Christian Women, Are You Causing Men to Sin?

[OGM]

Before invoking scripture to support modesty recognise the oft quoted verse in Timothy is about ostentatious dressing, not the amount of flesh showing. Modesty is to apply across all behaviours, not just sexual issues.

Yes, it is about flashiness!

 

[dallasapple]

This whole thing is ridiculous..Presenting herself as 'sexual" in the manner she dresses?How SO?My body isnt "sex" my body IS my body and I can use MANY parts of it SEXUALLY..Maybe I shouldnt wear lipstick because some luster might be destracted and LET his mind wander to my lips and mouth "sexually".

Which man with a 'problem" lusting gets to determine for ME how I should dress in order for him not to consider my dress presenting my self in a "sexual" way?

There would be no end..as long as you lay the responsiblilty for your issues on ME.

And this DOES sound eerily like the way many Muslims treat their women..They have them covered up to nothing but eyes..OH well then she cant make "eye contact" with strange men either because then shes really asking for it..so just to make sure she is prohibited to even go in PUBLIC without a 2 female elders or a male relative.Or some sort of ridiculousness.

 

[Alive_Again]

This whole thing is ridiculous..Presenting herself as 'sexual" in the manner she dresses?How SO?My body isnt "sex" my body IS my body and I can use MANY parts of it SEXUALLY..Maybe I shouldnt wear lipstick because some luster might be destracted and LET his mind wander to my lips and mouth "sexually".

It's somewhat relative to the culture you live in. We're supposed to be in an attitude of submission to each other (in the body). Also, the world around us is out of control. We don't want to cause anyone to sin, and many times women (and men) dress in a way that promotes fleshiness. Take a look to the right of this message. It's shameful, not because her body is shameful, but because it is a calculated ad by the enemy to distract one from spiritual pursuits.

In the case of our sisters, why wear short skirts and tops showing cleavage. Isn't it unprofitable for our walk in the Spirit? I tend to move away from them. I've got too much to lose.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. Romans 14:12-13

Which man with a 'problem" lusting gets to determine for ME how I should dress in order for him not to consider my dress presenting my self in a "sexual" way?

It's about submission to Christ and to each other. We're really only talking about being reasonable, not prudish.

There are women out there too with problems.

There would be no end..as long as you lay the responsiblilty for your issues on ME.

We die daily.

And this DOES sound eerily like the way many Muslims treat their women..They have them covered up to nothing but eyes..OH well then she cant make "eye contact" with strange men either because then shes really asking for it..so just to make sure she is prohibited to even go in PUBLIC without a 2 female elders or a male relative.Or some sort of ridiculousness.

Hopefully it won't come to that! You might get sent to Saudi Arabia for the Lord and you'd no doubt have to submit to that for the Lord.

It's all about humbleness of mind and a servant mentality.

 

[dallasapple]

There are women out there too with problems.

I never said there werent..thats not the topic of this thread though.

Im not responsible for some strange mans THOUGHTS in his head based on how I dress.Period .And YOU say that you are talking about being reasonable not prudish..??

What Im saying is WHICH of you men get to DECIDE for me what YOU think is "reasonble". FOR YOU???.What if ONE one man says yeah thats "reasonable' and another man says..oh ...no..thats a little to much of a "sexual display" for me..I might "stumble".

As long as women who are NOT behaving in a SEXUAL manner can still be viewed as doing so based on her attire then the problem is you need to stop viewing just the mere SIGHT of a female as a sexual "dislpay"

Someone used alcohol as an example of how ridiculous it is to make this claim that women should be held responsbile to 'men" stumbling over her female form..

The response was something to the affect of yes If that was my weakness I would ask them to put it away if not then I would leave..

They didnt say I would ask them to put it away and if they didnt I would get plastered all night and it would be their fault.

