Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

Grip Docility · Jun 21, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
Nudity is not inherently sinful, especially in an area where it is socially appropriate, such as a nude beach or a place where it is permitted. But I think people need to be sensitive to the dispositions of others in this matter.

So, I looked on your profile and saw you’re a dude. It is true that God had us in the buff, but I’ll go the extra mile and say that razors weren’t part of the O’natural... so, maybe braided arm hair, too?

Again, if a girl was desiring to go on a free the ta ta’s rampage... I’d be pressed to discourage her or encourage her. I’m married and to be honest, as the Bible says... I’m genuinely happy with my soul mates provisions... but to be real... I don’t want to share MY soul mates ta ta’s with other people.

If a person is hypothetically encouraging their wife to bare her ta ta’s to the world... they may think they love her, but they really are not in Love with her any more and have given up on that relationship long ago. I’m not judging and I know some people have odd ways about them... but all the money and time those lifestyles get into leave little time for anything else. That doesn’t seem “profitable”. And again, I’m thankful my wife doesn’t want to “share” me, and that I don’t want to “share” her, because that seems an awful lot like someone is hoping to get rid of someone.

God made Ta Ta’s... and they are good... but any parent that would let their daughter free the ta ta’s, or any spouse that would encourage their spouse to free their ta ta’s is under a delusion of naivety... that that would end well.

As for single women of their own authority, let them do with their ta ta’s as they feel moved by the Spirit to do so...

But as for you... who have NO TA TA’s, what business is it for you, anyways, what a girl does with her twins?

StillGods · Jun 21, 2019

men and women have different bodies.
women going topless is gross for other women.

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

StillGods said:
men and women have different bodies.
women going topless is gross for other women.

How do you conflate grossness with immorality?

Also, quoting myself again:

A) Breasts are different from men’s chests

A common argument is that women’s breasts are different from men’s chests, and that’s why it’s wrong to expose them. However, men’s chests are just as different from women’s chests, as women’s are from men’s. The difference is exactly equal, in both directions: male to female, female to male. It’s indefensible to use men’s bodies as the “acceptable” standard by which we determine any deviation. If we did that, we could say that men’s genitals can be exposed, because … they’re not different from male genitals.

B) Breasts are different from children’s non-sexual bodies

This argument is similar to the last. It uses children as the standard: that is, male and female children have the same chest. After puberty, women grow breasts, and men do not. Thus, it’s a definitively female characteristic, and that’s why it shouldn’t be exposed. However, female breasts are secondary sex characteristics – not primary. Beards are a secondary sex characteristic of men, not primary. If we outlaw breast exposure for this reason, then we should also outlaw beard exposure. Alternatively, we could seek equality by requiring men to either shave, or to wear a beard bra.

C) Celebration

Many young men are excited about reaching puberty and growing a beard. They might be fooled by an old wives tale that shaving your beard makes it grow faster or thicker, so they shave in hope of appearing more mature when it grows back. Once their beard is grown, they may groom it, use good hygiene, and even decorate it. These men are proud of their beards; they’re characteristic of masculinity and adulthood, which are celebratory.

Women are not afforded the same opportunity with their breasts, at least not in the U.S. Although many women show deep cleavage, behaving similarly to the same way that many men do with their beards, they’re stigmatized for violating a taboo. And if they go further and expose areola, they face criminal charges.

This isn’t the case in all cultures. In Zambia, a “breast dance” is practiced (Turner, 1987; Taylor, 2006; both as cited in Bosteen, 2019). And in Nigeria, the Iria Ritual is a coming of age custom for females, in which they bare their breasts (Crespo, Duque, & Zuhlsdorf, 2013; MomoAfrica, n.d.; both as cited in LangLangC, 2019).

In the U.S., we’re teaching men that they should celebrate their adult bodies, and we’re teaching women that they should be ashamed of theirs.

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

Michael Collum said:
I've found in my studies, the word for "shamefacedness" can mean to have consideration for others. Something to consider for sure.

Since having consideration for others resembles the golden rule - it is worthy of consideration.

The root word implies we should use our eyes to determine how we affect others, that seems to be the spirit of the word that the older translation was trying to get at - though quite awkwardly.

This word 127 only shows up again in Hebrews 12:28 being translated as reverence.

I missed responding to this earlier. Good contribution, thanks!

I'm of largely the same viewpoint. For example, I don't believe nudity is sinful. But I wouldn't put nude posters on my wall, because of the unnecessary impact on my visitors.

