Women are not tempted to sin to the same degree as a man, but they are indeed tempted to sin. That is, if course, as long as the woman is not frigid.And I would go further, still, and say that some women are tempted much more than others, just as some men are tempted much more than others. Again, not to the same degree as men.
Women are not tempted to sin to the same degree as a man, but they are indeed tempted to sin. That is, if course, as long as the woman is not frigid.Basically, the provocatively dressed female is telling the man, I am easy. I described in detail how a man is tempted to sin by the provocative fashions of women.
Basically, the provocatively dressed female is telling the man, I am easy. I described in detail how a man is tempted to sin by the provocative fashions of women.I am sorry, LT, but I just can't be as blunt as you...
I ask, how exactly is a Catholic woman tempted to commit mortal sin, what exactly takes place?
I think that contrary to post -sɛҳuąƖ revolution propaganda (and wishful thinking of immature men) the temptation you describe above (of undressing the men in our minds and fantasize) is quite foreign to the female nature, really.
I think the idea of women beign the same as men as of their sɛҳuąƖ appetites, has been heavily fueled by the pornographic industry.
And I would go further, still, and say that some women are tempted much more than others, just as some men are tempted much more than others. Again, not to the same degree as men.
I am sorry, LT, but I just can't be as blunt as you...
I will say that, generally to a lesser degree, women fantasize in the exact same way with exactly the same detail as a man. Again, some women more than others, if she is not frigid.
and by militant feminists.
I think the idea of women being the same as men as of their sɛҳuąƖ appetites, has been heavily fueled by the pornographic industry.
Also, because they are not tempted as much, perhaps, by overt sɛҳuąƖ thoughts, women are more inclined to "flirt" with thoughts and feelings that border on the impure, even if they don't strictly cross the line into sin.True, yes. However, even that can be a significant challenge for some of us women -- i.e., to be careless about entertaining such interior flirtations. If unchecked, those can lead to sins of thought.
More and more you hear of WOMEN being addicted to pornography, so I think that it's beginning to affect them as well.I think that is more because of decades of feminist indocrination of women wanting to be just like the men (combined with a foolish attempt to please the men themselves which is a contradiction), rather than a natural or biological inclination of women.
More and more you hear of WOMEN being addicted to pornography, so I think that it's beginning to affect them as well.I do not believe it. The pornographic magazines are being bought up by the homos.
Basically, the provocatively dressed female is telling the man, I am easy. I described in detail how a man is tempted to sin by the provocative fashions of women.
I ask, how exactly is a Catholic woman tempted to commit mortal sin, what exactly takes place?
I think the temptation for women in this regard is more a vanity issue than physical unchastity. Sure, we can see a good looking man and think to ourselves: "wow, what a handsome man". But from that point of simple awareness, to actually "undressing the man in our minds and imagining"... I just don't think it naturally happens. Or maybe it is just me.Cantarela,
What I do remember happening back in my early youth is me instantaneously trying to appear more pretty or even flirtatous, this is, actively seeking attention, when the mentioned good looking young man appeared in the room. It is really an ego issue. If left unchecked, this could lead to sins of vanity or even immodesty.
I think that is more because of decades of feminist indocrination of women wanting to be just like the men (combined with a foolish attempt to please the men themselves which is a contradiction), rather than a natural or biological inclination of women.NO WAY.
A lady here on CI, who I respect, said that"male immodesty tempts feminine women".I think we should be circuмspect in how we dress.
In the context of the subject we were discussing: female immodesty in dress, I would answer that women are not tempted to sin in the same way as men are. I would say that male immodesty may attract some women, but I would not say it tempts them to sin.
I'll be blunt, when a man of the world sees a young good looking well figured girl dressed provocatively, they immediately mentally strip her of her clothes and fantisize or begin to plan on how to have relations with them. That is a mortal sin.
"Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).
For a Catholic man, when they sees such a girl, a temptation, they must turn away and try to get the image out of their minds in order not to sin.
I do not think women have the same problem. I think that women might be attracted by a "a young good looking well figured man dressed provocatively", but they are not tempted to sin as a man is.
