Yes or No. In average - wives dictate the success of a marriage/husband-wife relationship.

Optimus Princeps

Woodpecker
Orthodox Catechumen
A man does not develop a preference for, say, "sexy schoolgirl outfits," (to cite one of the most common examples I've noted) because it is normal to see his mother, aunts, sisters, and women at church wearing plaid micro-mini skirts that show the bottoms of their buttcheeks and white tie-front blouses that show all of their cleavage and midriff.
A lot of us men, myself included are in the extremely hard process of overcoming lust including masterbation and pornography. We are exposed enough to women dressed immodestly everywhere we go. It really wasn't necessary to describe a woman's body in such detail, use some common sense please.
 

NotaBene

Sparrow
Protestant
use some common sense please

I think rather that you should use some common sense and avoid this whole thread, especially at the point it became apparent we were talking about the finer points of marital intimacy. I have tried not to be explicit for the sake of it, but rather for the sake of argument. But sometimes you just need an example.

No shame in just not reading the thread.

We are exposed enough to women dressed immodestly everywhere we go.

That's going to be your bigger battle. Reading a description of a sexy event does basically nothing for men anyway, our fight is with the eyes, as David pointed out thousands of years ago.
 

Optimus Princeps

Woodpecker
Orthodox Catechumen
I think rather that you should use some common sense and avoid this whole thread, especially at the point it became apparent we were talking about the finer points of marital intimacy. I have tried not to be explicit for the sake of it, but rather for the sake of argument. But sometimes you just need an example.

No shame in just not reading the thread.
It's not common sense to know that this thread, which was a good thread that I enjoyed reading, had turned to that topic. The topic itself is fine though, it was the detailed description of the "sexy schoolgirl outfit" along with what I already quoted specifically the details which definitely put an image in my mind and would of any other guy reading this. I did not comment on anything you said but that specific description by another poster. Again it's not necessary to describe it in that detail.

The thread had an innocuous title and different topic of discussion until that last page, so I'm not sure how I would've known there would be semi-pornographic descriptions. Surely if really necessary there can be another thread made with a title outlining it will be about the intricacies of female bedroom outfits, I would definitely stay away from that. :)

Not trying to start an argument whatsoever and I respect the discussion. Just was a bit bothered by reading the description is all I wanted to say. I'll abstain from any discussion further so as to not derail, as Ive enjoyed reading this thread. God bless.
 

Solitarius

Robin
Catholic
I think rather that you should use some common sense and avoid this whole thread, especially at the point it became apparent we were talking about the finer points of marital intimacy. I have tried not to be explicit for the sake of it, but rather for the sake of argument. But sometimes you just need an example.

No shame in just not reading the thread.



That's going to be your bigger battle. Reading a description of a sexy event does basically nothing for men anyway, our fight is with the eyes, as David pointed out thousands of years ago.


