I was thinking about women's clothing.
This may start like the sound of a post that could go some strange places very fast, so I should explain a couple threads (get it?? I've actually made that pun before, in another old post about clothing) that have been floating around my head. (The title of the post is rather straightforward, by the way, because I hear that makes it easier to find in search engines for people looking up the topic.)
The first is just a minor point I should make about the common trad obsession with "modesty." The point is just to remind people that the vice opposed to modesty is vanity. It isn't "seductiveness" or "sluttishness" or something like that. Trads seem to have an overly sexualized notion of modesty; "modesty" is thought of as "covering up" enough (almost always thought of in terms of women), as not dressing in a lust-inducing manner, or one designed to flaunt ones sensuality.
However, this is a perversely narrow view of modesty. Modesty is really related to humility in outward appearance, manner, attitude, etc. People understand this "other" connotation of modesty well enough; we say "Oh, don't be modest!" when someone tries to downplay an accomplishment. But this really shouldn't be understood as a "separate" connotation of the concept of modesty. Really, it's the only connotation. Of course, not dressing like a whore can be part of modesty inasmuch as it means not showing off ones erotic capital or drawing attention to oneself, but the reason this is modesty has to do with the avoidance of pride in oneself, not lust in other people.
Any notion of "modesty" that associates it with, say, an overgeneralized aversion to nudity or to blushing at the thought of exposing certain body parts (even in appropriate contexts)...is really just a recipe for a neuroticism that fears the body and embodiment. It also can be a serious moral distraction or illusion from what really matters.
For example, I know a Muslim woman who is very "conservative" about covering everything up, wears a headscarf, would never dare expose an ankle (gasp!) or anything like that, and always has a long-sleeved thing even underneath whatever fancy outer dress she may have on. But that's just the thing: this woman wears extremely fancy outer-clothes, is always bragging about her jewelry, make-up, nail-painting, and expensive purses and shoes with other women.
Sure she's "covered up" extremely conservatively (what some trads understand to be "modesty"), her clothes don't reveal her figure...but she nevertheless loves to draw attention to herself through her showy self-adornment. Really, a woman in reasonable shorts and a plain t-shirt is much more "modest" in my mind because she is, in context in our culture, unremarkable and not putting too much thought into her appearance. This is real modesty.
The other point I was thinking about along these lines was the trad obsession with women wearing pants, and the insistence of some that they wear a skirt. Obviously, to make a moral argument of this is batshit crazy. But, nevertheless, I'd suggest that maybe the trad attitude comes from a good place aesthetically. Skirts and dresses are pretty! Of course, even men wore tunics and robes in other ages (trads want priests to still wear their frocks)...but there is something so nice about flowing loose cloth on a woman especially, as typifying beauty specifically feminine. Forget arguments about modesty or "proper dress" for a woman, it's the aesthete in me who would prefer to see women at Mass wearing skirts and covering their heads.
I mean, c'mon:
This may start like the sound of a post that could go some strange places very fast, so I should explain a couple threads (get it?? I've actually made that pun before, in another old post about clothing) that have been floating around my head. (The title of the post is rather straightforward, by the way, because I hear that makes it easier to find in search engines for people looking up the topic.)
The first is just a minor point I should make about the common trad obsession with "modesty." The point is just to remind people that the vice opposed to modesty is vanity. It isn't "seductiveness" or "sluttishness" or something like that. Trads seem to have an overly sexualized notion of modesty; "modesty" is thought of as "covering up" enough (almost always thought of in terms of women), as not dressing in a lust-inducing manner, or one designed to flaunt ones sensuality.
However, this is a perversely narrow view of modesty. Modesty is really related to humility in outward appearance, manner, attitude, etc. People understand this "other" connotation of modesty well enough; we say "Oh, don't be modest!" when someone tries to downplay an accomplishment. But this really shouldn't be understood as a "separate" connotation of the concept of modesty. Really, it's the only connotation. Of course, not dressing like a whore can be part of modesty inasmuch as it means not showing off ones erotic capital or drawing attention to oneself, but the reason this is modesty has to do with the avoidance of pride in oneself, not lust in other people.
Any notion of "modesty" that associates it with, say, an overgeneralized aversion to nudity or to blushing at the thought of exposing certain body parts (even in appropriate contexts)...is really just a recipe for a neuroticism that fears the body and embodiment. It also can be a serious moral distraction or illusion from what really matters.
For example, I know a Muslim woman who is very "conservative" about covering everything up, wears a headscarf, would never dare expose an ankle (gasp!) or anything like that, and always has a long-sleeved thing even underneath whatever fancy outer dress she may have on. But that's just the thing: this woman wears extremely fancy outer-clothes, is always bragging about her jewelry, make-up, nail-painting, and expensive purses and shoes with other women.
Sure she's "covered up" extremely conservatively (what some trads understand to be "modesty"), her clothes don't reveal her figure...but she nevertheless loves to draw attention to herself through her showy self-adornment. Really, a woman in reasonable shorts and a plain t-shirt is much more "modest" in my mind because she is, in context in our culture, unremarkable and not putting too much thought into her appearance. This is real modesty.