I could always tell the day a girl loses her virginity by the great change in them. Where they were before that day flirting with all the boys, high on the pedestal. The next day, they look crestfallen, like they have been disemboweled of the joys of their youth. If women were like men in their temptations, then those girls would have been ecstatic the next day after their "conquest". Not a one ever was.
Most women are, more or less, sɛҳuąƖ deviants. It's due to their fallen "nature", hence their Jezebel and Asmodeus spirit.Firstly, your entire post is much too graphic for me and should be removed.
Firstly, your entire post is much too graphic for me and should be removed.
Secondly, I wonder how you are able to communicate with women at ALL in real life, considering your condescending attitude towards them.
I feel for you.
That's not because those girls have an intrinsic default to virtue which makes them realize their error, rather, it's because they realize the guys with whom they slept were either beta males and/or scuм bags, which left the girls feeling low about themselves, hence, as a defense mechanism, they convince themselves that they weren't guilty of using the guys, and only they were the ones being used.
If the guys had been alpha or sigma males, those girls would have been satisfied with their own "conquest".
He has a condescending attitude towards everyone, not just women. He kept calling me "tubby" when I objected to his assertion that eating lots of refined sugar is good for people ... even though he's never seen me.How do people survive, spiritually, when they are so vicious to God's creation?
That's not because those girls have an intrinsic default to virtue which makes them realize their error, rather, it's because they realize the guys with whom they slept were either beta males and/or scuм bags, which left the girls feeling low about themselves, hence, as a defense mechanism, they convince themselves that they weren't guilty of using the guys, and only they were the ones being used.Alpha, Beta, Sigma males? I was talking about human beings, not dogs.
If the guys had been alpha or sigma males, those girls would have been satisfied with their own "conquest".
Women are wired differently. They have their own immoral "porn" equivalent -- but it takes a vastly different form.
It's called a Romance Novel.
Romance novels "set up" the characters. Women (unless they've been corrupted, over-sɛҳuąƖized, their nature tampered with, or they have above-average sex drive) aren't interested in watching or reading about sex "without any context".
They need a backstory. Hence the difference between romance novels and male porn.
Firstly, your entire post is much too graphic for me and should be removed.You say that because you weren't able to refute the facts that I stated. Instead, you grant yourself a waiver to the duty of refutation and claim "that's too graphic".
Secondly, I wonder how you are able to communicate with women at ALL in real life, considering your condescending attitude towards them.
I feel for you.
Overall, men should be held to the same (or very similar but as applied to men) standards of modesty as women. Not only COULD they cause temptations to many, but they should exhibit modesty out of example to everyone else, including women. If a man runs around shirtless but then rails at women who show a little cleavage, how is that going to strike a woman except as being hypocritical? Female immodesty is discussed almost ad nauseam but male immodesty not even raised as an issue. Sounds like a double standard.
How do people survive, spiritually, when they are so vicious to God's creation?He's always been one of those people with a Roosh-V mentality - misogynistic, condescending towards women and men. When Mary is the Queen of our Church! Machismo is not everything, especially when many saints were meek and excelled in humility.
I don't recall any monastery which has shorts and no shirts as their habit.
Some laborious acts in the outdoors necessitate men to go shirtless or wear shorts.
You say that because you weren't able to refute the facts that I stated. Instead, you grant yourself a waiver to the duty of refutation and claim "that's too graphic".If you were to treat women as the delicate flowers they should be, you might not have such disdain for them.
"Fanny" :laugh1:
If you were to treat women as the delicate flowers they should be, you might not have such disdain for them.Sluts, feminists and modern women who consent to fαɢɢօtry don't deserve to be treated as delicate flowers. They should be ignored until they espouse their filth and error, which will then require correcting them and calling them out as social & spiritual virons.
You sound like a man who has been spurned by a woman, more than once. I am sorry for you.
Cantarela,
That makes more sense to me and jibes with my experience in life. Thank you.
I could always tell the day a girl loses her virginity by the great change in them. Where they were before that day flirting with all the boys, high on the pedestal. The next day, they look crestfallen, like they have been disemboweled of the joys of their youth. If women were like men in their temptations, then those girls would have been ecstatic the next day after their "conquest". Not a one ever was.
The Monks of Beauchief Abbey were still mining the coal at Smotherfly, Alfreton, in Derbyshire around 1335.
