Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

[S.O.J.I.A.]

The neck is sexually stimulated to a similar degree

never heard of someone being turned on by another person's neck..

 

[blackhole]

never heard of someone being turned on by another person's neck..

You misunderstood. Sexually stimulated: the person receiving touch, during sex, is highly aroused.

 

[bekkilyn]

So, my point is, included, why did Jacob love his Rachel but not his wife Leah?

Possibly, it was because Rachel was so beautiful and Leah wasn't. Even if it is ok to enjoy her beauty, it would be wrong to discriminate by loving only the beautiful wife, I can see. In any case, the LORD did not approve of Jacob's reason for loving only Rachel!!!

So, what do you think?

Look at how these marriages took place. Jacob fell in love with Rachel and wanted to marry her, worked seven years for her, only to be told by her father than he had to marry her sister Leah first and then he could marry Rachel. So basically he was forced to work for seven years for a woman he never loved just so he could marry the woman he loved and wanted in the first place. Leah was never more to him than a tool for getting what he really wanted.

It's possible that Jacob may have originally made his decision based on something as superficial as outer beauty, but after working for 14 years to marry Rachel, seems like the superficial reason would have been replaced by something much deeper by then.

Poor Leah was treated unfairly by this whole ridiculous thing, so it's no wonder that the Lord would reward her in some way.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

SoS also paints many other body parts as instruments for sexual pleasure.

rather, they point to those other parts as being physically attractive features. a woman's nose isn't really an instrument for sexual pleasure.

 

[blackhole]

rather, they point to those other parts as being physically attractive features. a woman's nose isn't really an instrument for sexual pleasure.

I'll argue as-if I accept your position.

A woman's nose is a physically attractive feature.
A woman's breasts may or may not be; that's irrelevant to your argument. But, they are for sexual pleasure.

I'm not defending the idea that men should be allowed to caress women's breasts, I'm defending women's rights to go topless. The former relates to sexual pleasure, the latter to physical attractiveness.

Therefore, I have no problem with assuming this part of your argument to be true.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You misunderstood. Sexually stimulated: the person receiving touch, during sex, is highly aroused.

i knew what you were talking about. my point is the neck is not used as an instrument for sexual pleasure, even if it can be seen as a physically attractive feature, similar to a woman's eyes.

 

[blackhole]

i knew what you were talking about. my point is the neck is not used as an instrument for sexual pleasure, even if it can be seen as a physically attractive feature, similar to woman's eyes.

Your view is simply contrary to the research I referenced. Do you have any hard data to support your claim?

Please review the source I gave.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I'm not defending the idea that men should be allowed to caress women's breasts, I'm defending women's rights to go topless. The former relates to sexual pleasure, the latter to physical attractiveness.

this argument could be used to allow men to have their penis' out in public.

Your view is simply contrary to the research I referenced.

you're talking about where you can receive sexual pleasure and i'm talking about what provides sexual pleasure.

 

[blackhole]

this argument could be used to allow men to have their penis' out in public.


you're talking about where you can receive sexual pleasure and i'm talking about what provides sexual pleasure.

1) Correct. I believe exposed genitals isn't about sexual lust, but about shame. In order words: if you want to have your penis out and make a fool of yourself, go ahead. It's like, but much more severe than, a woman having short hair.

2) A man receives sexual pleasure from caressing breasts, but not from caressing anything else (excluding genitals)?... In some cultures, breast fondling makes up very little of the time spent during sex.

 

[blackhole]

There is a flaw in your premise!

2. And you are asserting a positive: "I believe that Scripture cannot be used to defend the West's viewpoint that it's sinful for women to be publicly topless."

3. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with you to prove your position.

2) That's (positively) asserting a negative. The only way to prove it is to literally quote the entire Bible to you. I can't do that; I can't prove a negative.

Sure though, I should have worded things differently.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

@blackhole
it think a better way to look at this, if we're going to determine If scripture has anything to say on the matter, is to determine how scripture views nakedness and whether or not a woman going out topless is a form of nakedness.

scripture sees public nakedness as shameful. are we going to say that a woman going out with no top is not her being naked? if it is, wouldn't this be shameful?

we can't use cultural norms for this as going by cultural standards can potentially justify any action as cultural norms are malleable.

