Something I never really wanted to post about, but feel I have to, because I don't think that young women quite understand the problem.
Yesterday when I logged onto Facebook, I had several pictures of college co-eds in bathing suits, who are friends on Facebook, come up on my feed. In response, I posted the following on Facebook as my status:
A note to young women on Facebook, from a guy who works with young men struggling with pornography...you might look good in your bathing suit, but if you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes, which are struggling to see you as a human and not an object, you would never post that pic. Just a thought.But, that isn't enough to describe what is going on. So, here is the science behind it all:
I believe that most young women who post pics of themselves in bathing suits aren't looking to be objectified, but it is happening to them nonetheless. I hope this shows once again why modesty is a necessary virtue in our society today and it is an act of charity to your brothers-in-Christ to avoid immodest behavior, including posting pictures of yourself that are not modest.Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.
Scans of some of the men found that a part of the brain associated with empathy for other people's emotions and wishes shut down after looking at the pictures.
Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, said the changes in brain activity suggest sexy images can shift the way men perceive women, turning them from people to interact with, to objects to act upon.
A note for men - you are not off the hook for lusting after women because a woman dresses immodestly. There is no excuse for using a woman, regardless of how she might present herself. Your lust is your problem, not her problem. Her problem is immodesty.
I should add a note for the women - you would never have put on the bikini in the first place if you ever had 30 seconds behind those 20 year-old male eyes I describe above.
UPDATE: I forgot to post the history behind the bikini - I summarize it like this:
The modern bikini came from a Frenchman running a lingerie boutique. When he introduced it, he couldn't find a model to wear it so he hired a stripper. It was a hit with the guys and caught on.
Related posts:
**Top 10 Reasons Men Should Practice Custody of the Eyes
**Top 10 Reasons Women Should Dress Modestly
47 comments:
The fact that scantily clad young women are filed into the same mental category as a spanner could, however, be the basis for any number of Saturday Night Live skits...
Marcel -- I can guarantee you that many of the young ladies have no idea of how they are tempting their brothers in Christ. However, it goes beyond that ... many of them have absolutely no idea what you really mean when you say modesty. We have discussed this quite a bit in my high school theology classes. I urge the ladies to practice modesty and I share with them that some of their male classmates have actually come to me in private and have asked me to say something about how difficult the girls make it for young men who are striving for purity. In one class discussion there were two young ladies who I had been on youth-related trips with. I'd had to ask both of these young ladies to go change clothes on those trips because what they were wearing was unacceptable. They had willingly complied and had been very embarrassed about the whole thing ... but, I don't think they really understood what had been wrong with what they were wearing. In the class discussion both of these girls talked about the horrible things that "other" girls wear ... how it makes them look like "trash" (not their exact wording, but ...), and how they were thankful that they knew better than to dress in such a "trashy" way.
True story.
In other words, their moms won't let them dress like "trash" ... but, they have no inkling that what they do actually wear might be considered immodest.
I'm not disagreeing with what you say. However, having family that spend a lot of time boating and on the lake and doing water activities, I would like to know what a woman should wear instead? Is it enough for a woman to wear a one-piece?
Printing this out NOW to show to my teenage daughter. Thank you!
Another question of mine along these lines: why is a bikini socially acceptable in public and not panties/bra combo? Same "lines" etc... I never understood this.
Regarding swimwear for women, my wife tends towards the one-piece (or a two-piece that has similar coverage) where a skirt is a feature of said bathing suit.
Soccer Kim - I think a one-piece is the starting point. As a father of four girls, my kids are banned from bikinis (look at the history I posted in the UPDATE above).
The Catechism says this about modesty:
"Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one's choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet (CCC 2522)."
It is left up to the prudential decision of the individual how to apply this, but one thing I will say is take your grandparents with you to go swimsuit shopping. Not your boyfriend.
Soccer Kim, why not have them put on a cover up, or why post the pictures at all? Is it absolutely imperative that you post pictures of your family online wearing bathing suits?
Ten years ago, would you ever have dreamed of handing out a photo of your daughter wearing nothing but her swim suit to a stranger? Why is Facebook any different? You have absolutely no idea if those pictures are downloaded and redistributed elsewhere...none. ONce they are posted on the internet it is out of your control where they show up.
