Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women?


jim111

Recommended Posts

Basilisa Marie

I don't think talking about tight pants is going to do any good, because most guys don't wear tight pants and "nice calves" stopped being a huge turn on for women a few centuries ago. 

 

Unless you're talking about dudes who have a really nice butt.  Because then the obvious solution is kilts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheLordsSouljah

I'm shirtless in front of my wife all the time. She's a woman :|

Uhh, improve logic please! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

I don't think talking about tight pantaloons is going to do any good, because most guys don't wear tight pantaloons and "nice calves" stopped being a huge turn on for women a few centuries ago.

Unless you're talking about dudes who have a really nice butt. Because then the obvious solution is kilts.


You must live in a blessed locale with no hipsters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheLordsSouljah

I have five brothers, but I don't appreciate it when they walk around in anything less than a singlet - even on the hottest of days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chestertonian

I wish the reason why I wore shirts in public was to keep women's lust in check.

Edited by Chestertonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the modesty threads attained consciousness and the result is this guy.

 

I have had concerns about this for a long time, I just could not find any teachings to affirm it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

carmenchristi

... stripped to the waste,  or in very tight pantaloons or in very scanty bathing suits. ... They may also be an
occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbor."

 

Either I am an wierdo, or the Canadian bishops do not know the effect that a man in any of the above situations would provoke for a woman... the only temptation of thought or desire that it causes me is to throw him a towel and tell him to cover up because I don't want to see that stuff. Then again, I may not be normal :\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that all crucifixes will now wear a t-shirt?

I'd guess Jesus would wear one saying "Eat my shorts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that in a normal, public, everyday context, men should not be running around shirtless or wearing pants that are excessively tight.

That's the only reason I go to the Ballet. I love the Nutcracker and Don Juan. Btw, i'm a femina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that all crucifixes will now wear a t-shirt?

I'd guess Jesus would wear one saying "Eat my shorts".

 

This is the one thing that made me reconsider. However just as the church allows a women to expose he breast when feeding her child. I would argue that Jesus's sickly and abused body prevents it form being a temptation to lust.

Am I right ladies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't some of the greatest art that was sponsored by the Catholic church chock full of naked folk?

 

I think it's a sad commentary that, implied in this debate, we can't look at the human body and see it as something beautiful without drooling over said person. Does appreciation automatically = lust?

 

I am after all just a liberal dope-sucking communist hippie so plz ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

isn't some of the greatest art that was sponsored by the Catholic church chock full of naked folk?

I think it's a sad commentary that, implied in this debate, we can't look at the human body and see it as something beautiful without drooling over said person. Does appreciation automatically = lust?

I am after all just a liberal dope-sucking communist hippie so plz ignore me.


Art is essentially as far as one can get from everyday contexts. Nudity in art is fine. In fact some of the very best art ever produced features nudity. But nudity is not appropriate in an everyday context.
Very different concepts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just make sure your "feet" are covered. I doubt anyone will get that.

 

You can't just go by what some Bishop says. They are just humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the one thing that made me reconsider. However just as the church allows a women to expose he breast when feeding her child. I would argue that Jesus's sickly and abused body prevents it form being a temptation to lust.

Am I right ladies?

 

You are right. On the other hand, "art" can be created to deliberately incite lust. Cf. the crucifix of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

 

Or this:

 

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/mary-magdalene-in-the-cave-jules-joseph-lefebvre-.jpg

 

"Mary Magdalene in the Cave"? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just make sure your "feet" are covered. I doubt anyone will get that.

 

You can't just go by what some Bishop says. They are just humans.

 

Feet= Genitals.  

 

:winner:

 

:bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...