Some of the boys are more covered up than some of the girls there, which is a bit ridiculous. Although I suppose the question would be were they swimming together or separately. If it was separately then I suppose modesty's a bit of a non-issue.
Can I walk nude on a beach if I am the only one on it?Walking nude on a beach alone is different. If you are outside your home, there is always a chance someone will see you. People can arrive at any time, even at off-peak times. Maybe someone will show up to shoot an amateur movie scene. The possibilities are endless.
I recall a story about the BVM visiting a monastery, blessing the monks in their cells as she walked by their doors, but skipping past one of them. Asked why, she is reported to have said because that monk did not sleep modestly. Whether it was true or not, the lesson was that modesty is required even when alone.
Fr. Raymond Taouk said in a sermon on modesty in January 2014 that modesty had "nothing to do with what we wear".Years ago while he was a seminarian (or a just newly ordained priest), Fr. Taouk was chosen by the SSPX to write an article defending the notion of salvation of the non-baptized peoples, which the SSPX published in the Angelus as their "icon of doctrine".
However, if seeing these photos above (or being there in person), or seeing a woman in loose fitting slacks sends a man into a lustfull tizzy then I’d say that man has some deep seeded mental issues that go far beyond ones simple modesty.
A well balanced man would simply look away and say a prayer for that person. If they felt comfortable enough, may kindly mention norms and importance of modest fashion. But to get so bothered that it interferes with your prayer life at Mass? HMmmmm?
But not being able to sleep could have serious repercussions on one's ability to fulfill their duties of state.But also why? Like with the rest of it, my main question is where exactly we draw the line, and why exactly, how exactly to distinguish between "my personal convictions are stricter" and "You're wrong and sinning against the Lord" (perhaps there's explicit church teaching on this, but I'm unaware of it.) If all women wore burkas there'd be less lust, but only Muslims require that (to be clear, again, I'm not trying to compare people who have stricter convictions than I do to Muslims who wear burkas, I'm just wondering how exactly we draw these lines and based upon what standards.) But at least it makes sense to me. Being strict to not cause someone to stumble is noble even if we can't pin down with precision what exactly is and isn't OK.
THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESSThe rest can be read here:
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees.
[N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.
4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics — laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or the stole are removed.
8. Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.
(perhaps there's explicit church teaching on this, but I'm unaware of it.)“Women and girls who wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church.”
“Women and girls who wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church.”I meant explicit teaching on *what* constitutes immodesty, not on the immorality of immodesty. Though maybe the other post you made answers that question.
2. This topic was created to demonstrate yet another piece of evidence that the SSPX has completely changed its tune on this topic. All the SSPX priests used to preach that women must dress modestly, which excludes slacks, shorts and pants. The new, younger priests counsel things in the confessional like "wear however short a skirt your conscience will allow".When I was involved with the SSPX 20+ years ago, only a handful of SSPX priests were saying that modesty for women excluded pants and slacks in public. I don't know why you think that was "all" SSPX priests.
Although I suppose the question would be were they swimming together or separately. If it was separately then I suppose modesty's a bit of a non-issue.That's a charitable thought, but if they were even attempting to keep the boys and girls separate for the sake of modesty, they wouldn't have taken photos of the event.
I meant explicit teaching on *what* constitutes immodesty, not on the immorality of immodesty. Though maybe the other post you made answers that question.What I quoted in my first reply was Pius XI’s teaching on what constituted modest dress. If it doesn’t fit that standard, it can be considered immodest.
If they felt comfortable enough, may kindly mention norms and importance of modest fashion. But to get so bothered that it interferes with your prayer life at Mass? HMmmmm?Is it not a scandal? Does immodesty not offend God? Did Our Lady at Fatima not say that most people go to hell from sins of the flesh? And that many immodest fashions would be introduced which would offend Our Lord?
Does our guardian angel not see us at all times or not? Is purity and modesty for God? Or is it just for others?Obviously its to honor God in the sense of not causing other humans to stumble and such. But if its *directly* for God, our Guardian Angel, etc. then why would this not rule out things like showering nude and such?