The other point I was thinking about along these lines was the trad obsession with women wearing pants, and the insistence of some that they wear a skirt. Obviously, to make a moral argument of this is batshit crazy. But, nevertheless, I'd suggest that maybe the trad attitude comes from a good place aesthetically. Skirts and dresses are pretty! Of course, even men wore tunics and robes in other ages (trads want priests to still wear their frocks)...but there is something so nice about flowing loose cloth on a woman especially, as typifying beauty specifically feminine. Forget arguments about modesty or "proper dress" for a woman, it's the aesthete in me who would prefer to see women at Mass wearing skirts and covering their heads.
I mean, c'mon:
versus
Mind you, this isn't a judgment on the women pictured here, nor on their innate physical appearance; I'm just talking about style of clothing. And while you cannot legislate good taste morally, and while there of course many informal situations where convenience or comfort is everyone's (men and women) first consideration over beauty...I have to think that when one deliberately sacrifices beauty to make a very clear politico-ideological statement (I think of both the "communist drab" cliche, and the "populist" low-church earthen-wear-vessel Marty-Haugen-music polyester-vestment ideology promoted at places like Pray Tell) you should seriously reconsider your priorities and beliefs. And this iconoclasm in the modern world extends for some people (especially liberal women) even into the realm of clothing choices, methinks.
I'm not going to tell women that wearing pants is a sin. I'm not insane. But I will say a dress or skirt is prettier. And that's not "nothing." I think the self-conscious decay into the bizarre and ugly and grotesque of modern art is obviously a huge sign of the decadence and corruption of the values of civilization as a whole, as are general trends in mores regarding slovenliness, tackiness, kitsch, and...whatever you want to call most of the folks on "The People of Wal-Mart." Taste and beauty are considerations that, at least in certain settings, have a very real weight when it comes to promoting The Good in the world. Beauty is not an amoral category, and there is often accounting for taste.
25 comments:
I get that modesty is the opposite of vanity. That's a good point that I hadn't expressly thought about.
But in that case, what do you call the kind of "modesty" that means not dressing in a sexually provocative way, or a way calculated not to be an occasion of sin for others?
Well, there's a neologism from the Simpson's I heard once, "prudissitude" lol
Seriously, though, I don't think we have a word for that. It's a Puritanical concept in the first place, and never seemed to be a unique species of theological concern for Catholics until the "Skirt below the knees" police started getting uppity...
Do you mean to say there is no moral obligation on the part of women to not dress like sluts (or men like whatever the male equivalent of "slut" would be)?
Just to be clear, I'm not making any comment on what type of dress would constitute "slutty" dress. I'm just asking, is there no line which mustn't be crossed in that regard, morally? If not, I'm amazed. If so, there must be word for it.
[By the way, a suggestion: It would be helpful if you had a box people could check to be notified when others comment.]
The whole notion of "not dressing like a slut" as some sort of separate moral category is misguided. And sexist, as your "whatever the male equivalent would be" makes pretty obvious; except perhaps among gay men, there really isn't a male equivalent, because the male body has not been fetishized in the same way under constructions of female heterosexuality.
As I said, the opposite of modesty is vanity. If someone doesn't cover up enough for a given social context according to cultural standards (or dresses in a manner containing social indicators of something bad like prostitution, gangs, etc) the sin is in drawing undue attention to oneself, glorifying the body, or potentially disrupting peace and order if it is deliberately provocative (like gang colors, etc)
But this idea that "modesty" is all about dressing in a manner so as to protect others from lust is just absurd. All through history, remember, people were not so puritanical because they couldn't afford to be. People lived in one room houses with all their children and had sex right there. People bathed communally all the time, and it just wasn't as sex-segregated as you might like to think. Women nursed in public, people had to go to the bathroom without much privacy, etc.
This prudish idea that a skirt too short or a neckline too low is this huge source of lust says a lot more about the perviness of the men saying that (or the bitter envy of the women saying it) and not much about the woman dressing that way. To me, it would seem more an indicator of socio-economic CLASS (or, among teens, of clique in school) than of sexual mores.
In terms of species of sin, seduction is seduction, scandal is scandal. But I think some idea that there's a level of clothing that is inappropriate specifically on account of a presumed induction of lust (rather than just on account of cultural standards of what dress is expected in what situation)...really says something about the minds of those proposing such an idea.
Obviously, this idea is silly, as something like a bathing suit which would have the Catholic Taliban crying "slut" if worn to the grocery store as regular day-to-day clothing...is accepted in context at the beach, etc. Even total nudity (all other things being equal) shouldn't be assumed to be some automatic proximate occasion of sin.
No, this seems to be less about lust (why would something cause lust at the mall but then not at the beach? Why would going topless be bad on the street, but then not if a woman is nursing?) and more about people's pervy and biased and totally culturally contingent interpretation of clothing as a social cue or indicator or media-constructed signifier. It used to be a woman couldn't show ankle! People need to GROW. UP.
[PS. Under this new comment format, you should be able to click "subscribe by email" to subscribe to new comments]
I'll expand on the 'social indicator' notion.
The negative reaction some have to women dressed in certain ways IS about sexuality, but not really concretely about women dressing that way causing lust, that's just polemic.
Rather, it seems to be an aversion to women asserting a certain type of independence. In other words, this issues seems to be more about GENDER POLITICS.