And this is even bigger..you're asking an ENTIRE gender ..and the general public mind you afteral you cant only "stumble" in church..To DRESS ...litterally wear certain preferable items of clothing that are limited to what some guy out there might think is "reasonble' to him..So he wont think about having sex with her in his head???

The only example you gave was short skirts(so apprarrently a womans legs are a sex organ to some men)..and cleavage...is not a sex organ either any more than my armpit which in fact releases pheromones .

 

[CryptoLutheran]

What about men who cause women to sin? Because when I go out in my Levi jeans, papa shakes what he was given. "Shake it like a salt shaker..."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OGM]

Next thing you know they will be trying to ban women from wearing swimwear! Or from being involved with "mixed gender" swimming.

 

[dallasapple]

Next thing you know they will be trying to ban women from wearing swimwear! Or from being involved with "mixed gender" swimming.

Exaclty..Most swimwear reveals a womans legs thats for sure..And since mini skirts are out ???I guess women will have to figure out how to swim or play on the beach covered with no legs and DEFINATELY no cleavage.

Here is what I supect..Im being honest..these "stumbling men" are really only talking about young(or youngish) fit and by our standards(our culture and society) attractive women.AND then that would be tailored DOWN to a mans individual "prefererences" ...Race..body type..and yes even style of dress....Or lets just say it woudl boil down to what EACH individual man alreay considered an attractive 'female" wether or not her attire was "reasonable" or not.

I mean serioulsy lets get real here.This isnt about "women" being modest..

Because if litterally all its about is a man seing "sex organs" and having lustful thoughts..a miniskirt shouldnt be a problem ...niether should some cleavage..

I'm serious..the last time I checked a womans upper legs and knees and calfs arent sexual..or intended for use in sexual activity anymore than a mans is.The same goes for your chest.

O.K lets just say a lttle bit of cleavage would cause some men completely lose focus and stumble into a world of lust.. What is "sexual" about a womans LEGS???????Is it simply because her legs are on her female body?And would you still "stumble" and lust if a woman was wearign said miniskirt (the kind some men think is "unreasonable" and her legs were covered in vericose veins?(veins are also not sexual and very very intimate ..they are normally inside her female body in fact )..

Would that be O.K?Or would you still "lust"?

See what I mean?

 

[FreeInChrist88]

Im not responsible for some strange mans THOUGHTS in his head based on how I dress.Period .And YOU say that you are talking about being reasonable not prudish..??

What Im saying is WHICH of you men get to DECIDE for me what YOU think is "reasonble". FOR YOU???.What if ONE one man says yeah thats "reasonable' and another man says..oh ...no..thats a little to much of a "sexual display" for me..I might "stumble".

Well said!

Guys have strong sex drives period. What turns one guy on is different from another. Whenever a woman, regardless of how modestly she is dressed is attractive to a particular guy, something is going to go off inside of him and he is going to think WOW!!!!!!

The key question is, will he choose to let it end there. Will he choose to honor his commitment to God and to his wife (if he's married) and let his response end there? Or will that particular woman begin to consume his thoughts and desires? Will he honor her by appreciating her beauty as God's creation? Or will he fantasize on her as a sex object?

Here's an example - I was walking down the side walk to work the other morning. It was very cold outside. Walking about 20 feet ahead of me was a younger lady who was dressed from head to toe and was also wearing a coat that covered her to her knees. Most of us would agree that she was very modestly dressed. Nevertheless, the old male hormones in me jumped into action and I went "WHOAAAA!" inside.

I'm a happily married man of almost 30 years. I love my wife and I am committed to her for life. So for me, it ended right there. I appreciated this woman's attractiveness and acknowledged that she is one of God's creations that Jesus died for. End of story.

The point is, her modest dress didn't even prevent an old middle-aged guy like me from going "WHOAAAA!" What about the young guys her age who are at their sexual peak in life? I'll bet there were quite a few who felt the same thing I did. What else could she have done to prevent it?

Men ultimately must be responsible for how they react to the sight of a woman regardless of how she is dressed.