Can I walk nude on a beach if I am the only one on it?
I recall a story about the BVM visiting a monastery, blessing the monks in their cells as she walked by their doors, but skipping past one of them. Asked why, she is reported to have said because that monk did not sleep modestly. Whether it was true or not, the lesson was that modesty is required even when alone.
For we are temples of the Holy Ghost and must adorn our selves with the proper respect, even when alone.This is the purpose of veiling in the Old Testament temple and now the chalice and tabernacle. Veiling signifies the sacred. Catholics should veil their body to signify we have the Holy Ghost dwelling within our soul.
"True traditional Catholics, mindful of the virtues of Christian modesty and purity, refuse to be stampeded by "the crowd" into accepting the hedonistic fashions. They know that the Blessed Virgin Mary will never approve of these pagan styles which are so contrary to Christian Tradition on modesty ...
Our Blessed Mother knew in advance the moral havoc that would follow the introduction of these unholy fashions. This is why she came personally at Fatima in 1917 to forewarn us. At the same time she gave the answer in advance to the question, "Is it a sin to follow these fashions?" To little Jacinta, aged seven, Our Lady entrusted this prophecy, which embodies her theology on the modern fashions: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much."...
To emphasize still more the seriousness of "certain fashions", Pope Pius XII asked the Sacred Congregation of the Council to make a forceful appeal to all Catholics, but especially those in authority, to "leave no stone unturned which can help remedy the situation." Thus, he repeated the action of his predecessor, Pius XI, who had asked this same Sacred Congregation to send out the "Special Instructions" in 1930 directing that the Roman Standards of modesty in dress (Marylike Standards) be followed.
Pre-Requisite For the Triumph of Mary's Immaculate HeartHow can we expect Mary's triumph and world peace in an unchastened human society? And how can the reign of purity be established as long as these "certain fashions" continue to fan furiously the flame of passion in the hearts of men? Is it not evident from Our Lady's messages at Fatima that modesty in feminine attire is a prerequisite for Her triumph and for world peace?Let's use our God-given faculty of reasoning. Our Lady tells us "Men must cease offending God...." In the next breath, as it were, she reminds us that one way in which God is offended "very much" is by those "certain fashions." The conclusion should be plain. These semi-nude fashions retard Mary's triumph, and are one of the chief causes bringing the world to the brink of annihilation.Our Lady further revealed that "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh, than for any other reason." Who can count the millions of mortal sins of the flesh that are daily occasioned by immodest attire-evil thoughts and desires, touches, impure embracing, kissing, raping, etc. How can the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumph as long as "more souls go to Hell" through shameless fashions?Again, a Christian society would never tolerate the current flood of indecent literature, movies, and television if it had not first tolerated the public appearance of semi-nude women and girls IN THE FLESH."
That's a charitable thought, but if they were even attempting to keep the boys and girls separate for the sake of modesty, they wouldn't have taken photos of the event.Fair enough, good point.
.
That would be like taking a selfie in the shower and then posting it online claiming there's no issue of immodesty as no one was there! :jester:
Obviously its to honor God in the sense of not causing other humans to stumble and such. But if its *directly* for God, our Guardian Angel, etc. then why would this not rule out things like showering nude and such?The Guardian Angel line doesn't really make sense and sounds vaguely Gnostic to me. The Apostles are often depicted as having fished topless, due to the heat and the sweat from the intensity of the work. Were their Guardian Angels scandalised? This assertion being thrown around here that modesty has nothing to do with the audience is a little strange. Yes it's uncivilised and shameless if you're just strolling around your house completely naked or just in your boxers, even if no one's around. And you could call that an issue of modesty I guess. But after the most basic level of covering up it's completely dependent on the audience. Taking your shirt off while you're overheating from hard work in the sun, your only company being other men, - there's nothing wrong with that. Doing so for no practical reason around women is obviously immodest. I personally wouldn't go around in front of women in just my boxer-shorts and a t-shirt, but why exactly would that be a problem while sleeping in my own bed? My Guardian Angel will already have to see me when I'm getting changed or in the shower. Some people even go to the ridiculous extreme of saying Guardian Angels are scandalised by babies being left naked for a moment while being changed. Ridiculous!