Excellent article and I appreciate your candor. I'll definately use this in my CCD class this fall.
If they aren't looking to be objectified, then I wonder what they are looking to be? Since I was once a teen girl, I assume they want people to notice how "hot" they look in their bikini. Of course they are free to wear a bikini if their parents say it's okay, but to post pictures on Facebook- I'm afraid that is the serious sin of pride and a total lack of humility- two "roots" of many other serious sins.
awesomegirl - I think what they are looking for is what every woman ultimately wants - to be loved and found attractive. They are just looking for these things in the wrong ways.
Thanks for starting this topic, Marcel!!! And your point - to start with a one piece - is so true. I've seen one-piecers that were way more seductive than a bikini! When shopping with my teen, here's what we look for:
1) top must be modest or can be altered to make it modest (we either sew more material in to create a cami look or sew the bra together to get the cleavage out).
2) The bottom must cover well front and back... watch out for high cuts!
3)No scooping cut aways on the sides - really those are just bikinis that attach the top and bottom. And the back shouldn't scoop below the bra line either.
4) Tankinis are ok as long as there is no "ini" - - now you can buy bottoms separately and can get a modest bottom so the tummy doesn't show. Also, no spit back - the back should be covered below the bra line.
My teen is accustomed to dressing modestly because I raised her from infancy that way. And I have promoted and reinforced Catholic values. She feels valued and honored at home.
My teen says she wants her future husband to treat her like a treasure. My job is to help her protect the purity of her soul until that special young man takes her hand in marriage.
(I had tried to post a similar comment but had password issues - hopefully this isn't getting double-posted) One more thought: It is sad how many "good Catholics" think contraception, purity and modesty are optional. Most of my Catholic friends - people who love their faith, Church and are even involved in ministry - think I am too serious and prudish about these issues. They let their daughters wear bikinis, immodest clothing-even in Church, watch Glee, Hangover - with their children, etc... We've had many discussions about it but I haven't been able to change their minds. All I can do is pray for them and be ready to respond in charity and love when opportunities are presented.
By the way - my teen proves you don't have to look Amish to dress modestly. She graciously marries fashion and modesty and I think she dresses so cute. I've seen lots of young women at St. Mary's and around town that pull this off. We can turn around the trend of objectifying people (it applies to both genders) by starting with ourselves and striving to give Jesus the best of ourselves... or as Matthew Kelly says, "Be the BEST versions of ourselves!".
I agree 100%!!!
I really hate logging on and seeing scantily clad pictures on my newsfeed. But nevermind what they're wearing (or rather NOT wearing!) at the beach..... some of the clothing young women are choosing to wear to CHURCH is what gets me.....
I felt so sorry for our priest a couple of weeks ago, who had to baptise a baby whose Godmother looked like she was dressed to go bar-hopping....Her sundress was cut so ridiculously low that I'm really surprised she didn't "fall out" when she moved. Someone else's dress was so short it barely covered her butt! And while these were visitors (that most likely will not be in our church again any time soon), even some of the "regular" attendees wear skin tight jeans and tops that leave nothing to the imagination. It is so hard to raise modest children, and especially to train our boys to purity when a young woman's sexuality is flaunted everywhere you turn.
I'd like to share something with you on this topic, immodest photos posted on FB. Recently a girl among others was murdered in my area,and an Internet news website decided to use the publicly available photo she had on her FB account. Unfortunately it was a photo of her wearing a short dress and posing immodestly. I really doubt that she would have wanted the world to remember her as depicted in that photo. It's just not the type of photo any good person wants to see when you read about the murder of someone.
Here is a little humble pie for me... I am ranting about humility and I just realized I posted under my daughter's account, um, "awesomegirl."
Sheesh! :^)
Your post is right on. Pornography dominates the Internet already. We don't need our "friends" to makes things more difficult by popping up on our FB in revealing clothes.
My suggestion is don't post pictures you wouldn't want to be used on your obituary. Recently one girl among several others were murdered in my area together (please pray for them), and her FB profile picture was the photo that at least one Internet news article went with. It happened to be a picture of her in short dress and standing in a sexual pose. I doubt that that is how she wanted anyone to remember her.