Since the fall, obviously, clothing has been a huge supplement to the body-as-signifier socially. We know from the Canterbury Tales and such, for example, that 'dressing like a prostitute' back then meant simply wearing the color red, not a specific level of 'covering up' or not.
And you look at Muslim countries; things like the burqa and headscarf aren't really about men lusting after women's hands or foreheads. It's about controlling women and denying them agency. It's about power vis a vis gender, it's not about sex acts.
I suspect this is what's behind the aversion to women dressing a certain way among conservatives; it's about clothing as a badge of a certain stance on gender politics (which is additionally stratified by class; the high-powered liberal women aren't dressing that way, but then the "casual" dress of conservative Republican women in redneck territory MAY actually be).
I'd like to add that the logic behind the concept of (and condemnation of) 'dressing like a slut' (so interesting that it's often framed as 'like' a slut; both admitting that the women are not necessarily sluts themselves, but condemning the anyway by association) is the sort of thing that likewise leads to the nonsense we see in things like that Fr. Z post that this blog featured a few weeks ago: http://renegadetrad.blogspot.com/2012/01/wow-fr-z-justwow.html
The same logic behind condemnations of acting 'like' a slut applies to conservative unease with acting "'like' a queer." Oh, the conservative attitude seems to be, even if you are a homosexual, don't have these mannerisms or cues in your dress or style, because that's a signifier of a certain position.
Of course, the conservatives will try to obscure the issue by making it out to be about chastity or not promoting the liberal gay agenda when it comes to sexual morality. But in itself swish (let's say) doesn't do that. So really, at the end of the day, it's obvious that the concern with effeminacy is about gender politics, not sex in itself.
(On a side note, this is why I'd argue that much of the "gay bullying" is actually about gender-typing and NOT sexual orientation in the abstract; bullies go after effeminate boys and THEN call them "gay"...they don't go after "gay" boys in the abstract except inasmuch as that's taken AS a gender transgression. So there is a noticeable [and exploitative] disingenuity when the liberal media speaks of bullying victims as gay "or perceived to be gay" as if it was some abstract assumption about sexual orientation gathered from the effeminacy that caused the bullying, when the much simpler explanation is that it was simply the effeminacy itself, the gender-nonconformity, without requiring any "additional step" inside the bully's head regarding the abstract question of internal attractions.)
These sorts of things are usually always about gender politics, but get clumsily portrayed as about sex.
But, of course, while there is certainly a Catholic position on SEXUAL morality, there really ISN'T a Catholic position on GENDER script (which is why those who DO desire to try to enforce a certain gender politics using religion are generally forced to try to disingenuously portray it as being about sexual morality).
Wow. I guess I get your point, except I might need a little more enlightenment on what is meant by "gender politics".
When I spoke of women dressing like sluts, I didn't mean "in a way that fits a certain societal or cultural role", but rather I meant simply, in a way that's so revealing of their curves and lines. I used the phrase "like a slut" because it's descriptive since in our culture, dressing like a slut means dressing in a way that reveals all your curves and lines, as well as a fair amount of skin.
And when I said "whatever the male equivalent of a slut would be", I meant precisely the same thing, but just didn't know what word would easily evoke the same idea with reference to a man. Believe it or not, I did not mean "like a queer". Of course, the idea that it's a problem for men to dress that way is based on the assumption that women are as susceptible to lustful thoughts and urges, based on visual stimuli, as men. I'm not totally convinced that they are, but since there's no way for me to know for sure, I thought I should include men so as not to seem to be picking on women.
As far as it being OK to dress in the equivalent of bras and panties on the beach but not in the grocery store etc., for myself I would rather women didn't dress that way on the beach either -- by which I mean, I wish it were not the societal norm.
Does it make me a pervert that my mind is much more easily drawn to lustful thoughts when a woman is dressed in a more revealing way than when she is dressed in a less revealing way? I really don't think so. But maybe that's not what you meant.
Just for the record, I am not one who believes it's a sin for women to wear pants, shorts, t-shirts, jeans, etc. I think a reasonable guideline would be that there should be some air space between clothing and body parts. But I do not claim that people who violate this guideline are thereby committing sin. I do tend to feel that they are oblivious to their effect on other people; and that if they were aware of that effect, and considerate and charitable, they would not dress that way.
I'm open to being shown wrong on this, especially since I have a lot of respect for your opinions and analytical ability, mostly from reading your comments on VN. You're the first serious, devout Catholic I've met who didn't think there was any moral issue with what is commonly called "immodest" dress, so I am sincerely interested in understanding where you're coming from.
By the way, I didn't see an option to subscribe to comments. I'm going to pay closer attention as I post this one, to make sure.
I do see "Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)", but I can't figure out how that's supposed to work. when I click on the link I get a screen full of gibberish.
Hm. Then I'm not sure there is a way to do it on Blogger.
As for clothing inciting men to lust, Aquinas in the Summa says this under modesty:
"But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial."
However, the amazing thing here is that Aquinas is not talking about "showing too much skin" but about WEARING jewelry and make-up and fancy garb.
Apparently, back then, it wasn't really the naked body which was so much the object of lust, but the body adorned in certain ways. Why these ways? Almost certainly just as social cues or acquired associations.
And, indeed, such associations should be avoid. Someone shouldn't dress with the intent to provoke lust. But I'd REALLY question the idea that the sorts of women whom traddies seem to condemn for their dress are trying to provoke lust. That gets dangerously close to the "slutty-dressed women are ASKING to be raped" idea.