I'm not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand some of the reasoning.
Modesty does not mean having to look frumpy. The neoSSPX direction on appropriate clothing I perceive as a perhaps subconscious reaction against what I may call Amish-like Puritanism that existed amongst some parents during my brief stint as a live-in teacher/house father/anything computer related graphic designer et al. And yet the inconsistency/hypocrisy of these same parents (girls wearing kilts????Where can outfits like these be purchased??
To speak yet again of hypocrisy.....said mission chapel where bears truly attends on occasion - at least to obtain the Sacraments of Confession and The Holy Eucharist - sees the priest railing against immodest dress by men and women (specifically a case of an adult server wearing jeans to a Mass where he was to serve - wherein the young gentleman was publicly admonished and refused Holy Communion. The entire episode should have been handled discretely and with I pray, greater humility. The hypocrisy layeth in the fact that the said priest does not wear his cassock, but black pants and black sports vest.
I sense the time will come soon that I shall be advised by the Resistance priest I know and am beholden towards,alas that we are separated by a goodly distance.
Soon comes summer to these northerly parts, and the shedding of the garments and thus exposing way way way too much epidermis, but sporting articles that hardly veil what Monty Python oft referred to as "the naughty bits."
I guess we most continue to teach about the beauty of modesty (ladies) and the masculine chivalric ethos as expressed in apparel.
For the women..........
(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/medieval-flax-linen-dress-and-surcoat-costume-set-sunshine-janet-1.jpg)
And for what truly TradCat men should aspire towards....(I REALLY want to wear this to Mass one day! I even have chainmail coif! :) :) :) :) :) :) :incense: :incense: :incense:
(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/knight-crusader-templar-medieval-cotton-cloak.jpg)
Even in the hot Southern California summer when the temperatures rose to 115 or more, we still wore this inner tunic to bed, and we were required to cover our bodies with at least one sheet with our hands crossing our chest. Some nuns even slept in a coffin to remind themselves that death could overtake them at any time and that our guardian angels would blush if we slept immodestly.
We are never alone as our guardian angels are always with us. We should respect them by dressing modestly at all times, even when alone.
Saying the angels "blush" just goes to show how they are being anthropomorphized (given human traits), and where such thinking comes from -- thinking subjectively from a human point of view, rather than Catholic dogma or theology.I agree, this is a sentimental description. But I did hear a story about a saint who said that our guardian angels were sad when people were immodest, not because they were affected by the human body, but because the sinful activity offended God.
Where can outfits like these be purchased??Look up armstreet.com
The woman’s dress is BEAUTIFUL!!
I can imagine many women being excited about having new, similar options!
I agree, this is a sentimental description. But I did hear a story about a saint who said that our guardian angels were sad when people were immodest, not because they were affected by the human body, but because the sinful activity offended God.Yes, but presumably it offends God because it scandalizes others, or at least has the real potential to (as in, for instance, the whole hypothetical about walking naked on an abandoned beach. Someone *could* still show up there.)
Seems like lots of puritanicals on this thread.No, just people who value the virtue of modesty because God values it.
I don't see how modesty isn't ultimately for the benefit of other people.This is true in one sense, but false in the overall sense. It's a form of the error of humanism, where we describe spiritual things in human terms. God is all pure, which means that the human definition of purity comes from God first, based on His essential nature.
This is true in one sense, but false in the overall sense. It's a form of the error of humanism, where we describe spiritual things in human terms. God is all pure, which means that the human definition of purity comes from God first, based on His essential nature.Right, but I have no idea how something like being underdressed while sleeping (alone) is any more "immodest" than showering or such while naked. Obviously I agree one can have immodest thoughts or such, even while alone. But it seems like some people here think people need to be fully dressed at all times (except while showering) 'cause "immodest dress" scandalizes the angels or something like that, and that's what I'm majorly not understanding.