St. Alphonsus Liguori warns Impurity is the widest door to hell​


August 3, 2020 ~ Restaurar en Cristo


IMPURITY DOOR TO HELL




Hell’s Widest Gate: Impurity

We have now, lastly, to speak of the fourth gate of hell, which is impurity [sexual sins], and it is by this gate that the greater number of the damned enter. Some will say that it is a trifling sin. Is it a trifling sin? It is a mortal sin. St. Antoninus writes, that such is the nauseousness of this sin; that the devils themselves cannot endure it. Moreover, the Doctors of the Church say that certain demons, who have been superior to the rest, remembering their ancient dignity, disdain tempting to so loathsome a sin. Consider then how disgusting he must be to God, who, like a dog, is ever returning to his vomit, or wallowing like a pig in the stinking mire of this accursed vice. The dog is returned to his vomit; and the sow that was washed, to her rolling in the mire (2 Peter, ii. 22).
The impure say, moreover, God has compassion on us who are subject to this vice, because he knows that we are flesh. What do you say? God has compassion on this vice. But you must know that the most horrible chastisements with which God has ever visited the eartlh have been drawn down by this vice. St. Jerome says that this is the only sin of which we read that it caused God to repent him of having made man. It repented Him that had made man; . . . for all flesh had corrupted its way (Gen. vi. 6-12). Wherefore it is, St. Jerome says, that there is no sin which God punishes so rigorously, even upon earth, as this. He once sent fire from heaven upon five cities, and consumed all their inhabitants for this sin. Principally on account of this sin did God destroy mankind, with the exception of eight persons, by the deluge. It is a sin which God punishes, not only in the other life, but in this also. In confirmation of this, you have only to enter the hospitals, and see there the many poor young men, who were once strong and robust, but are now weak, squalid, full of pains, tormented with lancets and caustic, and ulcers, all through this accursed vice. Because thou hast forgotten Me and cast Me off behind My back, bear thou also thy wickedness and thy fornications? Because, says God, you have forgotten me and turned your back upon me, for a miserable pleasure of the flesh, I am resolved that even in this life you shall pay the forfeit of your wickedness.
You say, God has compassion upon men subject to this sin. But it is this sin that sends most men to hell. St Remigius says, that the greater number of the damned are in hell through this vice. Father Segneri writes, that as this vice fills the world with sinners, so it fills hell with damned souls; and before him St. Bernardine of Sienna wrote: “This sin draws the whole world, as it were, into sin.” And before him St. Bernard, St. Isidore, said, that “the human race is brought under the power of the devil more by lust than by all the other vices.” The reason is, because this vice proceeds from the natural inclination of the flesh. Hence the angelic Doctor says, that the devil does not take such complacency in securing the commission of any other sin as of this, because the person who is plunged in this infernal mire remains fast therein, and almost wholly unable to free himself more. “No one is so obstinate in sin as the impure,” says St. Thomas of Villanova. Moreover, this vice deprives one of all light, for the impure man becomes so blind as almost wholly to forget God, says St. Laurence Justinian; which is in accordance with what is said by the prophet Osee: They will not set their thoughts to return to their God; for the spirit of fornication is in the midst of them, and they have not known God? The impure man knows not God; he obeys neither God nor reason, as St. Jerome says; he obeys ony the sensual appetite which causes him to act the beast.”
This sin, because it flatters, makes us fall at once into the habit of it, a habit which some carry with them even to death. You see husbands, and decrepit old men, in dulge in the same thoughts and committing the same sins that they committed in their youth. And because sins of this kind are so easily committed, they become multiplied without number. Ask of the sinner how many impure thoughts he has consented to: he will tell you he cannot remember. But, brother, if you cannot tell the number, God can; and you know that a single immodest thought is enough to send you to hell. How many immodest words have you spoken, in which you took delight yourself, and by which you scandalized your neighbor? From thoughts and words you proceed to acts, and to those innumerable impurities which those wretches roll and wallow in like swine, without ever being satisfied, for this vice is never satisfied. But, Father, you will say, how can I hold out against the innumerable temptations which assail me ? I am weak, I am flesh. And since you are weak, why not recommend yourself to God, and to most holy Mary, who is the mother of purity? Since you are flesh, why do you throw yourself in the way of sin? Why do you not mortify your eyes? Why do you gaze upon those objects whence temptations flow? St. Aloysius never raised his eyes to look even upon his mother.
It is to be remarked, moreover, that this sin brings with it innumerable others: enmities, thefts, and, more especially, sacrilegious confessions and Communions, by reason of the shame which will not allow these impurities to be disclosed in confession. And let us remark here in passing, that it is sacrilege above all things, that brings upon us sickness and death; for, says the Apostle, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord; and then he adds: therefore are many infirm and weak among you. And St. John Chrysostom, in explanation of that passage, says that St. Paul speaks of persons who were chastised with bodily infirmities, because they received the sacrament with a guilty conscience.
My brethren, should you ever have been sunk in this vice, I do not bid you be disheartened, but arise at once from this foul and infernal pit; beg of God forthwith to give you light, and stretch out His hand to you. The first thing that you have to do is to break with the occasion of sin: without that, preaching and tears and resolutions and confessions, all are lost. Remove the occasions, and then constantly recommend yourself to God, and to Mary the mother of purity. No matter how grievously you may be tempted, do not be discouraged by the temptation; at once call to your aid Jesus and Mary, pronouncing their sacred names. These blessed names have the virtue of making the devil fly, and stifling that hellish flame within you. If the devil persist in tempting you, persevere in calling upon Jesus and Mary, and certainly you shall not fall. In order to rid yourself of your evil habits, undertake some special devotion to our Lady; begin to fast in her honor upon Saturdays; contrive to visit her image every day, and beg of her to obtain for you deliverance from that vice. Every morning immediately after rising, never omit saying three ” Hail Marys” in honor of her purity and do the same when going to bed; and above all things, as I have said, when the temptation is most troublesome, call quickly upon Jesus and Mary. Be ware, brother, if you do not be converted now, you may never be converted.
Act of Contrition: O my God, I am heartly sorry for having offended Thee; and I detest all of my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen. "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesian 5:3-5. To even speak of such things is an offence to the Most High.
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
A lot of us men, myself included are in the extremely hard process of overcoming lust including masterbation and pornography. We are exposed enough to women dressed immodestly everywhere we go. It really wasn't necessary to describe a woman's body in such detail, use some common sense please.
I didn't describe a woman's body in detail. I described a costume.