I don't recall any monastery working in coal mines, building iron bridges and logging trees in humid environments, nor have I ever seen a monk run a marathon or race a bike 150 miles in his habit.
Bhutan's iron bridge, built originally by a 16th-century monk, Thangton Gyelpo.
I don't recall any monastery working in coal mines, building iron bridges and logging trees in humid environments, nor have I ever seen a monk run a marathon or race a bike 150 miles in his habit.
I don't recall any monastery working in coal mines, building iron bridges and logging trees in humid environments, nor have I ever seen a monk run a marathon or race a bike 150 miles in his habit.
I don't recall any monastery working in coal mines, building iron bridges and logging trees in humid environments, nor have I ever seen a monk run a marathon or race a bike 150 miles in his habit.
Croix de Fer and all of those taking him seriously and debating with him about really, nothing, have started to ruin this thread with these digressions and inane arguments. The thread is becoming like: blah, blah, blah, blah , a good posting by Cantarella, blah blah blah, blah blah, a good posting by Matthew, blah, blah blah...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/47/153603564_7281ad0588.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwil_MrE3u7ZAhVEu1MKHeOEAmgQjRwIBg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fsluggerotoole%2F153603564&psig=AOvVaw06s6gSwgwIly0UjOl4R3oh&ust=1521217391066481)
You may think that we should not say anything to Croix De Fer (unless it meets with your approval).It has nothing to do with meeting my approval, it has to do with what I stated, I don't know why anyone takes him seriously.
I think that is because they realize that they just lost their most precious asset. If they knew the true male nature, they would not have been so foolish. Fathers used to warn daughters about such facts in life.Reminds me of Tobias & Sarah
Regardless of what the current world says, everyone knows that the true worth of a woman is intrinsically connected to her chastity. Sadly, many women have this realization too late in life. Even outside the religious context, the flower of virginity is supposed to be given to a man within the context of MARRIAGE and long-life commitment. That is the only man who truly deserves it. A man who will provide for you, protect you, be the father of your children, etc. That is the only man who deserves your body, period. That is also, one of the reasons of the importance of modesty in dress, as well. Slutty and loose women lower the real value of woman in general. They betray their gender.
Monks are not supposed to participate in such races. Don't you know anything?:facepalm:
"Fanny" :laugh1: says:You referenced a faithless pagan - Buddhist monk. Are Catholics supposed to follow the examples of dumb idolaters? Moreover, were you alive in the 16th century? How do you know he didn't build the bridge shirtless? Shaolin monks perform martial arts shirtless.
Bhutan's iron bridge, built originally by a 16th-century monk, Thangton Gyelpo.
The Monks of Beauchief Abbey were still mining the coal at Smotherfly, Alfreton, in Derbyshire around 1335.
Monks logging trees?
You need a picture for that?
How do you think all those wood monasteries were built and all their cells?
Ok, if Ladislaus and Croix de Fer could "take it outside" that would be great.
I tried to clean up the thread a bit. It's a very important thread on a very important topic. It doesn't need sidetracks and bickering.
You're deeply polluted with the spirit of the world. You would undoubtedly consider most of the male saints, and Our Lord Himself, to be "beta" males on account of their meekness.
We were doing the family rosary this morning and as I was opening a prayer book, I saw a holy card that has a painting of Our Lord, the Blessed Mother, and the Souls in Purgatory. Our Lord and all the men are bare chested with thighs exposed, and all the women are fully covered. Like all other paintings like this one, the men’s bodies are in perfect athletic bodybuilder (before steroids) physical condition. In the real world, men rarely have bodies like those in the paintings. The equivalent in perfection of a female body for men would that the painting would be of naked Playboy centerfolds. In other words, those paintings of men would be the apex of unrealistic temptation to women, the same as air brushed Playboy centerfolds are to men. So, I serious doubt that women are tempted to lust by seeing shirtless men, for if that was so, then the Church has been tempting women for 2000 years. Just imagine the inverse, if the Church commissioned all its paintings of women to be of bare chested and exposed thighs Playboy centerfolds.
(I know there might be a painting of Eve that one can present or a woman with her cleavage exposed, but I think they were rare, likely during the Renaissance, but I am talking about practically EVERY painting with men.)
