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

[Lil Red]

which one specifically

 

:doh: 

[Basilisa Marie]

Have you read about the sin of scandal?
 

 

Hon, you know I have.  :)  

 

Like I said before, maybe things would go a bit better if you tried articulating your points yourself instead of dropping a bunch of quotes.  People aren't convinced by simply reading what a random priest or even a Church Father  has to say about a subject.  It's not about who can drum up the biggest number of authoritative quotes.  You have you use your rhetoric to really convince people that what you're saying is right. :)   

[jim111]

Hon, you know I have.   :)

 

Like I said before, maybe things would go a bit better if you tried articulating your points yourself instead of dropping a bunch of quotes.  People aren't convinced by simply reading what a random priest or even a Church Father  has to say about a subject.  It's not about who can drum up the biggest number of authoritative quotes.  You have you use your rhetoric to really convince people that what you're saying is right. :)   

 

Personally i am more likely to listen to a saint or pope then someones opinion.

 

 

My reasoning is that if one tempts a nother with lust, they are not only failing to be charitable, but they are committing the sin of scandal.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally i am more likely to listen to a saint or pope then someones opinion.


My reasoning is that if one tempts a nother with lust, they are not only failing to be charitable, but they are committing the sin of scandal.

Once again, you cannot demonstrate an inherent link between nudity and lust.

[Basilisa Marie]

Personally i am more likely to listen to a saint or pope then someones opinion.

 

 

My reasoning is that if one tempts a nother with lust, they are not only failing to be charitable, but they are committing the sin of scandal.

 

Which is understandable, but here where people have pretty strong views, a little more "umph" is needed to get people to agree with you.  

 

Are we talking about active or passive scandal? Direct or indirect? 

 

From New Advent, an Encyclopedia you probably find suitable:

 

He is guilty of the sin of scandal who without positively pledging or inducing to sin nevertheless performs an act evil in itself which will be an occasion of sin to another.

 

Wearing clothes with necklines lower than 2 fingers below the throat hollow (whatever that means, as it could be my fingers, your fingers, or the pope's fingers) is not an action evil in itself.  :)  Ergo, not scandal!  

[jim111]

Which is understandable, but here where people have pretty strong views, a little more "umph" is needed to get people to agree with you.  

 

Are we talking about active or passive scandal? Direct or indirect? 

 

From New Advent, an Encyclopedia you probably find suitable:

 

Wearing clothes with necklines lower than 2 fingers below the throat hollow (whatever that means, as it could be my fingers, your fingers, or the pope's fingers) is not an action evil in itself.   :)  Ergo, not scandal!  

 

On the contrary

 

 

ST,II-II,43,A1

Article 1. Whether scandal is fittingly defined as being something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall?

 

Reply to Objection 2. A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol's temple" (1 Corinthians 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man's spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thessalonians 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.

 

 

  

 

 

[jim111]

On the contrary

 

 

ST,II-II,43,A1

Article 1. Whether scandal is fittingly defined as being something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall?

 

Reply to Objection 2. A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol's temple" (1 Corinthians 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man's spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thessalonians 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.

I did not comment sorry, but if women's immodesty causes a stumbling block for men, they sin, regardless of their intention.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I did not comment sorry, but if women's immodesty causes a stumbling block for men, they sin, regardless of their intention.

Not exactly. If I brought a group of men over from a small city in Saudi Arabia, I'm willing to bet at least half of them would get turned on by clothes we'd consider modest. Modesty isn't a fixed thing. Neither is arousal. In fact, there are psychology methods of training someone not to get aroused by a certain stimulus. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Plus, we have to be careful with this sort of reasoning. I remember watching an interview with a rapist in Jordan. He claimed the woman's immodest clothing (she wore a skirt) as justification for his actions. Even in the United States, there is the tendency to blame rape victims using similar logic. 

Edited May 2, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[ploomf]

I did not comment sorry, but if women's immodesty causes a stumbling block for men, they sin, regardless of their intention.

 

I know men who consider extremely modest women to be arousing because they represent a challenge. And I'm sorry but any man who considers a women's collar bones, shoulders, or knees to be a stumbling block has an extremely warped view of the human body.

[jim111]

Not exactly. If I brought a group of men over from a small city in Saudi Arabia, I'm willing to bet at least half of them would get turned on by clothes we'd consider modest. Modesty isn't a fixed thing. Neither is arousal. In fact, there are psychology methods of training someone not to get aroused by a certain stimulus. 