 

[com7fy8]

He was bound to Leah, therefore he had a duty to love her regardless of her appearance.

But in relation to your saying women need to have their rights respected more > you say, I think you mean, how we should not discriminate against a woman because of her gender. How about if it is ok to treat women differently because of how beautiful they are or aren't?

 

[blackhole]

@blackhole
it think a better way to look at this, if we're going to determine If scripture has anything to say on the matter, is to determine how scripture views nakedness and whether or not a woman going out topless is a form of nakedness.

scripture sees public nakedness as shameful. are we going to say that a woman going out with no top is not her being naked? if it is, wouldn't this be shameful?

we can't use cultural norms for this as going by cultural standards can potentially justify any action as cultural norms are malleable.

Gen 3 shows that Adam and Eve felt shame after eating. In response to the shame of their nakedness, they covered their bottoms; they did not cover their tops.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Gen 3 shows that Adam and Eve felt shame after eating. In response to the shame of their nakedness, they covered their bottoms; they did not cover their tops.

its says they sowed fig leaves together and covered themselves. later the LORD gave them tunics of skin to wear. where do you see where tops were not covered?

 

[blackhole]

its says they sowed fig leaves together and covered themselves. later the LORD gave them tunics of skin to wear. where do you see where tops were not covered?

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

H2290
חֲגֹרָה חֲגוֹרָה חֲגֹר חֲגוֹר
chăgôr chăgôr chăgôrâh chăgôrâh
(1,2) khag-ore', (3,4) khag-o-raw'
From H2296; a belt (for the waist): - apron, armour, gird (-le).
Total KJV occurrences: 7

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

H2290
חֲגֹרָה חֲגוֹרָה חֲגֹר חֲגוֹר
chăgôr chăgôr chăgôrâh chăgôrâh
(1,2) khag-ore', (3,4) khag-o-raw'
From H2296; a belt (for the waist): - apron, armour, gird (-le).
Total KJV occurrences: 7

an apron can cover the top, bottom, or both depending on how you make it so nothing conclusive here. this doesn't deal with what the LORD gave them after that either.

 

[blackhole]

an apron can cover the top, bottom, or both depending on how you make it so nothing conclusive here. this doesn't deal with what the LORD gave them after that either.

Your interpretation requires that men and women cover the same area, because they both made aprons for themselves. That means midriff and chest most be concealed, and by both genders.

Do you want to go that route?

Apron is the English translation; I gave the strongs definition for the Hebrew word.

God later clothed them further. At that point however, they were no longer shamefully naked it; they dealt with that via their "apron."

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

God later clothed them further. At that point however, they were no longer shamefully naked it

if they were sufficiently covered then the LORD wouldn't have clothed them further(that takes care of the backside issue). what you saw earlier were two people desperately trying to cover themselves as best they could due to their shame.

you seem to have conceded that their tops were indeed covered.

Do you want to go that route?

no, and neither does scripture

2 samuel 10:3-5
Isaiah 20:3-4

 

[blackhole]

if they were sufficiently covered then the LORD wouldn't have clothed them further(that takes care of the backside issue). what you saw earlier were two people desperately trying to cover themselves as best they could due to their shame.

you seem to have conceded that their tops were indeed covered.


no, and neither does scripture

2 samuel 10:3-5
Isaiah 20:3-4

I edited my post before you replied, please see it again.

Yes, their tops were covered after God further clothed them. But, not before. I already showed you this with the Strongs.

Also, you've made a non-sequitur. It's more likely that God further clothed them not because they were naked, but because they were wearing fig leaves (itchy) and because the world was now cursed (thorns, etc; fig leaves were insufficient protection). Also, it may be that God clothed them with the skin of an animal to represent the covering that would come by Christ's blood.

BTW, Isaiah 20 implies that nudity isn't sinful; God commanded Isaiah to be naked ("like as").

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Your interpretation requires that men and women cover the same area, because they both made aprons for themselves. That means midriff and chest most be concealed, and by both genders.

well, if you want to argue that men shouldn't be able to go out topless that's fine, but you just conceded your entire argument here.