At most they're being "frivolous" as Aquinas says, but in general many are just following fashion and comfort. The female body is EVERYWHERE in our culture today, and nudity inappropriate in context should more naturally provoke SHOCK than lust.
Yet so often, one gets the sense that conservative Christian men are a bunch of pervy repressed high school boys with raging hormones who just can't control their own emotions. They are almost caricatures of themselves, it sometimes seems, ala SNL's "Jizz in my Pants" where a cashier smiling at a guy is enough to set him off.
Of course, I can't judge people's psycho-physiological reaction to stimuli. They may indeed be ridiculously sensitive to things. But that in itself is a manifestation of certain gender constructions they have internalized wherein the female body is primarily some sort of fetish object that cannot be viewed without having such a reaction. This in itself is extremely problematic, and I wouldn't be inclined to blame the women for them, or to expect them to cover themselves in response to unnaturally sex-obsessed men.
Plenty of people go to beaches. They don't all end in orgies or frenzied masturbation. You just deal with it. The body is natural. This seems to be more about attempts to CONTROL "threatening" female sexuality than about any question of "morality."
Another thought on clothing:
In the middle ages (and under the Nazis, of course) Jews had to wear certain indicators (whether an orange hat, the yellow star, etc).
One putative reason given for this was so that Christian women wouldn't be "tricked" into having sex with or marrying a Jew!
Of course, this is an absurd explanation. But it shows how this sort of logic ends up working when clothing is used as a social marker; clothing is bodily, and the body is sexed, so somehow it always winds up being "about" that even when it's really about power and control, socially.
I can agree that whether or not a manner of dress is sexually provocative mostly depends on social norms and cues.
I agree that "the sorts of women whom traddies seem to condemn for their dress are trying to provoke lust" in most cases are not actually trying to do so.
Where I don't seem able to follow you, is that it seems you would draw no lines whatsoever. You seem to think that a normal, healthy, devout Catholic man, who is not hyper-hormonal, should be able to sit in the presence of attractive nude women and not get uptight or have it be an occasion of sin. Do you actually take it that far, or do you draw the line at nudity? If so, is that only because of social cues?
Also, though what you say about St. Thomas makes sense, I still can't help thinking that he would consider women wearing bikinis in public recreation areas to be a cause of many occasions of sin, and objecively so, not merely because of social cues. Perhaps he didn't write about such a thing because it just wasn't done as far as he was aware.
Then again, I know there are cultures where women go around naked or at least topless. But what are sexual mores like in those cultures? Have there been any Catholic cultures that were that way?
In the most fully and highly developed Catholic culture that has existed, the European, am I wrong in saying that what is commonly conceived of as "modest" dress is a result of the influence of the faith on that culture?
I recall St. Augustine writing that the music at Mass should not have so much as harmony, let alone a beat that would make you feel like tapping your foot (I may not be remembering the details accurately but I think this was the gist of it), as those would be sensually stimulating and therefore detract from the spiritual state that you should be trying to attain to during the liturgy. What he approve of mini-skirts or hotpants in church?
It may be the case that modes of dress are only provocative in the context of the social cues of a given culture. But shouldn't the faith be influencing the cultures in which it lives? If it did so, do you think it would influence a culture in the direction of more "covering up" than we commonly see at present in our country, or less, or would its influence be completely neutral in that respect?
Well, for example, no one has ever said Catholic men shouldn't be gynecologists, or artists painting nudes and, yes, tropical cultures have no qualms about this sort of thing and would just laugh at us for being up-tight about it.
Again, if someone is trying to draw attention or be seductive, that's one thing. There would be a variety of other contextual cues that would indicate this, however.
However, acting as if certain parts are taboo and so must be covered in this almost superstitious way (and then explaining that, after the fact, as being about preventing lust; even though anthropologically it seems to be the taboo that creates the fetish and not the other way around) is just silly.
People need to get over their hang ups about the human body.
Talking about "certain body parts" being taboo sort of mischaracterizes my point. I said I found it hard to believe that Aquinas would not consider wearing bikinis in a public recreation area to be an objective cause of many occasions of sin. Bikinis specifically do cover those "certain body parts" to which I assume you're referring, so obviously they are not the issue in this scenario.
The fact that "tropical cultures" would laugh at us I think is not relevant. More relevant, I think, is what Catholic-influenced cultures would think of the matter.
In any event, I take it that your answer to my last question is "neutral". I can't say for sure that you're wrong, but I remain unconvinced.
Sorry, that last comment was from me. Somehow my fingers fumbled and it came out "Anonymous".
I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "objective" occasion of sin. Occasions of sin are by nature subjective. It still troubles me that you and others apparently can't be on a beach with women without getting horny, but I wouldn't deny, as I've said, that there can be various types of sin in dress, even involving the idea of lust (strippers, for example, clearly do what they do to arouse) but that largely depends on social context and INTENT. What I am denying here is that there is a separate species of sin "not covering up enough" or "wearing too little," nor even "exposing too
much around non-spouse members of the opposite sex" etc. Next youre going to tell me that women shouldn't ever discuss sex, even in a "clinical" manner, because pervy men might be aroused by this "dirty" talk. But really, outside context-indicated intent to arouse or seduce, men getting that excited by the mere decontextualized stimuli is their problem, and says something rather disturbing about the men. Which is really the ultimate point: the modesty-as-"covering up" trope is really, in the end, about blaming women for men's lust, as if it's witchcraft or something, transferring the agency and responsibility for men objectifying women...onto the women themselves! Which is clearly sick.
