirely reasonable to expect people to go to certain lengths to not give the false impression that they're a police officer when they aren't one. Yeah, there's a way to go way too far with this (No mirrored sunglasses - someone might think you're a cop!), but no, dressing up as a cop is a bad idea. This shouldn't be done, and if someone mistakes you for a cop, there's a point at which it's not their fault.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-55390905219463716842012-07-10T19:03:26.686-04:002012-07-10T19:03:26.686-04:00Modesty is about how one relates to other people o...Modesty is about how one relates to other people only in the sense that it's about being moderate and reasonable in what one is doing with one's clothes. This is why among the Church Fathers and moral theologians the biggest attacks on immodesty have generally been directed against vainglorious clothing: i.e., deliberately dressing to impress others with how wealthy or important you are, which historically has been a far more serious problem (especially in ages and cultures where there was a big gap between the kind of clothing worn by the rich and that which could be had by the poor). Dressing to seduce gets mentioned as a form of immodesty, but almost always secondarily.<br /><br />Thus, modesty is a virtue of moderation in a broad sense, and as such, it deals with what you, the agent, are doing, and with the sort of disposition of character required for that -- <i>not</i> with how other people respond to it. If it were about the latter, this would be tantamount to holding virtuous people hostage to the vices of others, which many discussions of modesty come dangerously near doing, and some certainly do, especially given that many interpretations of dress as oversexed are due to the interpreter's excessive inclination to look at things sexually and not to anything being done on the part of the person wearing the clothes. I think what people are usually talking about when they talk about immodesty is not immodesty at all but scandal -- but that's a very different, and massively more complicated, moral ballgame.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-27877956305585514332012-07-10T18:34:06.268-04:002012-07-10T18:34:06.268-04:00I think the key element of modesty is dressing in ...I think the key element of modesty is dressing in a way which respects the God-given dignity of both yourself and those around you. This is why dress which is not remotely attractive can be immodest. (For instance, if a obese, hairy, middle aged man wanders into the yacht club in nothing but sandals and shorts, he's being immodest, despite the fact that <i>no one</i> will be attracted by his display.)<br /><br />This does include not dressing in a way that is intentionally calculated to invoke lust, but it's not restricted to that, and the question of whether a woman's attire invokes lust in those who look at her is not necessarily directly related to whether she is dressed immodestly. (As in: she can be fully modest and still invoke lust in others, though no fault of her own, and she could intentionally dress provacatively/immodestly yet fail to invoke lust in those who saw her.)Darwinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-36756483520698415012012-07-10T17:44:40.527-04:002012-07-10T17:44:40.527-04:00Here's a pithy aphorism:
"If your right ...Here's a pithy aphorism:<br /><br />"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away."<br /><br />Jesus only told the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more," after he'd shown her the mercy necessary for her to hear and accept his message. Perhaps because he looked at each person with such love that he was able to see past the sparkly "Little Slut" t-shirt to the very real person beneath it. <br /><br />"Sure, but modesty is, at the end of the day, all about how one person relates to others"<br /><br />It certainly is, and here's the Catechism on the subject: "It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity" (2522) Also, "it keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity." (2523) These admonitions address not only how one dresses, but how one responds to another person's dress. <br /><br />Any exhortation to modesty that doesn't respect the dignity of the women to whom the exhortation is addressed -- even, oh God, the one who has had "ten different sex partners each month" -- is likely to be ignored as a judgmental and cynical nudge toward the choir. That's fine if one's goal is primarily to punish slutty women for their slutty choices. It's not so fine if the ultimate goal is to affect behavior positively and lead souls to heaven.MrsDarwinhttp://darwincatholic.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com