Well, there's more to covering up than not to be a temptation....Of course, but this thread is precisely about temptation, "Does Male Immodesty tempt women in the same way as female immodesty tempts men?" That is exactly what it is about.
Of course, but this thread is precisely about temptation, "Does Male Immodesty tempt women in the same way as female immodesty tempts men?" That is exactly what it is about.
Where I grew up guys wandering around in public without shirts were considered low-class.Exactly.
So, I serious doubt that women are tempted to lust by seeing shirtless men, for if that was so, then the Church has been tempting women for 2000 years. Just imagine the inverse, if the Church commissioned all its paintings of women to be of bare chested and exposed thighs Playboy centerfolds.
(I know there might be a painting of Eve that one can present or a woman with her cleavage exposed, but I think they were rare, likely during the Renaissance, but I am talking about practically EVERY painting with men.)
At least not your Alpha Chi Omega and Mormon "chicks". I am so pleased you have upped your standard. Keep improving... Never look back... http://alphachiuga.org/
...I went to a Mormon service during Basic Training, and I kid you not, I was sharing a hymn book with a girl (another Basic Trainee recruit) whom I had just met for the first time, and while we were sitting there holding the hymn book together, she rubbed my leg with her hand.
I also dated a girl in a sorority in college. It's the only sorority, Alpha Chi Omega, that allows male visitors inside their house. Look it up if you don't believe me. I heard lustful talk among the chicks there that truly rivals male "locker room talk".
Women are not these virtuous "delicate flowers" that many people on this forum and in real life posit them to be...
At least not your Alpha Chi Omega and Mormon "chicks". I am so pleased you have upped your standard. Keep improving... Never look back... http://alphachiuga.org/
Women are not these virtuous "delicate flowers" that many people on this forum and in real life posit them to be...This is a strawman.
Not only are women tempted to lust by seeing shirtless men, they're tempted by seeing fully clothed men.I disagree, based on my experience, you are not concluding correctly.
A man of the world sees a shirtless young woman and he will either fantasize or start planning to seduce the girl, both mortal sins. His objective is strictly to "seduce".I think this is generally true, 99% of the time.
A woman of the world sees a shirtless young man and she will dream of having him for a boyfriend to show to all her friends how pretty she is because she attracted this handsome man.That's probably true 75% of the time, but some women have temptations similar to men.
... some women have temptations similar to men.
Look, we've had women chime in on this thread and agree with this statement: "that some women have temptations similar to men"Then they are saying that some women of the world sees a shirtless young man and she will either fantasize having relations with the young man or start planning to actually seduce the young man, both mortal sins. Her objective is strictly to "seduce", just like a man.
I disagree, based on my experience, you are not concluding correctly.
Then they are saying that some women of the world sees a shirtless young man and she will either fantasize having relations ...
This is a strawman.No, it's not a strawman.
Quote from: Croix de Fer on Yesterday at 06:53:28 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/male-immodesty-tempts-feminine-women/msg599976/#msg599976)If you are not a woman you have no experience. You are using a male mind to try to judge a woman's thoughts. Good luck with that!QuoteNot only are women tempted to lust by seeing shirtless men, they're tempted by seeing fully clothed men..I disagree, based on my experience, you are not concluding correctly.
.I disagree, based on my experience, you are not concluding correctly.
If you are not a woman you have no experience. You are using a male mind to try to judge a woman's thoughts. Good luck with that!
Funny how you ignore my own experiences with, and observations of, women, then declare I'm "not concluding correctly" while keeping your own myopic "experiences" to "validate" your (weak) argument.In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a King.
In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a King.
Your experiences are puerile. They are puerile because you raise them to be something special and one of a kind, when your experiences are typical of any man of the world. Your conclusions however, on the points that I brought, are wrong.
To me, watching you write is like watching a Jerry Lewis movie, exasperating. You are publicly making a fool of yourself. I recommend that you scrap and change your name here on CI and start over again, and re-make yourself. Like in the movie "Ground Hog Day", you can totally change your mistakes.
That's not what they said at all. They said that a reasonable number of women, those who are not "frigid", would be tempted to impurity by the sight of men. And the actual number is probably relatively high,They are tempted to impurity and the actual number is very high? What does that mean? How does this impurity that is brought about by a shirtless man look like? Spell it out. How does the mortal sin come to be?