(Try picturing it on Lena Dunham instead of whichever body your mind described to you. Her body has all those same features referenced. You're welcome.)

If you can't handle reading words like "buttcheeks," "midriff," and "cleavage," without falling into sin, then I humbly recommend avoiding all discussion relating to modesty of dress, especially between and among women.

My sense IS common. Your sensitivity is not.

Censorship to appease extreme disorder would impede my efforts to communicate my perspective to the women who might benefit from it.
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
It's not common sense to know that this thread, which was a good thread that I enjoyed reading, had turned to that topic. The topic itself is fine though, it was the detailed description of the "sexy schoolgirl outfit" along with what I already quoted specifically the details which definitely put an image in my mind and would of any other guy reading this. I did not comment on anything you said but that specific description by another poster. Again it's not necessary to describe it in that detail.

The thread had an innocuous title and different topic of discussion until that last page, so I'm not sure how I would've known there would be semi-pornographic descriptions. Surely if really necessary there can be another thread made with a title outlining it will be about the intricacies of female bedroom outfits, I would definitely stay away from that. :)

Not trying to start an argument whatsoever and I respect the discussion. Just was a bit bothered by reading the description is all I wanted to say. I'll abstain from any discussion further so as to not derail, as Ive enjoyed reading this thread. God bless.

You can ask for prayers too. I will pray for you.
 

NotaBene

Sparrow
Protestant
Not trying to start an argument whatsoever and I respect the discussion. Just was a bit bothered by reading the description is all I wanted to say.

Fair enough. For my part, not trying to be a stumbling block to anyone. Internet forums are weird, you can imagine in person we could all be a lot more sensitive in discussing certain topics when randos walk up and join the conversation.

Words of wisdom...

I post in topics that interest me, and that I have something to add to, like the homeschool thread. Only reason I've been posting here a ton is because there's more people responding, and I have something to respond to (like your veiled accusation there).

If you doubt my intentions, I've made it clear that I'm happily married and care most about the men these ladies are married to. Every wife that reads this stuff and "gets it" means a happier husband somewhere. I'll certainly bow out of this thread if it's inappropriate for me to post here.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
It's not common sense to know that this thread, which was a good thread that I enjoyed reading, had turned to that topic. The topic itself is fine though, it was the detailed description of the "sexy schoolgirl outfit" along with what I already quoted specifically the details which definitely put an image in my mind and would of any other guy reading this. I did not comment on anything you said but that specific description by another poster. Again it's not necessary to describe it in that detail.
I was having a conversation with a friend recently about how "your mom" jokes are so offensive because when someone says "your mom did [X]," many people can't help but get at least a brief image in their mind of their mom doing X.