You write, "I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "objective" occasion of sin. Occasions of sin are by nature subjective."
I do understand your point here. Please recall, all I have said is that I'm not convinced of your point of view. I have not said that I am sure you are wrong.
You write, "It still troubles me that you and others apparently can't be on a beach with women without getting horny, but I wouldn't deny, as I've said, that there can be various types of sin in dress, even involving the idea of lust (strippers, for example, clearly do what they do to arouse) but that largely depends on social context and INTENT."
I haven't said it's impossible to be on a beach with women and not be tempted to indulge lustful thoughts, either for myself or anyone else in particular. Just as it's not impossible to view pornographic movies without that result. It's also not impossible to spend the night in the same bed with a young, attractive woman to whom you are not married, without that result. Nor it is impossible to be alone in a motel room with a woman and engage in passionate necking without it leading to mortal sin. Nevertheless, I believe most saints throughout the Church's history would strongly advise against the last three activities, if not all four.
It's really not about what can and cannot be done without that activity resulting sin, whether actual or in one's heart. It's about taking *reasonable* steps to avoid placing people in danger of committing sin, out of consideration and charity.
As you may be amazed that a fair proportion of devout Catholic men find it difficult to be around attractive women in bikinis without being tempted to lustful thoughts, that same proportion of men might well be amazed that you can do the same *without* being so tempted. If you consider the other guys overly sensitive, they might well consider you under-sensitive. Who's right? What is the magic mean? Have studies been done to determine what the "normal" sensitivity to exposed flesh while remaining immune to temptation might be? The fact that it's not a problem for you, I don't think justifies you in judging those for whom it is a problem as abnormal or perverse.
You write, "What I am denying here is that there is a separate species of sin "not covering up enough" or "wearing too little," nor even "exposing too much around non-spouse members of the opposite sex" etc."
I get your point here, and admit that you may be right. I'm still not completely convinced, but am inclined to take your word for it since I can't prove otherwise.
You write, "... the modesty-as-"covering up" trope is really, in the end, about blaming women for men's lust, as if it's witchcraft or something, transferring the agency and responsibility for men objectifying women...onto the women themselves! Which is clearly sick."
Maybe it's about how you choose to phrase it. I think I would rather say, that it might be well to teach Catholic women that a large proportion of men are easily tempted to lustful thoughts by visual stimuli, and for that reason it would be considerate and charitable in them to avoid wearing skin-tight clothing or exposing large areas of flesh in public. This would not mean that failing to be considerate and charitable is necessarily a sin, since it's not. The fact that there are opportunities for being considerate and charitable, does not oblige one always to be so under paid of sin. I only suggest informing them of the opportunity to do so.
I did want to address one other point. You have repeatedly said that whether a woman's mode of dress is sinful depends on the culture in which she lives, and its customs and "cues". In certain cultures, wearing a bikini might be a common, ho-hum occurrence, while in others it might indicate that she is a prostitute. Fair enough.
In our culture a bikini is a commonplace. But it wasn't always so. There was a time not so long ago, when it would indeed have been considered sexually provocative to appear in public dressed in some of the bikini styles which are common today.
My question is, why did that change? Was it not largely because of the loss of the influence of the Christian churches over the culture over the past century or so?
Now the question is, is that result a good thing or a bad thing? Should we rejoice that women are now free to walk around in what would have been considered immodest even for underwear a century ago? Does it benefit women in some way to be free to do so?
Is it unreasonable to suppose that, objectively speaking, in today's culture, more occasions of sin arise due to the appearance of women's swimwear, compared with a century ago? If so, isn't that a bad thing? Do we know that they are occasions of sin only among men who are abnormally sensitive or perverted?
You wrote previously "... that in itself is a manifestation of certain gender constructions they have internalized wherein the female body is primarily some sort of fetish object that cannot be viewed without having such a reaction."
Is it possible that many men have internalized the idea of women as sex objects precisely because the permissiveness of our culture has made it practically normal for women to be presented in that way?
In other words, the same culture that now considers a bikini appropriate public attire, also considers it appropriate to utilize women in bikinis -- deliberately presented in sexually provocative ways -- to sell beer, hamburgers, car wax and Viagra? Is it any wonder that men look at women in bikinis in that light, when they are so often presented that way in our mass media? Are men not conditioned to see them that way?
Wouldn't a culture that wanted to put a stop to the latter, need also to do the same to the former?
Now men could avoid becoming so conditioned, were they to avoid watching such ads, movies, etc. But it seems you would consider them overly uptight for doing so. So what's the solution?
"In our culture a bikini is a commonplace. But it wasn't always so."
"Now men could avoid becoming so conditioned, were they to avoid watching such ads, movies, etc."
No, I think you're understanding of this is backwards.
Something being commonplace should make it LESS provocative, not moreso.
I spoke of a "fetishistic" understanding of lust here, and I do mean that in the broad anthropological sense ("an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.") This is also why I spoke of "witchcraft" and "superstition."
