Question about modesty

[The_Harlequin_King]

Okay, then.

[ErinIsNice]

Another point I need to make is that when these trad dudes say they don't think this way about modestly dressed women, I don't believe it. If they are in the habit of intensely picking apart women and listing every little thing that gets them going, they are doing it about all women.

[Scriptorium]

But then some men could lust if a woman was dressed in anything at all. If we are limiting the scope of your discussion only to what is possible, then why exclude the case of those who could lust if a woman was dressed modestly?
And in regards to the long previous post, you have glossed over the real objections to the content by saying that those who object just can't handle it, and "aren't mature". Not so. If your premise in modesty is that we should charitably refrain from things which might cause others to have thoughts of a lustful nature, then your rather explicit accounts are also condemned. Worded accounts of these things can cause men to sin. Hence the written segments in pornographic magazines. But if "honesty" or some other abstract trumps charity, why is this not also true for dress?

I always use the term reasonable. Christ sets what is reasonable. I don't use the Muslim, the Amish, of the American version of what is reasonable.

As for point two, 1) The forum is meant for adults. 2) I gave a warning. 3) Avoiding mature speech in a forum in which someone warned you is much different than avoiding looking at other humans in public. By reading past the warning you engaged in a near occasion of sin, which apparently you and others thought was justified. I thought I was justified in discussing something that was a near occasion of sin to others because of the nature of the forum and the warning. We both are obliged to desist if we don't have due cause, so if you read, you are responsible. In public, it is not reasonable to expose others to a near occasion of sin. It is charitable to not expose others to a remote occasion of sin. The viewer does not have the burden to refrain from ordinary viewing of people (of course, he has the burden of custody of his eyes, and no looking back when he sees something which is an occasion of sin). The burden is on the dresser.

[Scriptorium]

Another point I need to make is that when these trad dudes say they don't think this way about modestly dressed women, I don't believe it. If they are in the habit of intensely picking apart women and listing every little thing that gets them going, they are doing it about all women.

Most men dress relatively modest. But I am willing to pick on men. I think men shouldn't run in the street with their shirt of. In general, actually, I think men should wear shirts. I wear board shorts and a swim shirt at the beach. I am more than willing to pick on guys, but modesty is not an issue. And by the way, did you read the big list of men's sins I listed -- custody of the eyes, sinful thoughts. Did you read the post?

[Someone1776]

But then some men could lust if a woman was dressed in anything at all. If we are limiting the scope of your discussion only to what is possible, then why exclude the case of those who could lust if a woman was dressed modestly?
And in regards to the long previous post, you have glossed over the real objections to the content by saying that those who object just can't handle it, and "aren't mature". Not so. If your premise in modesty is that we should charitably refrain from things which might cause others to have thoughts of a lustful nature, then your rather explicit accounts are also condemned. Worded accounts of these things can cause men to sin. Hence the written segments in pornographic magazines. But if "honesty" or some other abstract trumps charity, why is this not also true for dress?

I always use the term reasonable. Christ sets what is reasonable. I don't use the Muslim, the Amish, of the American version of what is reasonable.

As for point two, 1) The forum is meant for adults. 2) I gave a warning. 3) Avoiding mature speech in a forum in which someone warned you is much different than avoiding looking at other humans in public. By reading passed the warning you engaged in a near occasion of sin, which apparently you and others thought was justified. I thought I was justified in discussing something something that was a near occasion of sin to others because of the nature of the forum and the warning. We both are obliged to desist if we don't have due cause, so if you read, you are responsible. In public, it is not reasonable to expose others to a near occasion of sin. It is charitable to not expose others to a remote occasion of sin. The viewer does not have the burden to refrain from ordinary viewing of people (of course, he has the burden of custody of his eyes, and no looking back when he sees something which is an occasion of sin). The burden is on the dresser.

It is pure and utter ridiculousness to be worried about women wearing sleeves that are too short and then to write a long and graphic post about how to mentally undress women.  