.
There are various types of modesty, which is ultimately, part of the overall virtue of chastity. There is personal modesty and modesty in relation to our neighbor. Christ told us infallibly in scripture that if one consents to an impure thought, that they commit fornication. Therefore, even if a person dresses and acts modestly in all public forums and if they are very pure in relation to their neighbor, they can still be impure in the eyes of God, based on their mental state. To act immodestly when alone is just an example of being impure in one's mind.
The Guardian Angel line doesn't really make sense and sounds vaguely Gnostic to me. The Apostles are often depicted as having fished topless, due to the heat and the sweat from the intensity of the work. Were their Guardian Angels scandalised? This assertion being thrown around here that modesty has nothing to do with the audience is a little strange. Yes it's uncivilised and shameless if you're just strolling around your house completely naked or just in your boxers, even if no one's around. And you could call that an issue of modesty I guess. But after the most basic level of covering up it's completely dependent on the audience. Taking your shirt off while you're overheating from hard work in the sun, your only company being other men, - there's nothing wrong with that. Doing so for no practical reason around women is obviously immodest. I personally wouldn't go around in front of women in just my boxer-shorts and a t-shirt, but why exactly would that be a problem while sleeping in my own bed? My Guardian Angel will already have to see me when I'm getting changed or in the shower. Some people even go to the ridiculous extreme of saying Guardian Angels are scandalised by babies being left naked for a moment while being changed. Ridiculous!Yeah basically I'm in agreement with this.
No, just people who value the virtue of modesty because God values it.
No, just people who value the virtue of modesty because God values it.God never demanded Adam and Eve cover up.
I don't see how modesty isn't ultimately for the benefit of other people.
God never demanded Adam and Eve cover up.You're right. We should walk around naked! lol
But it seems like some people here think people need to be fully dressed at all times (except while showering) 'cause "immodest dress" scandalizes the angels or something like that, and that's what I'm majorly not understanding.Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were married before the Fall. There was no scandal between them in being nude. Yet, when they sinned, they covered themselves BECAUSE OF GOD. They covered themselves because of their fallen/sinful nature had been corrupted. Thus, we can say that dressing modestly is NOT only for our neighbor but also due to Original Sin and reverence for God (somehow...but I can’t explain it fully). In the same way, it is said that our guardian angel, being God's representative to us, is not pleased when we do not dress as we should.
You're right. We should walk around naked! lolYes, but people above were saying that you somehow offend your Guardian Angel with it. Your Guardian Angel doesn't lust.
No, God has never demanded we be clothed. But our concupiscence and lust after the Fall in the Garden has necessitated clothing.
Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were married before the Fall. There was no scandal between them in being nude. Yet, when they sinned, they covered themselves BECAUSE OF GOD. They covered themselves because of their fallen/sinful nature had been corrupted. Thus, we can say that dressing modestly is NOT only for our neighbor but also due to Original Sin and reverence for God (somehow...but I can’t explain it fully).
It's a sign that you are letting someone else be in control (God) rather than your passions.Yes, that's what I meant by "reverence for God". Thanks for explaining it better.
God never demanded Adam and Eve cover up.He didn't need to; they wanted to.
You're right. We should walk around naked! lolThat's not forlorn's argument. His argument is that neither God nor Guardian Angels (Which would have existed before the Fall) are scandalized by nudity, rather the *reason* for covering up is primarily in order to avoid scandalizing others, *which is ultimately to please God.*
No, God has never demanded we be clothed. But our concupiscence and lust after the Fall in the Garden has necessitated clothing.
When I was in a monastery as a novice, we wore an inner tunic at all times (except when showering). That inner tunic served as our nightgown and as our inner tunic over which we placed the holy habit (the outer tunic).