You seem to be imagining that the female body is imbued with a magical property that arouses heterosexual men in some sort of objective or absolute way, such that "showing too much flesh" will generally cause arousal.
However, I would argue that the erotic is a psycho-social construct that is only ever relative. Men in cultures where women go topless are not aroused all the time by the fact that they constantly see boobies!
Indeed, what acts as a "cue" for sexual excitement conceived of in a non-fetishized sense...will depend on the cue being something that is "rare" enough or "special" enough to distinguish a sexual advance or opportunity from everyday interactions.
Thus, indeed, women exposing a certain amount of leg or cleavage or midriff in a society where that was not common, could be a seductive cue.
However, in a society where this is widespread, where women REGULARLY are seen in bikinis, or short skirts, or spaghetti straps, or bare midriffs, etc...this should no longer be taken as a sexual cue, as a cue indicates something recognizably intentional. It's sort of like, "If everything is seduction, then nothing is."
Except when conceived of in a perverse fetishistic manner, sexual cues (and thus arousal) are supposed to stand-out against a "base-line" of normal behavior (including dress), and this baseline will be culturally contingent.
In our society, if women in bikinis are everywhere, then that's the "baseline." The fact that some men (I really don't know how many) apparently are not desensitized by how commonplace it is (which should desensitize!) suggests a fetishistic notion.
Perhaps women should act prudently knowing that this fetishistic notion exists, but
"Was it not largely because of the loss of the influence of the Christian churches over the culture over the past century or so?"
To me, it seems correlated with women gaining political and economic rights. In cultures where women are most repressed, they are also forced to "cover up" the most. As women gained the right to vote and earn income, they became more "unveiled." I don't know exactly what this means, except that it does suggest, as I've said, that this issue of "covering up" is really more about the intersection of sexuality, gender, and POWER over women, not really about lust conceived in a simplistic "stimuli and response" type of sense.
You write, "No, I think you're understanding of this is backwards. Something being commonplace should make it LESS provocative, not moreso."
Since I agree with you, I'm not sure how I've got it backwards. I suppose I wasn't clear. I meant that men constantly see women in bikinis used in seductive ways in the media, to sell products, as well as simply to entertain, and that conditions how they perceive them.
Personally, though, I think a woman in a bikini, though fairly commonplace, is still rather provocative, even in the context of our culture. Among the women I know, very few would wear bikinis in public, even on the beach, let alone at poolside or in a grocery store (I base this partly on things they have said, and partly on how I have observed them dressing at the beach or at poolside) (and by the way I don't have any Trads among my friends and family). I think it takes a woman who either wants to come across as "sexy", or doesn't care how she comes across, i.e. is oblivious to how others may see it. Those who don't positively want to appear sexy wear at least a one-piece suit, if not shorts and a t-shirt.
Now this is just my experience, in my social set. Others in other social sets may view bikinis differently. I'm sure there is a spectrum of attitudes about them, and not just a single monolithic one that attains throughout the culture.
The thing about women being portrayed in bikinis in a seductive manner in the media, was speaking to the idea that men are conditioned to view women in bikinis as sex objects, and I think that partly contributes to the fact that the women I know don't wear bikinis. Of course, men also become conditioned to view women as sex objects due to the proliferation and easy availability of pornography.
Although there is a sense in which bikinis are commonplace, really, most men who don't have pools or live near the beach, may not actually see live women in bikinis all that often. It may be that the ones in commercials or print ads are the ones they see most often.
The result of this, I suspect, is that often, when a man sees an attractive young woman in a bikini, circuits in his brain register "hot, seductive chick", like Pavlov's dog. I don't think it's easy for a lot of men to turn that off.
Of course, you can avoid making it an occasion of sin, but the standard way of doing that is to remove yourself from whatever is putting your mind on sex. Unplug the computer or change the channel if that is the source of the unwanted stimulus. But if you're in the presence of the woman in person, what can you do but walk away or constantly avert your eyes? Yet you seem to be saying, no, no, you just have to "deal with it". Do you also advocate just "dealing with it" when it comes to internet porn, rather than shutting down the computer? I know those are not the same thing, but the manner of avoiding an occasion of sin (i.e. committing adultery in your heart) would be the same in both cases.
I'm not saying that you see the woman and you immediately commit adultery in your heart. What I have in mind is more like, seeing such images all the time can have a cumulative effect, such that the next time you find yourself alone, it may be that much easier for the devil to tempt you to commit sin, either in thought or in deed, since you have those images "on file", so to speak, in your mind. Further, while in the presence of the woman, you may find yourself sneaking "dishonest glances", which is wrong in its own right.
[cont'd]
You write, "You seem to be imagining that the female body is imbued with a magical property that arouses heterosexual men in some sort of objective or absolute way, such that "showing too much flesh" will generally cause arousal."
This I find hard to relate to.
You write, "However, I would argue that the erotic is a psycho-social construct that is only ever relative. Men in cultures where women go topless are not aroused all the time by the fact that they constantly see boobies!"
You may be right. But this is why I'm trying to get at *why* our culture has been transformed from one in which a bikini would have been shockingly provocative, to one in which it is commonplace (though still not necessarily un-provocative).