The problem here ain't that women's sleeves are too short.  

[Scriptorium]

It is pure and utter ridiculousness to be worried about women wearing sleeves that are too short and then to write a long and graphic post about how to mentally undress women. 
The problem here ain't that women's sleeves are too short. 

If I can accept Bavarian boob lady as a contribution to the forum, then you can accept my list of sins. People are latching on the sleeves because it is the most benign of the things listed, and advised. Another kind of fallacy, as though that was the crux of the argument.

This is getting more fun by the moment.

[Anastasia]

But then some men could lust if a woman was dressed in anything at all. If we are limiting the scope of your discussion only to what is possible, then why exclude the case of those who could lust if a woman was dressed modestly?
And in regards to the long previous post, you have glossed over the real objections to the content by saying that those who object just can't handle it, and "aren't mature". Not so. If your premise in modesty is that we should charitably refrain from things which might cause others to have thoughts of a lustful nature, then your rather explicit accounts are also condemned. Worded accounts of these things can cause men to sin. Hence the written segments in pornographic magazines. But if "honesty" or some other abstract trumps charity, why is this not also true for dress?

I always use the term reasonable. Christ sets what is reasonable. I don't use the Muslim, the Amish, of the American version of what is reasonable.

As for point two, 1) The forum is meant for adults. 2) I gave a warning. 3) Avoiding mature speech in a forum in which someone warned you is much different than avoiding looking at other humans in public. By reading passed the warning you engaged in a near occasion of sin, which apparently you and others thought was justified. I thought I was justified in discussing something something that was a near occasion of sin to others because of the nature of the forum and the warning. We both are obliged to desist if we don't have due cause, so if you read, you are responsible. In public, it is not reasonable to expose others to a near occasion of sin. It is charitable to not expose others to a remote occasion of sin. The viewer does not have the burden to refrain from ordinary viewing of people (of course, he has the burden of custody of his eyes, and no looking back when he sees something which is an occasion of sin). The burden is on the dresser.

Public areas are also meant for adults, so would it be appropriate for me to wear something immodest if I warned people first? Furthermore, you place the burden on the reader of the material and not the writer. Are then the writers of these lurid letters in magazines justified if they give a warning first? Of course not. If it is charitable to not expose others to an occasion of sin, and reading explicit accounts (as yours) is an occasion of sin, then you have not acted charitably, and the warning is no more justification than the brown paper covering a Playboy.
Also, Christ may set what is reasonable, but he has not set standards of dress for either sex.

[verenaerin]

I always use the term reasonable. Christ sets what is reasonable. I don't use the Muslim, the Amish, of the American version of what is reasonable.

What you think is reasonable is your own opinion. And considering the graphic nature of your previous post, it's not consistent.

Just to be clear, I am putting you in an occasion of sin by wearing


but you are not culpable for any of the smut you wrote including phrases like,...

You are sick.

Edited because I can't post your comments in good conscience.

[verenaerin]

It is pure and utter ridiculousness to be worried about women wearing sleeves that are too short and then to write a long and graphic post about how to mentally undress women. 
The problem here ain't that women's sleeves are too short. 

If I can accept Bavarian boob lady as a contribution to the forum, then you can accept my list of sins. People are latching on the sleeves because it is the most benign of the things listed, and advised. Another kind of fallacy, as though that was the crux of the argument.

This is getting more fun by the moment.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS SLEEVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Someone1776]

It is pure and utter ridiculousness to be worried about women wearing sleeves that are too short and then to write a long and graphic post about how to mentally undress women. 
The problem here ain't that women's sleeves are too short. 

If I can accept Bavarian boob lady as a contribution to the forum, then you can accept my list of sins. People are latching on the sleeves because it is the most benign of the things listed, and advised. Another kind of fallacy, as though that was the crux of the argument.

This is getting more fun by the moment.

There is a big difference between looking at a picture of a Bavarian beer lady and writing a very long post on how to undress women in your mind. Only one of them is incredibly creepy.