Even in the hot Southern California summer when the temperatures rose to 115 or more, we still wore this inner tunic to bed, and we were required to cover our bodies with at least one sheet with our hands crossing our chest. Some nuns even slept in a coffin to remind themselves that death could overtake them at any time and that our guardian angels would blush if we slept immodestly.
We are never alone as our guardian angels are always with us. We should respect them by dressing modestly at all times, even when alone.
Also remember that God is everywhere present and sees all things.
O Heavenly King, O Comforter, O Spirit of Truth,
Who art everywhere present and fillest all things,
Come and abide in us, and cleanse us of all impurity,
And save our souls, O Good One.
I bought a water slide pool for our back yard (rather my husband did), and I don’t ever need to go to a pool again. I also, not thinking when it was first offered, stopped my daughters taking swim class. We wear modest suits even in our backyard, being at home is not excuse to skimp on modesty. I just wish modest suits weren’t so expensive. It is quite scandalous that an sspx church would allow this.I completely agree being at home amongst family, in a same sex environment or even alone is not an excuse for immodesty or more importantly for teaching children sinful behaviour.
I completely agree being at home amongst family, in a same sex environment or even alone is not an excuse for immodesty or more importantly for teaching children sinful behaviour.I think what constitutes immodesty in each of these three instances can differ dramatically either from each other and from mixed sex environments.
When the devil attacks with charges of prudism, Jansenism, rigorism, Protestantism, or whateverism, I just think for a minute or two about our great forefathers, and all doubts vanish.I agree. Certainly there is a danger (as history shows) of being a rigorist or a jansenist, etc. However, how many saints also said that we must be "fools for Christ" in order to gain heaven? Therefore, we are called to stay as far from the "mortal sin line" as possible, even if that means being viewed as an extremist. How many saints preached the fewness of the saved? Many. Is it better to be extreme and cross over in Jansenism for a time, rather than be lukewarm for the rest of your life? If one is extreme in their search for Christ, but does so WITH HUMILITY, then Christ will not let them be Jansenists for long, even if their natural inclinations push them there. The key is to stay humble, even while being extreme. God would rather us be hot or cold, not lukewarm.
I think what constitutes immodesty in each of these three instances can differ dramatically either from each other and from mixed sex environments.I would agree that what constitutes appropriate clothing varies with different circuмstances. But not the most basic standards of modesty.
Often times, when these types of modern issues arise (e.g., swimming, makeup, modesty, women wearing men's attire, women in the workplace, NFP, etc.), regardless of what is said online, I think back to the Dessert Fathers and the ascetics, and I thank my guardian angel for looking out for me, and calling me back to sentire cuм ecclesia.
If your kid falls into a pond or lake, you're going to wish he got swimming lessons.Standard swimming lessons are not focused on life-saving techniques. You'll know you've found the right sort of swim lessons when the instructor requires the students to enter the water in their normal attire. (If you've never seen this, yes, it does exist -- we have some of these sort of instructors around here.)
Let's not be puritanical here.
Standard swimming lessons are not focused on life-saving techniques. You'll know you've found the right sort of swim lessons when the instructor requires the students to enter the water in their normal attire. (If you've never seen this, yes, it does exist -- we have some of these sort of instructors around here.)
.
If you don't plan on ever wearing a standard American bathing suit, why would you practice life-saving skills while wearing one? Better to know how to save yourself when you fall into water wearing a long skirt for the girls or pants for the boys.
Most people in America don't have the privilege of getting swimming lessons with normal attire on their bodies. If a person goes to their local swimming lessons place and demands the intructor teach the class to swim with pants, skirts and shoes, he's going to get denied.
So does the parent not have their kids learn how to swim? What if the dad is too busy with work to teach them? Not enough income to have their to own deep swimming pool? The wife shouldn't left alone to teach the kids to swim outside of the home. So do the kids go through life not knowing how to swim and risk drowning if they fall into a deep body of water? All because SSPX's version of swimming is too "naked"?
Don't hang out on the ocean and you'll be fine.