I find myself thinking of how bikinis got as minimal as they now commonly are. Was it not by fashion designers constantly "pushing the envelope"? Would it not have had to happen by women wearing bikinis that *were* deliberately provocative in their day, only coming to be considered less so due to their becoming more and more common? As you say, as they become more commonplace, they become less provocative. But all that really means is that we have come to accept as "normal" what once was considered rather slutty, through sheer repetition. So that now, even good Catholic girls can dress in clothing that only "bad girls" would have worn not so long ago.
It's hard for me to avoid feeling that that's not a good kind of "progress".
Suppose we lived in one of those cultures where women go around topless. In that case, the "progress" might have been from cues such as, I don't know, rubbing up against a man's leg being sexually provocative, to it no longer being so. Say, advertisers start using images of women rubbing up against men's legs in deliberate acts of provocation in order to sell products; and then women start doing it more often in real life in order to be fashionable and cutting-edge. Until eventually, rubbing up against a man's leg is no longer considered all that provocative, because it happens so often.
In other words, the "progress" from certain things being provocative to no longer being so, is the progress of sluttiness being socially unacceptable, to its becoming acceptable, to its being no longer considered slutty. This is why I am pretty sure that the "loosening" of fashion mores is tied to the loss of the influence of the churches.
Also, this is why your argument that it's OK because it's not considered slutty in the context of our culture, rings hollow to me. The question is *why* it's no longer considered slutty; and whether the "progress" that resulted in our arriving at this point is something that Christians should consider good, bad or neutral; and whether we should try to arrest any further such "progress" by drawing the line at some point, or should just continuously "go with the flow" and keep conforming to the fashions (or the "spirit") of the age.
This I don't feel like you're addressing, other than to say you think it's more likely the "liberation" of women that has resulted in modern "immodest" fashions. If so, the question is whether this is a good kind of liberation, and whether it should continue along the trajectory it has been following up to now.
Ah, now your point about how we got to this point, through pushing the envelope, is a good one, and I don't necessarily disagree. However, that's shifting the argument.
To that I can only say, you're probably right about how it happened, but at the same time: we're here NOW, so some reactionary attempt to restore a world or affect a standard that is no longer necessary strikes me as wrong headed.
I can imagine an old man from back when skirts were always below the knees telling young girls today (for whom they're always above), "Oh, stop it, that's immodest! You'll be an occasion of lust for men!" And I can imagine the young girls thinking, "Who is this pervy old guy, implying that our skirts are getting him hot??"
It gets even weirder when that "old man" IS in fact from the girls' generation and HAS always been exposed to that style of dress.
As for women "portrayed seductively" in the media...again, this seems a reversal to me. Assumably, the thing you find "seductive" about a bikini-clad woman in a hamburger (?!!) ad is that she's wearing the bikini. It's the bikini that allegedly makes the ad erotic, not the ad which makes the bikini erotic! So you're missing a causal step here somewhere.
[1 of 2]
You write, "... your point about how we got to this point, is a good one, .... However, that's shifting the argument."
Am I shifting the argument? I could be. But could you tell me specifically what I've shifted from and to? I honestly want to know because I've been accused of it before, although I don't do it on purpose. As I see it, the question of how we got to this point, speaks to the question of whether inappropriateness in attire is purely a matter of culture, or if it's measured by a standard that transcends culture.
This is the reason I have kept bringing up the question, would the Church influence a culture in the direction of more "covering up" than we see around us today, or less, or would it be neutral. The trend I tried to illustrate, and the apparent causes of that trend, to me, show that the culture has been going in the opposite direction from that in which the Church would have had it go; and I submit that it has gone in that direction because the culture, more and more, has been ignoring or growing away from the Church. Thus, the Church's standard and the culture's differ. Therefore, there is a standard other than culture.
If it's purely a matter of culture, then it's completely relative, and you can't say whether it's been getting better or worse. In which case, we could follow the culture right up until it reached the point of nudity in the workplace or the public schools, without any moral qualms. Would you have Catholics follow the culture to that point? Is anything there short of direct physical genital stimulation which, in your view, would be going too far?
[2 of 2]
By the way, in reflecting further on this, it seems to me not unlikely that God designed human bodies such that the mere sight of female genitalia would stimulate the male sexual appetite. And not necessarily the genitalia alone, but also areas adjacent to them. Why not? Doesn't God make certain foods look or smell appealing so as to stimulate the appetite for food, thereby causing people to eat and nourish themselves? Why shouldn't the sight alone of the sexual organs or adjacent body parts stimulate the sexual appetite, even without accompanying actions that are culturally associated with sex? And if they do, why shouldn't wearing clothes that reveal or closely outline those parts be considered likely to stimulate the sexual appetite and thereby result in occasions of sin? Clearly advertisers for many years have believed that they are so capable. Do we think they have no data to back that up?
You write, "... we're here NOW, so some reactionary attempt to restore a world or affect a standard that is no longer necessary strikes me as wrong headed."
I see your point and mostly agree. I suggest that the question is not whether we should try to turn back the culture, but rather, will we continue following the culture along the same trajectory it has been traveling for the past century or so; or will we draw a line at any point and say, now that's going too far?