 

[Archivist]

Exaclty..Most swimwear reveals a womans legs thats for sure..And since mini skirts are out ???I guess women will have to figure out how to swim or play on the beach covered with no legs and DEFINATELY no cleavage.

Here is what I supect..Im being honest..these "stumbling men" are really only talking about young(or youngish) fit and by our standards(our culture and society) attractive women.AND then that would be tailored DOWN to a mans individual "prefererences" ...Race..body type..and yes even style of dress....Or lets just say it woudl boil down to what EACH individual man alreay considered an attractive 'female" wether or not her attire was "reasonable" or not.

I mean serioulsy lets get real here.This isnt about "women" being modest..

Because if litterally all its about is a man seing "sex organs" and having lustful thoughts..a miniskirt shouldnt be a problem ...niether should some cleavage..

I'm serious..the last time I checked a womans upper legs and knees and calfs arent sexual..or intended for use in sexual activity anymore than a mans is.The same goes for your chest.

O.K lets just say a lttle bit of cleavage would cause some men completely lose focus and stumble into a world of lust.. What is "sexual" about a womans LEGS???????Is it simply because her legs are on her female body?And would you still "stumble" and lust if a woman was wearign said miniskirt (the kind some men think is "unreasonable" and her legs were covered in vericose veins?(veins are also not sexual and very very intimate ..they are normally inside her female body in fact )..

Would that be O.K?Or would you still "lust"?

See what I mean?

An excellent post.

Earlier in this thread I made a point that it is the norm, at least in the US, for men to cover less of their bodies then do women. I don't see topless women at the beach; I see plenty of topless men. I don't see topless women at baseball games; I do see topless men. An exposed female breast is rare on network television; topless men are common.

When i visit the mall I often see teenage men walking around with pants so low that their underwear is in plain view. I generally don't see women doing that.

If men are going to compalin that women are dressing in such a way as to cause them to lust then it is first up to men to set an example and cover up. As long as men insist on going about exposing far more of their bodies for public view then women do, they have no business complaining that women are causing them to lust by their dress.

 

[dallasapple]

Well said!

Guys have strong sex drives period. What turns one guy on is different from another. Whenever a woman, regardless of how modestly she is dressed is attractive to a particular guy, something is going to go off inside of him and he is going to think WOW!!!!!!

The key question is, will he choose to let it end there. Will he choose to honor his commitment to God and to his wife (if he's married) and let his response end there? Or will that particular woman begin to consume his thoughts and desires? Will he honor her by appreciating her beauty as God's creation? Or will he fantasize on her as a sex object?

Here's an example - I was walking down the side walk to work the other morning. It was very cold outside. Walking about 20 feet ahead of me was a younger lady who was dressed from head to toe and was also wearing a coat that covered her to her knees. Most of us would agree that she was very modestly dressed. Nevertheless, the old male hormones in me jumped into action and I went "WHOAAAA!" inside.

I'm a happily married man of almost 30 years. I love my wife and I am committed to her for life. So for me, it ended right there. I appreciated this woman's attractiveness and acknowledged that she is one of God's creations that Jesus died for. End of story.

The point is, her modest dress didn't even prevent an old middle-aged guy like me from going "WHOAAAA!" What about the young guys her age who are at their sexual peak in life? I'll bet there were quite a few who felt the same thing I did. What else could she have done to prevent it?

Men ultimately must be responsible for how they react to the sight of a woman regardless of how she is dressed.

Thank you so much..and for your example..

Thats just it..there woud be no END to what it is some men would EXPECT a woman to do as far as her dress to be responsible for his OWN thought life.

Some men try and act like its a 'sexual display" and all she is doing is walking around quite frankly looking fine as wine.They want to blame it on cleavage and legs..I do not beleive that for one second.

Im a female and I know what Im talking about..

I also have an example similar..

