Does anyone find the amount of skin exposed in the Olympics, troublesome?

[Portrait]

[quote=johnnyjones;9686374]More like same old non accountability statement. Suddenly sexy clothes or lack of clothes should have no bearing on anything. When a women ( or man) decides to wear sexy clothes they should be told, "why bother" because these sexy clothes or lack of clothes are no different than being fully clothed? Nobody believes that except the men and women who want no justify their position. The word "modesty" should be removed from the English lexicon according to some.

If the exposure of skin meant gave no stimulas to anyone, the fashion industry would not bother distinguishing styles of clothing. This culture is caught up in "revealing themselves" because they are so darn insecure believing few will like them without an alternative appeal. QUOTE]

Dear johnnyjones,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

As with your other contributions to this discussion, this is a jolly insightful post, dear friend.

It is not termed seductive style clothing for nothing and the godless fashion industry thrives upon it as do certain so called 'gentleman's clubs'. Immoderate exposure of skin is jolly big business and that not only clearly evinces that men and women are fallen beings subject to evil desire, but that modesty in attire is absolutely essential and has nothing to do with being overly prissy or 'Puritan'. Men and women need to cover up adequately or their carnal passions are likely to be aroused. That is simply the human condition as a result of the Fall and the entrance of sin into our world. St. Paul was well aware of all this, dear friend, and that is precisely why he enjoined women to dress modestly in seemly attire (I Tim. 2: 9). Moreover, it is why Holy Mother Church has always taught the necessity of modest vesture, for it knows only too well how men and women are disposed towards sin as a result of concupiscence. Sadly, many modern Catholics appear to be in some sort of denial, hence the language of non-accountability to which so many resort in these debates. The fact is that we are our brother's keeper and therefore cannot be inconsiderate or selfish when it comes to our clothing choices.

Given the immodesty and indecency with which one is confronted in public nowadays, one feels like shouting out, "Please ladies, leave something for the bedroom". Sadly, our immoral culture has lost the distinction between the public and the private. It is, dear friend, just one of those ironings-out of distinctions which mark the godless post-Christian mentality.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid input, johnny. Keep up the splendid work, dear brother.


Warmest good wishes,



Portrait



Pax

[shipwrkd]

Originally Posted by JoshuaNY

The powers that be actually required less coverage of the swimmers.
If you rememember the Beijing Olympics, most of the competitors wore LZR racing suits.
Which covered everyone from shoulder to ankle, leaving shoulders and arms bear.

The ruling bodies, decided that these suits created too much bouyancy and allowed them to swim faster. This year men are required to wear something from waist to knee, and women from shoulder to knee.

So that one aspect is not really in their control. As for Beach Volleyball, it was originally a pick up game played on the beack, people came as is. And they were wearing swimsuits, that is the uniform.

Whether they are wearing a bikini or a one piece, I dont see much of a difference.

These are top athletes from around the country, they are going to wear the uniform or equipment that will allow them to compete at their best.

And to be honest, I hadn't even thought about immodesty until I saw this thread.

This pretty well sums up the first few pages of the OP's question, then several posters seemed to have turned it into their personal crusade to fix the worlds fallen morality. Opinions are like elbows, everyone has one and they've been exhausted. Hope the moderator takes a good look at the value of continuing it. As for me, it's getting a bit pious.

[edwest2]

To be accurate, the women's volleyball players were forced to wear those skimpy outfits by the International Volleyball Federation. There was no personal choice allowed.


http://www.businessinsider.com/women...s%20Insider%29





Peace,
Ed

[WingsOfEagles]

Originally Posted by edwest2

To be accurate, the women's volleyball players were forced to wear those skimpy outfits by the International Volleyball Federation. There was no personal choice allowed.


http://www.businessinsider.com/women...s%20Insider%29





Peace,
Ed

I read somewhere that they were given options in 2012 for the Olympics.

[fix]

Originally Posted by shipwrkd

Then I guess the liquor store owner has an obligation to tear down his new electronic sign so as not to tempt me to turn in every time I pass.

This thread has hit a brick wall and the moderator should consider closing it.....

You compare a sign to the dignity of the human person?

[fix]

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

The word "modesty" should be removed from the English lexicon according to some.

Amen. It is as if Catholics have no idea what
the Church teaches.

[johnnyjones]

[quote=Portrait;9686744]

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

More like same old non accountability statement. Suddenly sexy clothes or lack of clothes should have no bearing on anything. When a women ( or man) decides to wear sexy clothes they should be told, "why bother" because these sexy clothes or lack of clothes are no different than being fully clothed? Nobody believes that except the men and women who want no justify their position. The word "modesty" should be removed from the English lexicon according to some.

If the exposure of skin meant gave no stimulas to anyone, the fashion industry would not bother distinguishing styles of clothing. This culture is caught up in "revealing themselves" because they are so darn insecure believing few will like them without an alternative appeal. QUOTE]

Dear johnnyjones,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

As with your other contributions to this discussion, this is a jolly insightful post, dear friend.

It is not termed seductive style clothing for nothing and the godless fashion industry thrives upon it as do certain so called 'gentleman's clubs'. Immoderate exposure of skin is jolly big business and that not only clearly evinces that men and women are fallen beings subject to evil desire, but that modesty in attire is absolutely essential and has nothing to do with being overly prissy or 'Puritan'. Men and women need to cover up adequately or their carnal passions are likely to be aroused. That is simply the human condition as a result of the Fall and the entrance of sin into our world. St. Paul was well aware of all this, dear friend, and that is precisely why he enjoined women to dress modestly in seemly attire (I Tim. 2: 9). Moreover, it is why Holy Mother Church has always taught the necessity of modest vesture, for it knows only too well how men and women are disposed towards sin as a result of concupiscence. Sadly, many modern Catholics appear to be in some sort of denial, hence the language of non-accountability to which so many resort in these debates. The fact is that we are our brother's keeper and therefore cannot be inconsiderate or selfish when it comes to our clothing choices.

Given the immodesty and indecency with which one is confronted in public nowadays, one feels like shouting out, "Please ladies, leave something for the bedroom". Sadly, our immoral culture has lost the distinction between the public and the private. It is, dear friend, just one of those ironings-out of distinctions which mark the godless post-Christian mentality.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid input, johnny. Keep up the splendid work, dear brother.


Warmest good wishes,



Portrait



Pax

I thank you brother for your kind words. I am shocked to see the level at which many Catholics have brushed aside what leads many further into sin.