 

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[Basilisa Marie]

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

 

But that's the thing - in places like Saudi Arabia, men DO get turned on by looking at a woman's eyes, because those are the only things they can see and they've sexualized them.  It's like how centuries ago in Europe showing ankle was sexual and scandalous because it wasn't normally seen.  And then in some tribal areas of South America it's common for women to go topless.  What counts as messed up is almost completely dependent on the culture.  

[Chestertonian]

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

 

Muslims disagree.

 

 

 

 

[jim111]

But that's the thing - in places like Saudi Arabia, men DO get turned on by looking at a woman's eyes, because those are the only things they can see and they've sexualized them.  It's like how centuries ago in Europe showing ankle was sexual and scandalous because it wasn't normally seen.  And then in some tribal areas of South America it's common for women to go topless.  What counts as messed up is almost completely dependent on the culture.  

 

disagree, just cause it was forbidden to show ankle does not mean it caused sexual arousal. Also just cause there breasts are exposed does not mean they do not cause lust.  A husband might see his wife's breasts every night, but that changes nothing. By this logic, you could go to a nude beach naked, and would not sin because that's how there culture is. Would you agree with this?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There is a difference between looking at a woman and thinking she is pretty or attractive, then getting turned on. Unless your a messed up pervert, I don't think its possible to get aroused by looking at someones face.

People can get aroused by basically anything, even the smell of onions. 

[jim111]

Which is understandable, but here where people have pretty strong views, a little more "umph" is needed to get people to agree with you.  

 

Are we talking about active or passive scandal? Direct or indirect? 

 

From New Advent, an Encyclopedia you probably find suitable:

 

Wearing clothes with necklines lower than 2 fingers below the throat hollow (whatever that means, as it could be my fingers, your fingers, or the pope's fingers) is not an action evil in itself.   :)  Ergo, not scandal!  

 

Mary is not impressed

 

"Modesty in dress can lead to the loss of immortal souls, and if

gravely offensive, is a mortal sin for the wearer and occasion of sin

for the beholder of immodest fashions. Sins caused by immodest

fashions send to hell, or at least make worthy of hell’s fire, the souls

of many of those exposed to these fashions."

Our Lady of Guadalupe

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[CatholicsAreKewl]

disagree, just cause it was forbidden to show ankle does not mean it caused sexual arousal. Also just cause there breasts are exposed does not mean they do not cause lust.  A husband might see his wife's breasts every night, but that changes nothing. By this logic, you could go to a nude beach naked, and would not sin because that's how there culture is. Would you agree with this?

Actually, overexposure to something can dull whatever reaction you have to it. Witnessing your first death as a surgeon would probably affect you much more than it would fifteen years into practice. I'm sure going to a nude beach enough times would have this same effect.

Edited May 2, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Chestertonian]

How could you not be aroused by the smell of onions?! :eat:

[jim111]

Actually, overexposure to something can dull whatever reaction you have to it. Witnessing your first death as a surgeon would probably affect you much more than it would fifteen years into practice. I'm sure going to a nude beach enough times would have this same effect.

If you take a boy in a nudist colony away from all women for a year, then bring him back, he will get aroused by there breasts.

If you take a boy who has is normal away from women for a year, then show him a woman, he will not have the same sexual urges as the one who is looking at the breasts. I kinda feel like the results from original sin do not effect us when we look at a woman's face. At least for me when I see a woman's face, I an attracted but I am not tempted to lust. Its also not a matter of dullness cause i recognize the value of a woman with a very pretty face. Though its still not a lustful desire.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If you take a boy in a nudist colony away from all women for a year, then bring him back, he will get aroused by there breasts.

If you take a boy who has is normal away from women for a year, then show him a woman, he will not have the same sexual urges as the one who is looking at the breasts. I kinda feel like the results from original sin do not effect us when we look at a woman's face. 

This is interesting. I have no idea what would happen in those cases. Are you basing this off of a study by chance?

At least for me when I see a woman's face, I an attracted but I am not tempted to lust. Its also not a matter of dullness cause i recognize the value of a woman with a very pretty face. Though its still not a lustful desire.

Understood, but I feel there is a certain point where the blame can't be pinned on whatever is causing the temptation.