Ad hominem fallacy.You are the one bragging about your sɛҳuąƖ exploits, your experiences. I was only pointing out to you that your experiences are nothing that any male schlump of the world has not had. The fact that you brag about them as if they were special, shows that you are just a "one eyed man".
If you are not a woman you have no experience. You are using a male mind to try to judge a woman's thoughts. Good luck with that!Your response is worthless, because you do not explain anything.
Earlier in this thread or another recent one similar to it, "Fanny" ( :laugh1: ) mentioned I should treat women as "delicate flowers", basically for the mere sake of them being women, regardless of their character.
You are the one bragging about your sɛҳuąƖ exploits, your experiences. I was only pointing out to you that your experiences are nothing that any male schlump of the world has not had. The fact that you brag about them as if they were special, shows that you are just a "one eyed man".
"In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a King".
They are puerile because you raise them to be something special and one of a kind, when your experiences are typical of any man of the world.You seem to have a fixation with me for whatever reason.
You are the one bragging about your sɛҳuąƖ exploits, your experiences. I was only pointing out to you that your experiences are nothing that any male schlump of the world has not had. The fact that you brag about them as if they were special, shows that you are just a "one eyed man".Dear Croix De Fer,
"In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a King".
Dear Croix De Fer,Thanks. I apologize for being abrasive.
[...] I publicly apologize
The Great Tradhican says:
Your relations with women of the world that you have detailed here are nothing special, they are the typical experience of any man who has lived in the world.
The Great Tradhican says:
From my experience, stay in shape, keep your mind young, and let God sort out the rest for you. He did for me.
*Keep your mind young = do not let life's bad experiences embitter you.
While I agree Cantellara is correct that women engage in that type of behavior to get attention, and it's empowering if they succeed, and because it raises their self-esteem, I think it's only part of the reason. Just as much, if not greater, a reason has lust at its core. Of course, every individual case is different.I do not think it is the sin of lust as men experience it. Remember, we are talking here about a young athletic shirtless man.
Then they are saying that some women of the world sees a shirtless young man and she will either fantasize having relations with the young man or start planning to actually seduce the young man, both mortal sins. Her objective is strictly to "seduce", just like a man.
Nothing is 100%. But from my experience, I do not think that the percentage of women who think like men is much higher that say the percentage of Lesbians.
[Some women are lesbians, so they pursue women. Some men are sodomites so they pursue men. But even there, they behave differently. A male will pursue everything in sight each hour because their "prey" (other sodomites) are also pursuing everything in sight. A female lesbian does not do that, they strictly seek one partner at a time].
More and more you hear of WOMEN being addicted to pornography, so I think that it's beginning to affect them as well.The vast vast majority, probably over 90%, of people who use porn are men. The vast majority of people who masturbate regularly are men too. Women can certainly be lustful, but their sex drives are far lower(testosterone governs the sex drive, even women with high T are more lustful) and their attraction is generally less visually based too.
If women lusted the same as men, we could get our way with many different women every day:Most women are flaky, which is somewhat of a counter to the lust within themselves. The lust is still there but, many times, there are conflicting emotions and drives, so the realization of them carrying through with their sɛҳuąƖ desires is lessened.
Most women are flaky, which is somewhat of a counter to the lust within themselves. The lust is still there but, many times, there are conflicting emotions and drives, so the realization of them carrying through with their sɛҳuąƖ desires is lessened.They must really be flaky for they can have their way with any man with a pulse any time. No. I do not think that flakiness is the answer.
They must really be flaky for they can have their way with any man with a pulse any time. No. I do not think that flakiness is the answer.But it's their flakiness preventing many of the opportunities they have to get with a man. Their lust is still there, but something within themselves prevents it from happening.
If a man could have his way with women, the same way that women can have their way with men, we would spend our every waking hour "getting our way".