This is also why -- among other reasons, of course -- it is bad to joke or talk lightly about pedophilia, rape, and other such things (graphically, at least. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing those topics absent graphic or semi-graphic descriptions).

---

That being said, it is somewhat telling that this forum contains much semi-graphic description of sexual situations, and yet the one that got "called out" was specifically the description of the "sexy outfit" (as opposed to any of the descriptions of more "normal" sexual situations elsewhere on the forum).

I think this demonstrated the point the woman you were responding to was trying to make.

At first I was like "what's so bad about the word 'butt cheeks'?" Then I realized it was not necessarily the description of the body that was being "called out," but the description of the outfit.

---

Also, it was not mentioned, although it seems obvious to me, that part of the appeal of the "school girl" thing is the fantasy of defiling a virgin Catholic girl; turning her "bad" and away from God.

Just think of the Billy Joel song "Only the Good Die Young" (and actually pay attention to the lyrics).
 
Last edited:

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
At first I was like "what's so bad about the word 'butt cheeks'?" Then I realized it was not necessarily the description of the body that was being "called out," but the description of the outfit.
Yes, this DOES demonstrate precisely why I think that such outfits are problematic, period.

A man who sees such an outfit on his wife for the first time and has a "hubba hubba aooooga" moment because it caters to his particular taste - is drawing from his existing association of that imagery with arousal. Drawing upon an excitement that was established in and reinforced by indecency, and bringing that into the marriage to "spice things up."

How does one indulge in such imagery in any context, without calling up the memories and visuals of the imagery that encouraged the predisposition in the first place? The association will be triggered whether you like it or not.

"It's different now because it's with my wife" does not apply to everything.

I suspect that in many cases, marriages would benefit more from both parties prayerfully and deliberately making an effort to restore and maintain their sensitivity to the natural, "boring" state of nakedness, than pursuing as much "spicing up" as they can justify to compensate for their desensitization.

"Spicing things up" is a device created and employed for the specific purpose of undermining marital intimacy by way of introducing indecent and lust-centric elements of arousal to the marital union.
 

NotaBene

Sparrow
Protestant
Then I realized it was not necessarily the description of the body that was being "called out," but the description of the outfit.

Very good point, I thought of that too and even edited my last post, but then figured I'd let it go, heh.

This actually helps my point from way back - that nudity is often less attractive than an outfit designed to be "sexy". No one got offended about naked people jumping out of closets!

But whereas some people are condemning the clothing/outfit itself on that basis, I'm saying clothing is just a tool that can be used for good or bad. I'm asking Christian wives to dress for their husband's preferences instead of dressing to impress men outside the marriage. I believe "tempting" your spouse in a sexual way (even with clothing) is a good thing, or at the very least there is nothing sinful in it!

"Spicing things up" is a device created and employed for the specific purpose of undermining marital intimacy

I disagree because my wife dressing to my preference, and with the intent of arousal, does not undermine our intimacy but helps it.
 

christie2

Robin
Woman
Orthodox
Yes, this DOES demonstrate precisely why I think that such outfits are problematic, period.

A man who sees such an outfit on his wife for the first time and has a "hubba hubba aooooga" moment because it caters to his particular taste - is drawing from his existing association of that imagery with arousal. Drawing upon an excitement that was established in and reinforced by indecency, and bringing that into the marriage to "spice things up."

How does one indulge in such imagery in any context, without calling up the memories and visuals of the imagery that encouraged the predisposition in the first place? The association will be triggered whether you like it or not.

"It's different now because it's with my wife" does not apply to everything.

I suspect that in many cases, marriages would benefit more from both parties prayerfully and deliberately making an effort to restore and maintain their sensitivity to the natural, "boring" state of nakedness, than pursuing as much "spicing up" as they can justify to compensate for their desensitization.