Great post, Marcel. It makes me consider my own swimwear more seriously. My husband tells me that since I work hard at staying in shape, I should enjoy it and show it off. I feel like I should show it off only to him. (Does this make me his trophy wife?)
I am no longer a college student, but a thirty-something mother of two. I wish sometimes that my mother would have taught me more about modesty, but she was more of a product of the 70s sexual revolution.
What shocks me is the number of women my age on FB who are willing to post photos of themselves in bathing suits (bikinis) and in suggestive poses and dresses regularly. I have trouble locating a recent photo of my face most days let alone one of me in a bathing suit.
"Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated."
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Suppose, for example, you read this sentence: "When men look at a picture of a nice car, the area of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of eating tasty food were activated." Would you therefore conclude that men must want to eat cars? Hopefully not.
Likewise, you can't imply that men must see women as tools just because the same parts of the brain is used for attractive women as for tools.
As for "why" teens and young adults may post pictures of themselves, I think the answer maybe far more simple than the "they're want to be found attractive" explanation: because they don't see a reason not to. They like posting pics with their friends. Some of these may happen to being in swimsuits. They aren't going out of their way to post bikini pics, they just don't see a reason to NOT post them.
And, remember, times have changed. While you may find what teens are doing unacceptable, your parents' generation likely said the same things about you.
Does every generation actually get worse? Or is worse totally subjective, and it's just a matter of expectations changing?
FYI - I will not approve any comments that aren't constructive to the conversation. So, to everyone who wants to make rude comments or ignore the issue, but make ad hominem attacks - it won't fly here.
If you want to really try and engage a dialogue, you are welcome to post.
Gayle - if you read through the study, it wasn't my conclusion, but the scientist from Princeton who made the conclusion. Look at these quotes from the article I linked to:
"The brain scans showed that when men saw the images of the women's bodies, activity increased in part of the brain called the premotor cortex, which is involved in urges to take action. The same area lights up before using power tools to do DIY. "It's as if they immediately thought to act on theses bodies," Fiske said."
"In the final part of the study, Fiske asked the men to fill in a questionnaire that was used to assess how sexist they were. The brain scans showed that men who scored highest had very little activity in the prefrontal cortex and other brain regions that are involved with understanding another person's feelings and intentions. "They're reacting to these women as if they're not fully human," Fiske said."
Since my previous comment was not approved because you felt it wasn't constructive (I was making a sarcastic argument), I'll be very direct.
In my opinion, your interpretation of these results leads to the conclusion that when a man objectifies a woman, it's the woman's fault for dressing in a way that stimulates him.
This once again blames the victim.
If you take the comments you make here to the final conclusion, we would have women wearing burkas so that men can look at them as humans, and not objects.
Of course, as we have seen. It doesn't really work that way. If a man sets out to look at a woman as an object and refuses to use his higher functioning mental powers, then nothing, not even covering a woman's complete body will stop him from objectifying her.
Coweringomega - I appreciate your direct approach. Sarcasm doesn't come across in the way intended on the internet many times, so I am pretty strict on moderating comments.
There is no blaming the victim. If you read the entire article, I clearly state that the man is the one responsible for lusting after a woman. BUT, a woman cannot be left off the hook for dressing in a way that invites lustful thoughts because of immodest clothing.
Most woman would be scandalized to stand in my office in their bra and panties, yet posting a pic on facebook in her bikini is basically the same thing.
This is not some "women need to wear burkas" rant by a man who wants to keep women down. Rather, it is a call for all of us to remember that we have to take responsibility for our own actions AND to help others who might struggle with certain problems.
I agree that a man could lust after a woman wearing anything, very little, or nothing, because imagination can be used that way. It still doesn't make the woman's immodest dress a good thing. Furthermore, I am not making a call for every woman to wear ankle-level skirts.
Rather, I am asking my sisters to think about how they might portray themselves to men by the way they dress. What does my clothing say to the world and what image am I portraying? Is it one I think is good and loving? Is it kind and charitable?
I was recently married to an amazing man.