It was this Fanny by the way, who also made the indecorous comment that those women who are not "frigid", would be tempted to impurity by the sight of men. It was only Fanny ( :laugh1: ) who said that, not "many women" in this thread. I disagree. I believe it is part of the ultra - egalitarian revolution that the sexes are not "that different" to pretend that women have the same temptations than the men when it comes to sins of lust or that their needs for sɛҳuąƖ release are the same. As I said before, the temptation is more a pride issue. Last Tradhican is correct when he says is more a self - esteem issue for women. That is why women flirt, not necessarily because they are "undressing the men in their minds and all that", but because they falsely feel better about themselves when receiving validation from the men.Women have been brainwashed big time in a drive to destroy society. Pretty much everyone in the world today is brainwashed. It is only by God's Grace that some find their way out of it or even see it. Very few find their way out. Today, for instance in my SSPX chapel there are few good examples for the young girls, their own parents are brainwashed.
It is also a power issue. I would be willing to bet that that the motivation of that "cougar" that Croix de Fer had such an experience with, was not a physical inclination per se; but more of a desperate attempt of hers to feel she "is still got it" and that she has some imaginary power over him. This motivation comes from broken women who realize they have absolutely nothing to offer to a man; but her sex. I agree it is absolutely pathetic.
A lady here on CI, who I respect, said that"male immodesty tempts feminine women".
In the context of the subject we were discussing: female immodesty in dress, I would answer that women are not tempted to sin in the same way as men are. I would say that male immodesty may attract some women, but I would not say it tempts them to sin.
I'll be blunt, when a man of the world sees a young good looking well figured girl dressed provocatively, they immediately mentally strip her of her clothes and fantisize or begin to plan on how to have relations with them. That is a mortal sin.
"Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).
For a Catholic man, when they sees such a girl, a temptation, they must turn away and try to get the image out of their minds in order not to sin.
I do not think women have the same problem. I think that women might be attracted by a "a young good looking well figured man dressed provocatively", but they are not tempted to sin as a man is.
That's not what they said at all. They said that a reasonable number of women, those who are not "frigid", would be tempted to impurity by the sight of men. And the actual number is probably relatively high, since many of them would not even admit being tempted this way because women are not "supposed to" be like that. In order to commit a mortal sin against purity, by the way, it's not necessary to get to the point of "fantasizing about having relations". Taking venereal pleasure in the sight is enough. That's impure thought. When someone gets to the point of fantasizing, that's in the category of impure desire.I believe it was only one woman who said this. You can add me to the tally of those who disagree with this being the norm for women.
I'm glad this OP didn't ironically complain about male immodesty by showing us an immodest "hunk"Please post where I complained about male immodesty?
I'm glad this OP didn't ironically complain about male immodesty by showing us an immodest "hunk"You should ditch that word from your vocabulary, it is totally ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It is the brainwashed women who have been conned into spreading its usage. Just like they have been brainwashed to say OMG like 100 times in a short conversation.
Here are Sts. Peter, James, and John "topless". I could post 100's of such paintings. If it was a sin for men to not wear a shirt, the Church would not have allowed any of these paintings which have adorn Churches all over the world for thousands of years. I could post hundreds of Our Lord Jesus Christ "topless".(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/gent-miracle-fishing-st-peter-s-church-26249060.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDy5u9rPTZAhUQ0VMKHfvyCbIQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamstime.com%2Fstock-photo-gent-miracle-fishing-st-peter-s-church-image26249060&psig=AOvVaw0iPkTV0EQcP-0tP_fSGhDS&ust=1521410106666355)They are working.
I think that contrary to post -sɛҳuąƖ revolution propaganda (and wishful thinking of immature men) the temptation you describe above (of undressing the men in our minds and fantasize) is quite foreign to the female nature, really.I agree completely I think it is a myth put about by feminists who believe it represents some misguided ideas of equality.
I think the idea of women beign the same as men as of their sɛҳuąƖ appetites, has been heavily fueled by the pornographic industry.
Here are Sts. Peter, James, and John "topless". I could post 100's of such paintings. If it was a sin for men to not wear a shirt, the Church would not have allowed any of these paintings which have adorn Churches all over the world for thousands of years. I could post hundreds of Our Lord Jesus Christ "topless".
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/gent-miracle-fishing-st-peter-s-church-26249060.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDy5u9rPTZAhUQ0VMKHfvyCbIQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamstime.com%2Fstock-photo-gent-miracle-fishing-st-peter-s-church-image26249060&psig=AOvVaw0iPkTV0EQcP-0tP_fSGhDS&ust=1521410106666355)
Cantarella is a woman and she confirmed my observations and added to my details ( indeed,too many details and examples).