You write, "As for women "portrayed seductively" in the media...again, this seems a reversal to me. Assumably, the thing you find "seductive" about a bikini-clad woman in a hamburger (?!!) ad is that she's wearing the bikini. It's the bikini that allegedly makes the ad erotic, not the ad which makes the bikini erotic! So you're missing a causal step here somewhere."
I'm talking about ads in which women act seductively in bikinis, and not just look sexy. With regard to hamburgers, I was thinking specifically of certain ads for the Carl's Jr. chain here in Southern California. I don't know if they have it where you are.
"Am I shifting the argument? I could be. But could you tell me specifically what I've shifted from and to?"
You shifted from the question of whether "immodesty" in the sense of "not covering up" enough is a specific species of sin, or whether there is an "absolute" standard of such "modesty" (specifically, based on avoiding being an occasion of lust)...to the question of how our culture got to the standard it has now (through "pushing the envelope" in your theory).
"the question of how we got to this point, speaks to the question of whether inappropriateness in attire is purely a matter of culture, or if it's measured by a standard that transcends culture."
Does it? To me that seems untrue. The very fact that we can speak of the cultural standard shifting and changing through various processes suggests that the whole thing is relative.
"This is the reason I have kept bringing up the question, would the Church influence a culture in the direction of more 'covering up' than we see around us today, or less, or would it be neutral."
I think it would largely be neutral. I'll also add that if done gradually enough, the shift could occur without needing to push any envelopes. Surely a skirt going from an inch below the knee to an inch above...isn't a HUGE shift, and might not even be seen as risque or anything. People may have seen such small shifts as just stylistic or functional. It wasn't like women went from burqas to bikinis over night.
"the opposite direction from that in which the Church would have had it go"
Again, in itself, I don't think the Church is concerned with more or less covering up, as if that's on the divine agenda.
"and I submit that it has gone in that direction because the culture, more and more, has been ignoring or growing away from the Church."
And again I would submit that at best there is a correlation, not a causation. Late capitalist gender roles let women vote too, and work outside the home. I think this is part of those trends, not anything specifically anti-Christian.
"If it's purely a matter of culture, then it's completely relative, and you can't say whether it's been getting better or worse."
I never have said it's getting worse. What I conceded was that we may have gotten to where we are now through small transgressions of the current standard creating new present standards which were then further "pushed." The only value judgement we could make there, though, would be on the small "pushing" transgressions. But only relative to the old standard they transgressed. It doesn't say anything about the new status quo in itself absolutely.
"Would you have Catholics follow the culture to that point?"
There are already tropical cultures where people go about naked, and I tend to think it's because they're tropical in climate, not because they're un-Christian.
"it seems to me not unlikely that God designed human bodies such that the mere sight of female genitalia would stimulate the male sexual appetite."
Except in all sorts of situations, it clearly DOESN'T work that way, is clearly contextual.
"will we continue following the culture along the same trajectory it has been traveling for the past century or so; or will we draw a line at any point and say, now that's going too far?"
To be honest, I look around my neighborhood and workplace, and don't see anything shocking. If anything, less covering up seems a marker of age and social class. As for advertisements, I'd say the proliferation of photographic technology probably had something to do with it.
"I'm talking about ads in which women act seductively in bikinis, and not just look sexy."
"Act" seductively?
You write, "There are already tropical cultures where people go about naked, and I tend to think it's because they're tropical in climate, not because they're un-Christian."
Your opinion is noted, but as pointed out before, I don't believe there has ever been a Catholic culture that has observed that mode of [non-]dress.
You write, "Except in all sorts of situations, it clearly DOESN'T work that way, is clearly contextual."
Yeah, and in certain situations food is not appetizing, or people can suppress their appetite for food -- but that doesn't mean God doesn't design food to be appetizing, and us to be appetized by food. If a certain very appetizing type of food were morally forbidden except in certain specific circumstances, wouldn't it be prudent to refrain from putting it on public display so as not to tempt people to eat it or imagine eating it?
You write, "To be honest, I look around my neighborhood and workplace, and don't see anything shocking. If anything, less covering up seems a marker of age and social class."
I'm glad you don't see shocking things in your neighborhood, but I fairly often see ads which I find highly inappropriate for public display, as well as demeaning to women; most recently on my drive from work just this past week -- a women in underwear in a highly seductive pose. I think it tends to start in contexts such as advertising, and then filters down to people actually doing and wearing the things they see advertised. Just another example of pushing the envelope.
In any event, this is how you see things in actuality. But I was asking a hypothetical: Is there a line you would not cross, or would you consider it perfectly fine for Catholic women to go around naked in public, if that were a commonplace occurrence in the culture?
In any event, we don't seem to be getting anywhere so we can end this if you want -- God knows I can beat a dead horse for years, but I don't want you to feel obliged to continue out of courtesy. I much appreciate your patience so far.
I can agree with you that there may not be a specific, objective line which to cross is to commit sin. Where I'm not convinced of your point of view, unless I'm mistaken about it, is that you seem to be saying that women should take no consideration for how their dress may affect men and whether it may constitute an occasion of sin for them, so long as the culture at large considers it appropriate for public dress. I don't think the culture at large is a good judge of such things.
The question of lines not to be crossed is an odd one for me. I'm not sure there is any line that shouldn't be crossed out of mere fear of inciting lust. I'm not going to start saying nude beaches must be sex-segregated, for example.
Post a Comment