Obscure Fandoms

salt-and-corn:

patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

salt-and-corn:

patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

patron-saint-of-smart-asses:

Your practicing of virtue does not protect you from the consequences of other people’s sin.

catchaglimpseofalleble

Please give us the full rant

Modesty is a virtue, but it does nothing to stop someone else from committing the sin of lust.

St. Maria Goretti was the poster girl for holiness when she was alive, super modest and charitable and all that jazz, but that didn’t stop porn-addicted Alessandro from trying to rape her.

Countless virgin martyrs, such as St. Agnes, were virtuous Christian women, but they were sexually assaulted for their faith and/or for choosing celibacy.

St. Dymphnia was killed for refusing to marry her unstable and incestuous father.

When modesty is discussed in Scripture, it is explained as an outward expression of inward holiness. When lust is discussed, it is explained as displaced sexual desire and attention to anyone who is not your spouse. When one subject is discussed, the other is not.

This is why people need to stop talking about how important it is for people – ESPECIALLY women – to dress in a way to prevent lust in men. That’s not how lust works. That’s not the function of modesty. A woman may act and/or dress in a way so as to purposely seduce someone, but dressing modestly in itself is not a defense mechanism to “protect” you from the lust of men. To say such a thing not only spits in the face of our spiritual sisters in Christ who were assaulted for their faith, but it also ignores the true purpose of modesty and the true seeds of lust. Covering up most of your figure and skin won’t stop someone from hiking up your skirt, or imagining what you might look like anyway.

There are many good reasons to practice modesty. Preventing lust is not one of them.

Preventing lust =/= protecting oneself from sexual violence.

One aspect of modesty is acting (whether in speech or dress) so that our brothers (and sisters) who are striving for chastity but aren’t perfect (yet), can be spared temptation. See the Catechism on modesty (bolding my own):

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 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.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

Here is an article expounding the difference between helping ourselves and our brothers and sisters strive towards chastity, and protecting oneself from sexual violence. Modesty is the safeguard of chastity, and so to say that modesty has nothing to do with lust is grossly errant.

I did not connect modesty explicitly to sexual violence, though that was my main example (”imagining what you might look like anyway“). I have heard from multiple men how they find modest clothing “alluring” because “it leaves more to the imagination.” I also stated that it is possible to purposely dress in ways that are seductive, but that modesty in itself does not guarantee that men (or women I suppose) won’t lust. Just wanted to clarify/emphasize that since my original post was overwhelmingly about sexual violence/crimes.

I suppose I should have focused on that, rather than saying lust and modesty have no connection whatsoever (you were correct in sharing the Catechism to correct me on that). Modesty culture as practiced today puts more pressure than necessary on women almost exclusively to not “stumble” the men in their lives, which causes a shift of blame on them no matter how modestly they actually dress; it also crosses over into victim blaming when sexual violence DOES occur, which is part of my problem with how people discuss modesty.

Thanks for the clarification.

One thing the article I linked states, and what I think you’re getting at, is that modesty cannot and will not help someone unless he or she is already aiming for chastity:

Modesty is thus a collection of habits and choices that we can use to avoid temptation ourselves, and to avoid putting others in the path of temptation — but it is only of use to people who wish to avoid sexual temptation.

If it is my desire to pursue some unchaste relationship, I’m not going to be foiled by a collection of modest customs.

Also heckin’ yikes @ the men you reference. If modest dress leaves things to the imagination, then stop imagining. Unbidden thoughts are one thing, but deliberations of the imagination aren’t that.