Although I don't consider myself a "prude," I've been amazed throughout our time dating how much more seriously I took dressing modestly, including getting rid of my bikinis and other immodest clothing.
Wedding dress shopping was actually one of the hardest experiences of my life, as the only dresses I could find were strapless, and many were low-cut as well. This wasn't what I wanted my friends and family members to see me in. Later, I tried on my mother's dress which was both modest AND gorgeous. Later, I had two of my guy friends (who totally aren't into dresses and I never would have guessed they would have a discussion about dresses) discussed between themselves about how much my dress was ME and how nice it was to see a modest wedding dress.
Guys notice. Be supportive and dress modestly.
Since my previous comment was not approved, I assume you interpreted it to be offensive and sarcastic. I'll submit another based on some of the other comments, but I notice that another commentator has tagged on what I was getting at, and I will comment on your response to that individual, Cowerinomega.
You state, "There is no blaming the victim. If you read the entire article, I clearly state that the man is the one responsible for lusting after a woman."
You do say such, yet I experience that what is implied is that there would be no lusting, or at least reduced lusting, if a woman were more modest. I do not believe this to be the case.
"...a woman cannot be left off the hook for dressing in a way that invites lustful thoughts because of immodest clothing."
I experience that this statement implies blame on women directly.
"Most woman would be scandalized to stand in my office in their bra and panties, yet posting a pic on facebook in her bikini is basically the same thing."
I experience this argument does not take context into account. I believe the office to be a public venue, whereas a person's profile is subject to some privatization. I do not consider the two examples you give to be the same thing at all. Also, the view has the same ability to de-friend someone they find overly lustful. I experience that there is more a balance of power than what is implied in this statement.
"...it is a call for all of us to remember that we have to take responsibility for our own actions."
This I can agree with. I believe the responsibility of the woman is to strive to be self-aware enough to understand her motivations behind her desire to post a picture of herself wearing a bikini online. If they are out of a desire for affection, I would hope she could find a more constructive means to do so. If it is to show a fun weekend at the beach, then I have no such problem with such motivations. She is sharing her life with those whom she has chosen to friend on facebook.
CONT.
"AND to help others who might struggle with certain problems."
I have a serious problem with the implications of this statement. If I hear it correctly, I should perform my actions with the considerations of what all other persons may be struggling with. I think this idea is practical to a small degree: if I have a friend how is a recovering alcoholic, then I will not serve alcohol at a party I host. BUT it seems the statement here is trying to create more of a rule, not a subjective relationship-by-relationship case. Something like, "All women should dress modestly all the time for the sake of men who may be tempted." The cultural and historical changes to the definition of modestly notwithstanding, such a rule cannot be followed practically. You state later that men's subject of lust cannot be controlled because of imagination, yet I experience that you still conclude that the process of resisting lust will be easier if women dress modestly. I do not believe this to be true. I conclude that in order to triumph over lust (which I assume is your goal here) is not to change the object of lust into something less lustful (because lust will just find a new object). Deal with the core impetus of lust and who to overcome it. That is something I felt your original article neglected.
"Rather, I am asking my sisters to think about how they might portray themselves to men by the way they dress. What does my clothing say to the world and what image am I portraying? Is it one I think is good and loving? Is it kind and charitable?"
I experience this statement to be too focused on the women. I believe you could be more helpful to your audience at large if you focus on your own role and describe your own methods of resisting temptations, which you say you have experience doing yet only mention in passing in your original post. Instead of focusing on the role of women (which implies blame and promotes a gender power imbalance) share what you have personally learned from your life struggles and experiences. That's always more effective.
"Most woman would be scandalized to stand in my office in their bra and panties, yet posting a pic on facebook in her bikini is basically the same thing."
And yet the issue is not necessarily how much of the body is revealed. After all, we see a woman in a bikini and that (regardless of the effect on men's brains...) is considered normal, acceptable, in public. But a woman wearing her underwear out, even it covers more, seems inappropriate and out of place (because underwear is typically only seen by oneself and one's partner). Underwear is associated with privacy and to some people, intimacy. Bathing wear is not. Assuming you're a boxer guy, you wouldn't be ashamed to wear swimming trunks to the pool, but would you show up in your boss's office in only your boxers?