Kenny'sID · Jun 21, 2019

blackhole said:
Yet again, accusations without explanation. I'd prefer that you cease posting here, but obviously I can't enforce that. The reason I respond is for the sake of other readers, but probably by this point they've caught on to what's going on.

Also, as in my OP: the burden of proof lies on the one making a positive claim. I'm making a negative claim; I didn't have to prove anything.

You have to use the text to prove a standard exists.

I "accused" you of posting scripture and the "explanation' is that it could not be proved that scripture was a defense for you claims. So not only did you note even attempt to prove that, I did both of what you accuse me of not doing.

I can see how you would not want me to post anymore but if you reply to me, I'll probably answer....hint, hint

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

Archivist said:
It was once illegal on the US for men to go topless—remember, the Victorian male bathing suit included a top. After the men returned from fighting in Europe during the First World War—where they had commonly bathed topless—they refused to wear tops. The laws requiring men to wear tops were abolished. I think the last man to be arrested for doing it was in the 1930s in New Jersey.

Contrary to what some have said, there is nothing in Scripture that says that women should not go topless.

You might like this. Again, quoting myself:

I’ve found some good, and some questionable sources that say the following: in 1930, four men on Coney Island were arrested for going topless (Esco, 2017); other and seemingly more reliable sources says the same thing, but that it was in 1934 (Wallace, I., Wallechinsky, & Wallace, A., 1982; Gotopless, 2019; Blum, 2016). In 1935, forty-two men were arrest in New Jersey for going topless (Wallace et al., 1982; Esco, 2017; Gotopless, 2019). In 1936, New York (partly?) made it legal for men to go topless (Wallace et al., 1982; Esco, 2017; Pina, 2014; Gotopless, 2019; Blum, 2016), as did New Jersey (Moye, 2013).

PM me if you want the references; these links may not be allowed here.

section9+1 · Jun 21, 2019

Saying there is no biblical prohibition against topless is of no account. Even biblical prohibitions aren't enough to stop people from justifying whatever they want. You could search the bible and find no prohibitions against cannibalism so then make a real case for it. I agree that often society determines morality and custom, but that doesn't make them wrong. I would personally like women to cover up one heck of a lot more than they do in this country. But I also realize that this country is going the way of Sodom and that is deliberately part of God's plan that it do so. Everyone would rather err on the side of love and grace so why does that not apply to modesty and decency? So no, our freedom allows us to push the envelope even further. This kind of freedom is nothing but another excuse to degrade yourself. Sodom is alive and well and has even found its way into Christianity. There is nothing new under the sun. Whatever has happened to the remnant?

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

section9+1 said:
Saying there is no biblical prohibition against topless is of no account. Even biblical prohibitions aren't enough to stop people from justifying whatever they want. You could search the bible and find no prohibitions against cannibalism so then make a real case for it. I agree that often society determines morality and custom, but that doesn't make them wrong. I would personally like women to cover up one heck of a lot more than they do in this country. But I also realize that this country is going the way of Sodom and that is deliberately part of God's plan that it do so. Everyone would rather err on the side of love and grace so why does that not apply to modesty and decency? So no, our freedom allows us to push the envelope even further. This kind of freedom is nothing but another excuse to degrade yourself. Sodom is alive and well and has even found its way into Christianity. There is nothing new under the sun. Whatever has happened to the remnant?

I believe it's immoral for you to use a keyboard. Just because you say there's no Biblical prohibition is of no account.

Archivist · Jun 21, 2019

section9+1 said:
Saying there is no biblical prohibition against topless is of no account. Even biblical prohibitions aren't enough to stop people from justifying whatever they want. You could search the bible and find no prohibitions against cannibalism so then make a real case for it. I agree that often society determines morality and custom, but that doesn't make them wrong. I would personally like women to cover up one heck of a lot more than they do in this country. But I also realize that this country is going the way of Sodom and that is deliberately part of God's plan that it do so. Everyone would rather err on the side of love and grace so why does that not apply to modesty and decency? So no, our freedom allows us to push the envelope even further. This kind of freedom is nothing but another excuse to degrade yourself. Sodom is alive and well and has even found its way into Christianity. There is nothing new under the sun. Whatever has happened to the remnant?