There is not one woman (or man) here who has elaborated how a woman's reaction to a young athletic man without a shirt actually turns into sin, what actually transpires in detail.
Also, the reason women aren't turned on by shirtless men in religious paintings or statues is because it's a religious context. Even an atheist woman, who shouldn't care about committing sacrilege because she doesn't believe in it, won't be turned on by the shirtless men because there is sill an innate sense of what is appropriate, and what is inappropriate, impressed upon their hearts by God, despite their faithlessness. That's why they have no natural inclination to be aroused by a religious painting's image of a shirtless man.Time ran out to add to the above.
And the reason the men are shirtless, and women are always fully clothed, is because it's natural for men to be shirtless as they are, naturally, the laborers. It gives them more free range of motion. There are no shirts, robes or cloaks to get caught on anything while working, and it helped keep them cooler during their tasks and hunts.
I agree completely I think it is a myth put about by feminists who believe it represents some misguided ideas of equality.
I heard lustful talk among the chicks there that truly rivals male "locker room talk".
I want to add here that the pornographic industry has profited greatly from the naiveté of sɛҳuąƖly immature of men of hoping to be physically "wanted" by the women just as much as they want them. Reality is, when it comes to sɛҳuąƖ drives, there is a sea separating male nature from female nature.
Speaking only for myself, there's nothing tempting about an improperly clad man, no matter how perfect his physique. I'm disgusted by men who have no manners, no sense of decorum to go about in public or appear in mixed company without a shirt, with tight-fitting pants or shorts. Hardly a man knows enough to remove his cap upon entering a building. I can only wonder about women who find such men attractive.
I definitely agree. I rather see a handsome man wearing a proper shirt and tie (or even working attire), than the same handsome man without a shirt on!
It's healthy for a woman to be attracted (not the same as lust) to a shirtless man whose physique is the result of being physically active, just as it's healthy for a man to be attracted (again, not to be confused with lust) to a scantly dressed woman who is in good shape. To be repulsed by a good physique whose form is visible, for whatever reason, by the opposite sex is actually unhealthy.
You can disagree with me, but you will still be wrong.
Sorry, man, but I can't separate the body from a person's soul and a person's character. I am not attracted to a "physique", a piece of meat. If a person is ugly inside, I find the physique repugnant as well. To me, even what might otherwise in the abstract be a "good physique" is utterly repugnant. In fact, it almost becomes MORE repugnant than if the ugly soul had a poor physique ... because of the incongruity. Then, on the other hand, I could, if I were not married, be physically attracted to someone with a beautiful soul but average (to even below-average) physique.
I absolutely agree with this.
My comment is more in regard to a person seeing another person for the first time and not knowing their character, values, personality, etc. except from what they might be able to immediately gather by the countenance and dress code of the person they're meeting or viewing from a distance.
I'm just saying all things, except the body, being equal and neutral, it's healthy for a chick be attracted to men with good bodies, and vice versa, whose form is visible for whatever reason - right or wrong.
* again, attraction is not the same as lust
OK. Got it. Then I don't disagree.
My comment, "You can disagree with me, but you will still be wrong" was more directed as Seraphina and Cantarella.
Basically, the provocatively dressed female is telling the man, I am easy. I described in detail how a man is tempted to sin by the provocative fashions of women.Only one woman has responded, that was Cantarella, and many women have agreed with her and none has disagreed. My own life's experience confirms everything she wrote and I have written the same observations many times here on CI and how it applies to the Fathers raising their daughters right (more follows) Here is everything Cantarella has said:
I ask, how exactly is a Catholic woman tempted to commit mortal sin, what exactly takes place?
I could give you an example, but I won't because people will say I'm bragging; and I don't know how to explain it while keeping it Catholic-friendly and not sounding like some short erotic story. It would probably be an occasion of sin for chicks.The examples that you gave are mild for women in the world, they can also be explained by the descriptions given by Cantarella, those girls were not necessarily acting like men do when they take the same actions. Like I said before, nothing is 100%, there are women who are so corrupted, that they can become like the men of the world that I described. It is analogous to a man becoming a sodomite. Sodomites are mentally disturbed, possessed. Women who act as men will always be older and unattractive, as no one wants them anymore, but the self esteem factor is still there too. Since men will go after anything with a pulse, those women will always find someone.