There are a lot of clothes that show less skin but are more sexual. I think it has to do with the intended effect. A woman wearing a bikini may very well have no intention to tantalize or appear sexually available, she may just want to keep cool and swim. But a woman (or man) wearing extremely tight everyday clothing can have few reasons for wearing tight clothing other than wanting to outline the body's features. (since very tight clothing is typically uncomfortable, ill-fitting, etc, while a bikini is not) Of course individuals have all kinds of reasons for wearing what they do that may be different than what people think.
To me, in the end it just comes down to: it's not always about you guys. Half the population is women. Sorry, but we aren't negatively affected by naked or scantily dressed women. *Most* of us don't lose our brain cells when a guy walks by topless either. Why should anything be considered "immodest" when it's not, to us? It's just natural bodies, how God made us.
I understand what you're saying, that women should help guys out since they get all tripped up over a little exposed skin, but maybe we should be helping guys be like *us*? Wouldn't it be better to work to make guys able to be unaffected when they see a woman's body? Instead of changing our behavior to make up for their weaknesses.
And if men can't be strong and get used to women's natural bodies, then COVER YOURSELVES UP. If woman can't walk around topless, why do women have to see YOU GUYS topless? Think about it. Show some modesty and wear a t-shirt to the pool next time.
BTW, a friend of mine once posted this swimwear company for ladies as an example of a fashionable designer who seeks to design modestly.
(site is loading at first even if it appears blank, and mute your speakers if you don't want music)
http://www.reyswimwear.com/index2.php
Marcel, thank you for your comments. Let me reply. First, I agree with what B. Jeffrey Vidt said.
In addition, the study you quote focuses on men with high vs low "hostile sexist" scores. The men with the high scores tended to associate women with tools. The logical conclusion is that SEXIST men look at women as objects, while non-sexist men do not. Thus, the problem really is with the men, not the women here.
Despite the fact that the problem is with the men, you are asking the women to be charitable and cover themselves.
Why aren't you telling the men to stop looking at women as objects? Your section with the "Note to men" still pushes the blame on the women. "Your lust is your problem, not her problem. Her problem is immodesty."
The implicit assumption is that if she had only dressed modestly, he wouldn't be having these lustful thoughts. That is simply false and blames the woman.
I do think that people should be modest, but if you read your post and all of the comments, the focus is on what women should do to deal with this problem. Not one commenter said, "Wow, I had no idea I was thinking of women as objects. I need to work on that!"
Several of you are coming from a different world view where you are not responsible for others. But, for Christians we ARE responsible for others, we are our "brother's keepers".
It is an act of love to do something that helps another person with a problem, so if I have a friend, and I am a true friend, that is alcoholic, then I wouldn't serve alcohol in front of them in order to tempt them. Think of the consequences if they drink...
I am not implicitly saying it is the woman's fault. I am saying it is a woman's responsibility to help a man, who is at fault for lust.
Also, it isn't about sexism. All men are men. Sexism doesn't determine an immediate brain reaction. This is where I disagree with the assumptions of the research. Fiske assumed men who are sexist are the ones objectifying women and found research to back up her claim. The study was tainted in this way. She is trying to study intention and fails as much as you do with trying to tell me mine.
Her hypothesis is daft, it says, "Our hypothesis was that participants higher on HS would be faster than less sexist participants at associating first-person verbs with the sexualized women—because instruments are the objects of oneʼs own actions—and the control women with thirdperson verbs—because only agents, not objects, can be the authors of their actions—as compared with the inverse pairing"
This is where she gets off the rails.
BTW - I DO tell me to guard their eyes and that it is their responsibility. Did you not read my post or are you just reacting to an "implicit" ideas you found in a few sentences?
B Jeff - I have shared my own experiences and tips for men in other posts. As a recent visitor, apparently linked here by some radical feminist blogger, you wouldn't know that. You are the one parachuting in to try to save the day without context. Not me.
hmmm, now this is certainly an interesting juxtaposition of two very different world views. On the one hand, I read self love writ large in "I have the right to do whatever I want to do and if you have a problem with that then TOOOO BAD--its your problem and not mine."
On the other hand, I see an honest appeal for charity and consideration for other's weaknesess, based on love for each other and compassion. Yep, I know what I will teach my family. :)
Brandi - I have to agree with what RK said above, we are speaking out of two opposing world views. One says that we are called to be responsible for others and help them. The other one says "forget everyone else, it is all about me".
The current cultural mindset is that there is no moral truth, we can do as we wish and create our own happiness, pleasure will bring us the most happiness and life is all about #1.
A Christian world view says that pleasure is a good thing, but not the greatest thing. In fact, sometimes suffering can also be a way to helping ourselves and others. A Christian world view puts others before #1 and God before all others.
The two will never meet.
As a Christian, I disagree. I believe in the concept of free will and, ultimately, regardless of what I do or say, another person has the power of choice. There are things I can do that influence, but the choice ultimately lies with the person committing the action.
I was actually linked to your article from Google Reader, which featured your post as a “What’s Popular” segment. I actually do not follow any radical feminist blogs, but if you know of any I'd love suggestions!
No where in my post have I encouraged an entirely subjective worldview free from charity. It may be hard for some of you to believe, but I’m actually a Christian minister, although not Catholic. I do not believe there is no moral truth. I do not believe pleasure is the only way to happiness.
After submitting my last comment, I have gone back and read several other of your posts. I apologize as I should have done that earlier. There were other statements made that would have helped my understanding in the conversation.
I will remove myself from conversation. Take care.
I disagree that the attitude of detractors is one of "forget everyone else it's all about me." I think that it is more about "Why is the girl/woman a problem that needs to change at all?" A woman in a bathing suit has been equated to serving drinks in front of an alcoholic but I think this is going too far. I would say that taking a man to a strip club or an adult boutique is like pouring drinks in front of an alcoholic but not a girl in a swimsuit on Facebook. If a man has that kind of mental incongruity with reality then they should absolutely not be on Facebook or out in public at all. The more that women change their behavior to prevent lust the more that men will pervert their view of women. Does anyone remember reading of times when the ankles of women were seen as lustful items by the population of men at large? Why has this changed? Was it because women covered up more and bowed to the demands of pushy men that couldn't control themselves?
B Jeff - I apologize for my false assumptions. They were apparently off. We can agree that everyone has free will and we can't force anyone to act, but can we also agree we have a debt to act charitably toward others?
Respectfully, I'm baffled by the assertion that our difference of opinion is based on a clash of world views where one is focused on the self, and the other is focused on the community.
I feel that we live our lives in a community and we have to respect everyone we deal with. I also believe that we need to own up to our own shortcomings and not push them onto other people.
Marcel, you have twice suggested that I have not read the whole piece. I have. You have one paragraph on men's role, 47 words, out of 445, or about 10%. You end that paragraph by saying the lust is the man's problem, but suggest that ultimately it is the woman's fault because she was immodest.
This is my main point. The entire piece is about how women should cover themselves to help the guys who can't help themselves. If you want to say that the article isn't about this, I feel you that you should stand back and try to read the article from the point of view from someone who isn't in your head. Perhaps in your head, you feel that you are holding men accountable. It certainly doesn't read that way.
I do think it is a clash of world views, because every woman I have discussed this issue with thinks my post was reasonable and my ideas are not blaming women in any way.
Again the attitude of why should women change at all is far from the Christian idea of being your brother's keeper.
If we want to have apples to apples on the comparison, I would say that getting drunk in front of an alcoholic or going clubbing with them is like going to a strip club or watching a nude scene in a movie with a sex addict.
So, drinking in front of an alcoholic is like posting a facebook photo in a bikini. Yes, there are levels of the problem and I was not addressing them all.
Marcel,
You may be in a very tiny subset of the community then. I am a woman, and a Catholic one at that, and none of my priests have said or would say anything at all like this. I have attended mass in four different states. This modesty talk is what I hear from my Pentecostal cousins.
The priests I grew up with preached about treating people with respect and kindness and trying to be the best version of ourselves. They preached about free will and individual responsibility.