If a person goes to their local swimming lessons place and demands the intructor teach the class to swim with pants, skirts and shoes, he's going to get denied.No swim instructor is going to turn away a child who is wearing shorts and one of those athletic t-shirts. If they do, then find someone else. If every swim instructor within 20 miles of you won't teach your child, and you can't team them yourself, then take it as God's will the child isn't meant to learn how to swim...for now.
Your argument is invalid.
OK, so the millions of "Catholics" who live along the coasts and near rivers, lakes and ponds should avoid those bodies of water like the plague. Don't come within 20 feet of it. If you're commuting on foot or a bike with other people, you must stop and turn around if you come across a bridge or the path comes too close to the water. And too avoid any possibility of drowning, all of these "Catholics" should move more inland and farther away from rivers and lakes. Gotcha.
I never learned how to swim and it hasn't been a problem for me yet.
And too avoid any possibility of drowning, all of these "Catholics" should move more inland and farther away from rivers and lakes. Gotcha.The end does not justify the means. If you want your child to learn to swim, then pray about it. God will not bless you if you obtain anything worldly through sinful means.
The end does not justify the means. If you want your child to learn to swim, then pray about it. God will not bless you if you obtain anything worldly through sinful means.
The end does not justify the means. If you want your child to learn to swim, then pray about it. God will not bless you if you obtain anything worldly through sinful means.
So, if I drown due to my not having learned to swim to safeguard my virtue, would that make me a martyr?By NuChurch standards, absolutely.
By NuChurch standards, absolutely.
So, if I drown due to my not having learned to swim to safeguard my virtue, would that make me a martyr?Haha. Only if Capt-Muhammad Hook-made you “walk the plank” off a boat, for being a Catholic.
Be weak.Buy modest swimsuits. They are available 🙄
Be unable to protect your child from drowning.
Don't get swimming lessons from SSPX.
It's scandalous!
Be weak.Be overly emotional.
Be unable to protect your child from drowning.
Don't get swimming lessons from SSPX.
It's scandalous!
son: "Dad, help, I fell in the river!"I feel like this emotional response is from someone we all know, and love to avoid 🙄
dad: "I can't help you son, because I don't know how to swim"
** OR **
son: "Dad, help, I fell in the lake"
dad: "I'm coming son!" (even though dad doesn't know how to swim) ... *SPLASH*
son: "Dad?...Dad!...Dad?
mother/wife: "Johny boy !!?? .... Rick !!??" .... "SOMEBODY, HELP THEM !!!!!!"
son: "Dad, help, I fell in the lake"
lots of passive emotionalism here
and puritanicals
And a bit of hyperbole on your part. One can find modest settings in which to learn how to swim.
What we have here is a classic "false dilemma".
lots of passive emotionalism here
and puritanicals
My guess would be that Boss Haug likes to go public swimming and uses the need to (learn how to) swim as rationalization for it.
Wrong guess.That’s great, and no one is condemning swim sports. What we are condemning is their less than modest attire. We don’t want our children subjected to such things.
I rarely swim.
But at the Uni, I had a swimming class, and our instructor had sprint competitions during one class. Guess what? I beat a guy and gal who were both on the Uni swimming team. And I never competitively swam in my life, nor did I swim very much before the class.
I guess it's a testament to my natural athletic performance via concentric contractions with which the Lord blessed me.
It was awesome that I beat them. Everyone including myself was surprised. The swimming team members had a dumbfounded expression, but they were gracious about it.
Standard swimming lessons are not focused on life-saving techniques. You'll know you've found the right sort of swim lessons when the instructor requires the students to enter the water in their normal attire. (If you've never seen this, yes, it does exist -- we have some of these sort of instructors around here.)I had one specific set of swimming lessons that involved the wearing of street clothes, as it were. It was called the Survival badge course.
.
If you don't plan on ever wearing a standard American bathing suit, why would you practice life-saving skills while wearing one? Better to know how to save yourself when you fall into water wearing a long skirt for the girls or pants for the boys.