"Spicing things up" is a device created and employed for the specific purpose of undermining marital intimacy by way of introducing indecent and lust-centric elements of arousal to the marital union.
Excellent the way you worded this
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
I'm asking Christian wives to dress for their husband's preferences instead of dressing to impress men outside the marriage.
FWIW, I never dress to impress anyone but my husband. For that matter, I hardly ever go out in public unless my husband is with me.

But in a world where even most Christian men have had their preferences influenced by the hyper-sexualized imagery of the modern world, most often including pornography, dressing to a man's established preference WILL OFTEN trigger memories and associations of pornographic imagery.

That is not something good to bring into a marriage.
 

NotaBene

Sparrow
Protestant
is drawing from his existing association of that imagery with arousal.
But in a world where even most Christian men have had their preferences influenced by the hyper-sexualized imagery of the modern world, most often including pornography, dressing to a man's established preference WILL OFTEN trigger memories and associations of pornographic imagery.

I do see your issue here, and I'm not sure how to respond. I'm trying to reverse the genders and think of an example and see if it works or not.

I think your root objection is that a wife in certain clothing could be a stumbling block to her own husband because it brought up sinful, lustful images from the past. Is this correct? Like me waving a bottle of beer in front of a former alcoholic?
 

Kitty Tantrum

Kingfisher
Woman
Catholic
To put it a little differently:

If the average woman who wears the overtly hyper-sexualized costume to "spice things up" in the bedroom with her average husband, could ACTUALLY SEE all of the flashes of images and videos that are called up from past memory inside his mind, which serve to enhance the "excitement" of the moment...

If a little slide-show titled "Here's Why He Likes This So Much!" started playing before her eyes...

All genuine intimacy of the moment would be shattered, and she would be devastated.

And HE would be too mortified and too embarrassed to maintain arousal.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Yes, this DOES demonstrate precisely why I think that such outfits are problematic, period.

A man who sees such an outfit on his wife for the first time and has a "hubba hubba aooooga" moment because it caters to his particular taste - is drawing from his existing association of that imagery with arousal. Drawing upon an excitement that was established in and reinforced by indecency, and bringing that into the marriage to "spice things up."

How does one indulge in such imagery in any context, without calling up the memories and visuals of the imagery that encouraged the predisposition in the first place? The association will be triggered whether you like it or not.

"It's different now because it's with my wife" does not apply to everything.

I suspect that in many cases, marriages would benefit more from both parties prayerfully and deliberately making an effort to restore and maintain their sensitivity to the natural, "boring" state of nakedness, than pursuing as much "spicing up" as they can justify to compensate for their desensitization.

"Spicing things up" is a device created and employed for the specific purpose of undermining marital intimacy by way of introducing indecent and lust-centric elements of arousal to the marital union.
I could be wrong, but I kinda think it is wrong/weird for a man to use any memoeies of past sexuak experiences with other women (be they hookups, porn, skimpy women on the street, whatever) as "fuel for arousal" (presumably because his wife alone is not enough).

I get that a man can't just will himself to control all his thoughts (especially during "intimate" moments). But he should't indulge this either.

Imagine if your husband asked you to wear a specific (very modest) dress, and then you found out -- or, alternatively, he straight-up todl you -- that he likes it because it is the same style his ex used to wear.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I think your root objection is that a wife in certain clothing could be a stumbling block to her own husband because it brought up sinful, lustful images from the past. Is this correct? Like me waving a bottle of beer in front of a former alcoholic?
Lust and degeneracy are bad, no matter who you are. Not only for "former players/fornicators" or whatever.
 

NotaBene

Sparrow
Protestant
I could be wrong, but I kinda think it is wrong/weird for a man to use any memoeies of past sexuak experiences with other women

I totally agree. I think what @Kitty Tantrum is getting at is that this applies to nearly every man who finds his wife attractive in certain outfits. He must like that because he saw it on some other woman, and therefore it's wrong.

Not projecting here, that's how I'm understanding her position at this time.

Lust and degeneracy are bad, no matter who you are.

I agree, but in my example beer is not the problem, it's how I'm using it that matters. See my point?
 
Top