In fact, I was recently chatting with one of the Jesuits I know about how young college-aged women (coed is kind of offensive, in most circles by the way and may direct some unsavory web traffic your way) used to sunbathe in front of the Jesuit residence at my alma mater. I, like many of the students there, thought it was kind of bad form, but not so much so that anyone ever implemented a policy over it. His take on it was that it was up to the priests to honor their vows and ignore the distraction, although when I said something about it not being equally hard for everyone, he acknowledged that it was personally hard for him. But he still was unwilling to criticize the young ladies for wearing bikinis in front of what they knew to be a residence of celibate priests.
So not all Catholics, indeed, not even all of the clergy agree with you on this.
I know that I do not.
And from personal experience, I was once a student at a military school where our dress was modest by most people's standards (sleeves weren't long, but otherwise, they were modest). I was harassed about my body anyways. By Christians, because most of the student body was Christian (not so much by Catholics, perhaps because I was one or because they were better people.) The men who made a big deal about the bodies of myself and other women gradually outed themselves, either at that school or in their military careers, as bad people. And I don't mean sexist-bad people, I mean genuinely bad people.
Plus, as someone pointed out upthread, it is highly sexist men who depersonalize women. If you think that part of the study is suspect, you shouldn't quote the study at all, because that sort of error would probably taint all of the results.
-Junia
Junia - I know priests who look at porn. I know priests who have abused people. I know priests that are alcoholics.
Doesn't make them any more right than the random Jesuit you cite above.
BTW - I agree with him that it is his responsibility to be faithful to his vows, but it is also his responsibility, as a spiritual father, to lead others to virtue, including modesty.
I am surprised that such a short post has garnered so much response!
I would simply like to add that something I beleive Marcel is trying to get across is that each party--both male and female--has a Christian responsiblity to the other to behave charitably. Because many young men deal with issues of lust, it is charitable for a woman to dress modestly. Because women are a physical embodiment of divine beauty, men should regard the whole person--body and soul--and not merely the body.
The distinction needs to be made however, that posting pictures on facebook provides an unnecessary occasion for sin on the male's part. This can be helped by both the females not posting the pictures and the males not oogling them either. We as males have a responsibility to practice custody of the eyes on such occasions, but our natural sexual attraction to the female body--which can come about even if we are attempting to be chaste--can lead us to the sin of lust even when we aren't looking for it.
That is why it is helpful for the pictures to not be there in the first place.
Marcel,
My point is that the Catholic Community isn't all on your side. So this isn't about Christians vs. non-Christians, or even Catholics vs. non-Catholics. It wasn't just that one Jesuit who chose not to change the policy, it was all of them. I am simply repeating the explanation he gave to me regarding his views on the subject. And if you meant to suggest that the priest I know is equivalent to someone who looks at porn, abuses people, or is an alcoholic, or meant to disparage him in any way by referring to him as a "random Jesuit" I take offense at that. I have known him since I was five years old, I was an altar server with him, I attended the college he taught at.
I would also note that you have not addressed by other substantive criticisms. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on them.
Junia - my point is that any number of Jesuits don't constitute a kind of teaching authority.
If my guess is correct, you are also Ismone from the feminist blog that is going crazy over this post. I appreciate you using more appropriate language on this blog.
1 - No offense meant by co-ed, but I won't change it at this point, because someone is offended. When the offensive names come off the other blog, I will consider taking something like that off of this one.
2 - Modesty is a tenant of Catholicism. The Catechism shows this clearly.
3 - Sorry you were harassed. There is no excuse for it in any place or time.
4 - I don't agree with your definition of sexist. By reading the comments on the other blog (which I did once, which was a mistake) I found men defending porn as harmless. This isn't the case. It is as addictive as cocaine and devaluing to women. Yet, no woman has called out the men for indulging in porn as sexist. This puzzles me and therefore I assume your definition of sexist is much different from mine.
Porn depersonalizes women. Where is the wrath for those comments?
Just a thought... I agree that both women should dress modestly and men should do their best to view them respectfully. But why aren't men held to the same standards when it comes to modest attire? Young men post pictures of themselves shirtless. Is that not the same as a woman in a bikini?
Who says they aren't held to the same standard?
Post a Comment