So, is our country also going the way of Sodom because of men going topless, or is that different?

section9+1 · Jun 21, 2019

There is no such thing as societal enlightenment. We are not moving upward to any higher level of awareness or understanding or cultural progress. "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." That's carved in stone. James says, "Get rid of all moral filth.. Of course that's no problem. All we need to do is redefine moral filth and so then James doesn't say anything at all. It's easy. They do a lot of things in primitive societies that I take no interest in copying. Because some African in the jungle does something in his society that works for him is no reason for me to adopt it. A guy who wants public nudity is not pursuing righteousness but his own personal agenda. And no BS to the contrary is going to convince me otherwise.

Grip Docility · Jun 21, 2019

blackhole said:
I missed responding to this earlier. Good contribution, thanks!

I'm of largely the same viewpoint. For example, I don't believe nudity is sinful. But I wouldn't put nude posters on my wall, because of the unnecessary impact on my visitors.

Nudity isn’t a sin.

section9+1 · Jun 21, 2019

blackhole said:
I believe it's immoral for you to use a keyboard. Just because you say there's no Biblical prohibition is of no account.

It may very well be immoral. The Amish see all kinds of things wrong with contemporary society and who are we to say they are wrong. God says what is right. Jesus said no one else is righteous. We are all standing upon a line of more to less righteousness. Our place on that line is not as important as the direction we are facing.

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

section9+1 said:
It may very well be immoral.

At least you're consistent.

section9+1 · Jun 21, 2019

Nudity is not a sin, but public nudity is the issue here. Making love to your spouse isn't a sin either, but are you doing it downtown on the sidewalk at noon?

Grip Docility · Jun 21, 2019

section9+1 said:
Nudity is not a sin, but public nudity is the issue here. Making love to your spouse isn't a sin either, but are you doing it downtown on the sidewalk at noon?

Honestly, if the couple is married and a bit amorous... I say keep it discreet, but where and when is up to them.

Meh, I’m not one to judge a couple that isn’t married either. If they’re streaming it live... I would suggest their future is questionable at best and they are doing something not profitable. In other words... God didn’t make Christians to be “Bedroom Police”.

But personally... I wouldn’t want to share those private moments with anyone, but my mate... my partner in crime, wife!

Certain behaviors bring misery, though.

I can’t emphasize this enough... if a gal or guy likes parading around in front of strangers... there’s a strong chance that relationship faithfulness isn’t in their vocabulary.

Also, if a brother is weak in the faith and flesh and a brother exposes them to nudity... and that trips them up before God, that’s a no no.

Grip Docility · Jun 21, 2019

Solomon said it best... He had experienced everything under the Sun and found it to be meaningless.

This eludes to Spiritual things in God Being fulfilling while Carnal concerns leave us feeling empty, inside.

com7fy8 · Jun 21, 2019

blackhole said:
Regarding your comments on beauty: it's true that beauty if fleeting, etc. However, it's acceptable to also desire beauty:

blackhole said:
Gen 29:17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

But what happened when Jacob discriminated by loving Rachel and not loving Leah?????

And was this discrimination related to Rachel being more beautiful than Leah her sister????

In any case, is there not beauty discrimination, in culture? And does this not result in a number of women not getting what is their right?

Now, you could argue that everyone being able to go topless could level the playing field . . . maybe . . . depending . . .

But, even if it could > still there would be beauty as a potential discrimination factor . . . for those capable of being discriminatory . . . not the fault of the ones beautiful, to be sure ! ! ! !

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

com7fy8 said:
But what happened when Jacob discriminated by loving Rachel and not loving Leah?????

And was this discrimination related to Rachel being more beautiful than Leah her sister????

In any case, is there not beauty discrimination, in culture? And does this not result in a number of women not getting what is their right?

Now, you could argue that everyone being able to go topless could level the playing field . . . maybe . . . depending . . .

But, even if it could > still there would be beauty as a potential discrimination factor . . . for those capable of being discriminatory . . . not the fault of the ones beautiful, to be sure ! ! ! !

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Peter J Barban · Jun 21, 2019

I am not going to bother with your reasons for disagreement. You knew what the Bible said on this issue before posting this thread.

The real question is why you assume you are right and 99.9999% of believers in history are wrong.

Below all the layers of logic and evidence are your basic assumptions on this issue.

blackhole · Jun 21, 2019

Peter J Barban said:
I am not going to bother with your reasons for disagreement. You knew what the Bible said on this issue before posting this thread.

The real question is why you assume you are right and 99.9999% of believers in history are wrong.

Below all the layers of logic and evidence are your basic assumptions on this issue.

The real question is why you assume 99.9999% of believers in history take your viewpoint.

Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads