Is immodest clothing worn by women (in public) a form of sexual harassment?

Amata

Chicken
Woman
Orthodox Inquirer
Am I missing something here? It sounds like these guys are PROMOTING prostitution.
I think those quotes need to be read in the full context of the writings in which they appear. Tbh I've not read the full text of the Aquinas quote, but I think Aquinas sees it as not ideal, and rather as a necessity evil although something which would be better gone if possible. Someone who has read the full passage of this quote could maybe expand on this perhaps?
 

BasilSeal

Woodpecker
Catholic
Gold Member
The misquotation above attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas is more Internet fabrication than fact. The closest quote comes from De Regimine Principum. However, I believe it shows up in one of the later books in the work. As a whole, only some of the work is attributed to Aquinas. In other words, someone is being fast and loose with facts to push some agenda.

I think it is widely understood that this portion of the work was not his writing, because the later books refer to events that did not occur within Aquinas' lifetime. If you read all of Summa Theologica, a much more representative work, looking for his racey bits on prostitutes you will be rather disappointed.
 
Last edited:

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Am I missing something here? It sounds like these guys are PROMOTING prostitution.
Prostitution has been called "the oldest profession in the world" and it occurs in every society, new and old, throughout history.
We are lustful creatures, and this very forum used to be a den of iniquity.

What Augustine and Aquinas were arguing for is keeping this lust confined to a clearly labeled lustful place, out of the eyes of the common man, families, and the public square. Today, If I visit my gym, I see women dressed more provocatively and closer to a state of nakedness than any streetwalker I have ever seen. This is pure sexual harassment at best but at worst it tempts men who were not seeking sexual fornication to sin, if by masturbation if nothing else.

It's a question of tolerating or accepting such lustful and immoral dress in the public square or not. I think these men are simply acknowledging the fact that we are sexual creatures, and indeed that drive is a strong one, that leads many to sin. They are accepting the practicality that recreational sex does occur, and can never be eliminated. However, we can restrict and minimize it by keeping it in brothels instead of in our gyms, schools, malls, and public square.

After all, when we see an immodestly dressed woman, we describe her as "dressed like a prostitute" because we inherently know where she belongs. By accepting whoredom in the public square, we bring a filth over our entire society, and end up with something like a 60% divorce rate and majority of kids born as bastards out of wedlock. Of course, these men are not saying it's fine to visit brothels; if you think they are then you need to read their full writings in context.
 

Bitter End

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Would you consider teasing a hungry animal with a steak that you don’t intend to feed it harassment?
I usually use the same analogy. Like a poor kid looking at an ice-cream stand from outside, more than anything. Let's not forget that the modern male is a domesticated animal.

Since I've been trying to control my passions, women everywhere walking around practically naked has become a big issue for me. It magnetically draws my eye. How do orthodox people deal with this? Any tips? PLEASE!
This brings me to the key point about yoga pants and the very little they leave to the imagination. This could only happen to a society so numbed by porn that the oversexualization does not even register anymore. This is why it is only the high testosterone diverse "vibrants" that still shout and catcall women, along with the endangered species of construction workers. : )

I believe I am doing better than many people at controlling my lust and channeling it into meaningful endeavors, but it only takes a second of your day. From a biological standpoint, men were never meant to have blood flowing to the brain and to the lower areas at the same time. It is absolutely mechanical and visual, as previously discussed. It is one of the most ancient and primal triggers to a mammal, we are talking billions of years here, against a measly social misconception that started decades ago. What more do we need to say?

I still visit the gym but the attire is simply preposterous, at some point I think I would see less if the women were walking around naked, because at least it won't overemphasize their figures as much.
 
Last edited:

BasilSeal

Woodpecker
Catholic
Gold Member
My own interpretation of these quotes is that, if you believe that you will cure a vice by removing temptation alone, then don't be surprised if you see that it is simply replaced with different temptations or worse vice. The real road to salvation of man leads elsewhere.
 

Argus101

Robin
Protestant
The thing that annoys me the most about such women at the gym is not their clothing (since I ignore it), but rather that it is usually these same ones that sit around blocking the equipment, while taking 20 pictures of themselves for IG. I've even seen them literally sitting on the equipment, with their feet up, while talking on the phones.
This is why we need separate gyms for males and females (and separate schools, too, while we're at it) since too many women aren't really
serious about getting into good physical condition (or studying serious subjects) because they value group harmony and friendships above
individual achievement. (Hence their endless chatting on their phones everywhere.) It's no coincidence that as more women gained power in the education bureaucracy, more schools started handing out trophies not for winning something but for "participation." We mustn't hurt the feelings of the losers!
 

BLMeToo

Robin
Catholic
I agree it's sexual harassment. And the fact that fashion standards have become quickly immoral was foretold by Our Lady of Fatima.

Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.

It's a sign of the times that women are numb to the spiritual damage they do to men by mindlessly embracing modern fashion.
 

earam8778

 
Banned
Catholic
Prostitution has been called "the oldest profession in the world" and it occurs in every society, new and old, throughout history.
We are lustful creatures, and this very forum used to be a den of iniquity.