The examples that you gave are mild for women in the world, they can also be explained by the descriptions given by Cantarella, those girls were not necessarily acting like men do when they take the same actions. Like I said before, nothing is 100%, there are women who are so corrupted, that they can become like the men of the world that I described. It is analogous to man becoming a sodomite. Sodomites are mentally disturbed, possessed. Women who act as men will always be older, as no one wants them anymore, but the self esteem factor is still there too. Since men will go after anything with a pulse, those women will always find someone.
I have never known of any young girl who was corrupted like that, and we are talking about young girls here and Catholic women.
Also, the chick acting on lust activated by her sight of me without a shirt was 19 years old, not some older lady whom no man wants anymore.Her actions are mild for any woman of the world. It still can be explained as Cantarella has described. Her explanation can't be outright dismissed in the case you give.
Also, the chick acting on lust activated by her sight of me without a shirt was 19 years old, not some older lady whom no man wants anymore.Some men like older women.
Some men like older women.He is referring to this:
Like I said before, nothing is 100%, there are women who are so corrupted, that they can become like the men of the world that I described. It is analogous to a man becoming a sodomite. Sodomites are mentally disturbed, possessed. Women who act as men will always be older and unattractive, as no one wants them anymore, but the self esteem factor is still there too. Since men will go after anything with a pulse, those women will always find someone.
Her actions are mild for any woman of the world. It still can be explained as Cantarella has described. Her explanation can't be outright dismissed in the case you give.
You and I are then down to that:
Great Tradhican - Only corrupted older and unattractive ladies act like men
Croix De Fer - normal young (like a 19 years old) good looking girls pursue men for the same reason men pursue women. (What is the % vs girls who flirt to gain self esteem?)
I'll be blunt, when a man of the world sees a young good looking well figured girl dressed provocatively, they immediately mentally strip her of her clothes and fantisize or begin to plan on how to have relations with them. That is a mortal sin.
"Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).
I do not think women have the same problem. I think that women might be attracted by a "a young good looking well figured man dressed provocatively", but they are not tempted to sin as a man is.
? ? ? ? ?Then forget it. See your private emails.
I'm not sure I follow you.
Then forget it.ABOUT TIME!
ABOUT TIME!You started it all.
Hi. New member here. Are people still interested in actually discussing this topic, or has it devolved entirely? I'm actually rather interested in talking about it, non-explicitly of course.I'm interested in hearing it anyway.
A lady here on CI, who I respect, said that"male immodesty tempts feminine women".
In the context of the subject we were discussing: female immodesty in dress, I would answer that women are not tempted to sin in the same way as men are. I would say that male immodesty may attract some women, but I would not say it tempts them to sin.
I'll be blunt, when a man of the world sees a young good looking well figured girl dressed provocatively, they immediately mentally strip her of her clothes and fantisize or begin to plan on how to have relations with them. That is a mortal sin.
"Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).
For a Catholic man, when they sees such a girl, a temptation, they must turn away and try to get the image out of their minds in order not to sin.
I do not think women have the same problem. I think that women might be attracted by a "a young good looking well figured man dressed provocatively", but they are not tempted to sin as a man is.
God made women attractive to men. I presume God made men attractive to women. He did so in order that they would marry and produce children, and one knows what is necessary to produce children. I was fortunate enough as a young man to live through times when a kiss was enough to show one's love before marriage. Today things are different, as I am led to believe bed has replaced that kiss.An admiration of femininity is just thinking a woman is beautiful. Nothing wrong with that. But staring at her breasts, mentally undressing her, imagining sɛҳuąƖ relations, etc. is lust.
I note the word 'lust' above in Matthew 5:2 and really could do with an explanation of such lust. Surely it cannot be that attraction, or admiration of femininity given to men by God? Is it a 'stalker' kind of lust? Is lust an instantaneous mental motion of adultry, or an ongoing one?
An admiration of femininity is just thinking a woman is beautiful. Nothing wrong with that. But staring at her breasts, mentally undressing her, imagining sɛҳuąƖ relations, etc. is lust.