What Augustine and Aquinas were arguing for is keeping this lust confined to a clearly labeled lustful place, out of the eyes of the common man, families, and the public square. Today, If I visit my gym, I see women dressed more provocatively and closer to a state of nakedness than any streetwalker I have ever seen. This is pure sexual harassment at best but at worst it tempts men who were not seeking sexual fornication to sin, if by masturbation if nothing else.

It's a question of tolerating or accepting such lustful and immoral dress in the public square or not. I think these men are simply acknowledging the fact that we are sexual creatures, and indeed that drive is a strong one, that leads many to sin. They are accepting the practicality that recreational sex does occur, and can never be eliminated. However, we can restrict and minimize it by keeping it in brothels instead of in our gyms, schools, malls, and public square.

After all, when we see an immodestly dressed woman, we describe her as "dressed like a prostitute" because we inherently know where she belongs. By accepting whoredom in the public square, we bring a filth over our entire society, and end up with something like a 60% divorce rate and majority of kids born as bastards out of wedlock. Of course, these men are not saying it's fine to visit brothels; if you think they are then you need to read their full writings in context.
You answered the question probably better than I could. :like: I am not promoting prostitution by any matter, but the truth of the matter is that prostitution is a social evil that was accepted for many years, in highly religious and moral civilizations. I doubt we know better than our forefathers. Like you mention here, women are trapping men with their social media post, and in their public demonstrations which lead men to lustful acts. This is why simping has become popular among men. Most men are not having sex, and because the average male does not have an outlet they are stuck watching endless e-girls or porn. You get rid of a public space for prostitution and lust becomes widespread, women wear whatever they want, whenever they want. Prostitution isn't ideal(it's sinful), but it might be a necessary evil for society.
Again sin is sin, but I much rather prefer men to visit a brothel once or twice a year rather than masturbate every day, like we have it today. Men are in a fallen state and we have to fight our most primitive instincts.
 
Last edited:

BasilSeal

Woodpecker
Catholic
Gold Member
Well, this is essentially an argument in favor of moral relativism that you're attempting to make. We do know better than our forefathers. We have one single father from which we gain all of this wisdom, and so we have all the information we need in some of the earliest precepts of a Christian life. This is the Truth "of the matter".

Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
I'm not sure Aquinas and Augustine would use the words "necessary evil."
But we are imperfect sinners by nature.
It's more a question of how do you handle a certain problem and minimize sinfulness.
The church historically viewed prostitution as a lesser sin than masturbation.

I've never met a man who had not masturbated. If your goal as a church father and leader in a society is to reduce the sinfulness of your flock, how do you handle the lustful sexual urges, particularly of young single men? Well the best way is to have them marry wives sooner rather than later.

But not every man will do that. So what else can you do? Confine the outlet of these desires to a small number of prostitutes in an explicitly labeled whorehouse. By limiting the number of women to a smaller number of full time prostitutes, instead of a society of 10 million casual teenage sluts, you are lessoning the sinning. You are also confining it to a place where only men who choose to sin by doing fornication are going to see it, instead of it being pushed in your face everywhere you go, which causes untold number of men to commit countless sins of masturbation, which the church sees as a graver sin.

I suppose you could virtue signal and just claim that everyone everywhere in the whole society should never ever have a lustful thought or pleasure themselves, and while that is the goal that is a rather ridiculous policy to implement; I have yet to see a better system for minimizing sexual sin. Remember, masturbation is far more common than prostitution today.

In each kind of thing the worst corruption is the corruption of the principle on which other things depend. Now the principles of reason are the things in accord in nature… and therefore, to act against what is determined by nature, is most serious and base. Therefore since in the sins against nature man transgress what is determined by nature in regard to sex, the sin in this matter is the gravest kind of sin. After this is incest… while by the other species of lust one transgresses only that which is determined according to right reason, but presupposing the natural principles. But it is more contrary to reason to have sex not only contrary to the good of the offspring to be born, but also with injury to another. And therefore simple fornication, which is committed without injury to another person, is the least kind of lust.
Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 154, a. 12
Aquinas is talking about different kinds of sins; a sinful act can fall among multiple categories. Masturbation is both a sexual sin, and an unnatural sin (as sex is created by God to be between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation). Prostitution is also a sexual sin, but is not unnatural, and is a lesser sin. Lesser does not mean it is ok to do. But obviously there are degrees of sin, with murder and blasphemy being among the worst, and telling a lie is not as bad as killing someone.

One of the best ways of understanding an argument is to play devils advocate and look at the reverse position: If you wanted to maximize sexual sin, would you not create a society where single life is the norm, sex before marriage is tolerated and practically expected, marriage ages are pushed to the 30s and beyond, divorce is common and easy, and sexualization and nudity is everywhere? Seems like the perfect system for creating mass sexual sinning.

The goal of Aquinas and Augustine is to recognize one can tolerate certain evils for the purpose of avoiding larger ones, acknowledging that perfection is impossible on earth. That is entirely different from accepting sinful behavior.

Think of it another way. Instead of focusing on the evil of the brothel, think of all the good and holy spaces it creates in the entire society, by concentrating the lustfulness to this one building. Think of the churches, schools, plazas, malls, parks, if they are free from sexual sin. The goal is not to tolerate the bad; the goal is the greater good for the rest of society, acknowledging that some amount of sexual sin (or crime, or lying, etc.) is unavoidable for man, who is a fallen sinner.

It's also easy to discount casual sexual things as "not wrong" where on the other hand it is obviously an intentional act of sin to visit a whorehouse. But someone watching, say, a rated R movie with bare breasts, is totally accepted in our society, much less things like the Netflix Cuties programs and all sorts of other degenerate propaganda. Sexuality everywhere causes men to sin through lustfulness and masturbation daily, while prostitution was viewed as an infrequent release valve that was restricted to a specific time and place.
 

earam8778

 
Banned
Catholic
Well, this is essentially an argument in favor of moral relativism that you're attempting to make. We do know better than our forefathers. We have one single father from which we gain all of this wisdom, and so we have all the information we need in some of the earliest precepts of a Christian life. This is the Truth "of the matter".

Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
I don't understand how i'm making the argument for moral relativism. Either your being dishonest or you have not read both my post and Max Roscoe posts. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, just like any other lustful thoughts and acts. Sex should only be done within the boundaries of marriage and to procreate children. But we're talking about the general public here, and I'm sorry for the sad news here but men will have sexual urges, so how do you fix that? Because all I see today is like Max said," 10 million casual sluts", and a generation of bug men who watch porn and masturbate everyday.
Our forefathers must have been onto something when they were able to build families, and functional and effective societies.
 

BasilSeal

Woodpecker
Catholic
Gold Member
I am certainly not being dishonest. I am also not necessarily on board with the suggested solutions... which is so accept or at least prefer compromise sins that are deemed better, as if the final act itself was the only act of sin, and not the decision and thoughts that led to it.

Aquinas' point that fornication is seemingly "less worse" is because it is in accordance with the order of nature... It is not injurous to others and may lead to offspring. Do you expect then that these men, who seemingly have no recourse but fornication expect that they could conceive a child? That they or the prostitute together are not on birth control? That she would not potentially have an abortion if she did and so, that he would not be a party to that as well? Whatever order of nature made this less worse does not seem so to me.

But the point is not whether it is a grave sin or not. It is. Aquinas is not ordering sins by degrees of sinfulness but by what form of offense they take, against justice, against chastity, and so on. It is a philosophical text. The real question is not how to address the act, but how to address the fundamental sin, which is lust.

So, if you want to help men (general public or otherwise, we are all children of God) that is the obstacle before you.
 
Last edited:

Veemerk

Pigeon
Woman
Protestant
Yes, immodest clothing worn by women in public is a form of visual sexual harassment.

Besides hurting other males and females by exposing body parts, the children are being hurt. Children should not be in the presence of partially worn clothing on any level. Females should not dress immodestly and especially not in kid friendly places. Women who do this are unwell.
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Yes, immodest clothing worn by women in public is a form of visual sexual harassment.

Besides hurting other males and females by exposing body parts, the children are being hurt. Children should not be in the presence of partially worn clothing on any level. Females should not dress immodestly and especially not in kid friendly places. Women who do this are unwell.
I don’t think children are effected much by how women dress. Maybe on a subconscious level getting used to accepting it as normal but they have no sexual thoughts.
 

Jive Turkey

Woodpecker
Orthodox Catechumen
Since I've been trying to control my passions, women everywhere walking around practically naked has become a big issue for me. It magnetically draws my eye. How do orthodox people deal with this? Any tips? PLEASE!
Just look less and pray more. Lust comes and goes in waves for me. Working a lot helps too. Try to go above and beyond. A priest explained the sex drive as creative energy to me. So the goal is to crush it at work and I will be less lustful in my off time. So far, Glory to God, this thesis has been accurate.
 

Starlight

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
Well, this is essentially an argument in favor of moral relativism that you're attempting to make. We do know better than our forefathers. We have one single father from which we gain all of this wisdom, and so we have all the information we need in some of the earliest precepts of a Christian life. This is the Truth "of the matter".

Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
I agree. The end doesn’t justify the means, imo. This creates the opportunity to rationalize anything. It’s the same rhetoric as those who endorse abortion, porn, recreational drug use, and other such sins/vices use. I don’t see how allowing prostitution would alleviate *any* of our current state of Gomorrah problems but just add to it. Allow prostitution and there will just be more prostitutes… Somehow going from cam-girls to actual whores is an improvement? Because that is what would happen in real life. And I’m surprised to see some here willingly condemn a portion of the population to a life of sin “for the greater good.”
 
Last edited:

Starlight

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
Instead of focusing on the evil of the brothel, think of all the good and holy spaces it creates in the entire society, by concentrating the lustfulness to this one building.
“Think of all the good one evil place can make.”
 
Top