I was at the doctors in the waiting room place was packed..A young girl walked in accompanied by a male companion..She had on what I would call an oversised sweater that covered her entire upper body and about to her mid thigh...black tights(like hose but thicker) and black boots that went to about her knee..She was petite...with jet black hair..and she had a face like a porcelin doll..big dark blue eyes..just absolute stunningly beautiful..

There were probably 30 people in the waiting room..every single person had their eyes on this girl..You could FEEL it in the air..That everyone in this room noticed and admired her ..I mean look Im a woman..that was a month ago..I have seen a lOT of people in the last month..(strangers in the store and out and about including at the drs that day) and I can remember this one girl ..even how she was dressed and fixed her hair and everything.

Im SURE there are some men ..that woud ALLOW themselves to imagine her in a sexual manner..viewed her as a SEX object..just the way she was dressed..What my point if she had revealed more "skin"..then they could turn around and BLAME her ..that it was her 'cleavage" showing.When the reality is she is just that pretty .

Love

Dallas

 

[dallasapple]

An excellent post.

Earlier in this thread I made a point that it is the norm, at least in the US, for men to cover less of their bodies then do women. I don't see topless women at the beach; I see plenty of topless men. I don't see topless women at baseball games; I do see topless men. An exposed female breast is rare on network television; topless men are common.

When i visit the mall I often see teenage men walking around with pants so low that their underwear is in plain view. I generally don't see women doing that.

If men are going to compalin that women are dressing in such a way as to cause them to lust then it is first up to men to set an example and cover up. As long as men insist on going about exposing far more of their bodies for public view then women do, they have no business complaining that women are causing them to lust by their dress.

Thank you ..

And I agree its a complete double standard.Even if a woman has her underwear hanging out her back end..She is considered a temptress deliberatly tryign to trip up the men to a world of sin.But the man with his hanging out its just his style.

I think its because a WOMAN is first and foremost in SOME mens mind viewed as a potential sex mate.

The problem is I have asked..is WHICH man gets to decide for ME how I should dress in order that he not let his mind wander?

Because it isnt cleavage and legs thats the problem.It would not end there if that was covered on all women.

Love

Dallas

 

[OGM]

Thank you ..

And I agree its a complete double standard.Even if a woman has her underwear hanging out her back end..She is considered a temptress deliberatly tryign to trip up the men to a world of sin.But the man with his hanging out its just his style.

I think its because a WOMAN is first and foremost in SOME mens mind viewed as a potential sex mate.

The problem is I have asked..is WHICH man gets to decide for ME how I should dress in order that he not let his mind wander?

Because it isnt cleavage and legs thats the problem.It would not end there if that was covered on all women.

Oh it is a big double standard. I can go to the beach swimwear sporting a 6-pack and no one will say anything. If a woman wears a bikini, watch out!

Men and women are both very visual. Women often spend a great deal of time and money to look good for men. Hair, make up, clothing, nails, jewelry, etc. Men spend time and money trying to put out an attractive image for women. Haircuts, designer threads, Rolex watches, high-end sports cars, teeth whitening, etc. All things to look visually appealing to women so he can have a much higher chance for successful dating. Often times if a guy looks a certain way; his chances for rejection are much higher. Women, like men are higher visual and will often times not date a man that looks a certain way and/or has a body type that they see they don't like.

Everyone hates to admit it but male-female attraction is called "sexual attraction" for a reason. If I am on the beach women are friendlier to me if I have my shirt off then if I wear my loosely fitting tank top. Likewise when I wear a designer suits/shoes and the nice watch; women tend to want to talk to me. I have no problem with that but I will not fool myself in to thinking that women are somehow less visual.

Different women and women have different looks to try to be sexually attractive. What is the standard? Depends on the culture to a great deal. If I was on the beach and a woman or man! came up to me and told me to cover up because they had a lust/SSA problem; I would suggest they look away.

Which BTW would be no different than if I said they did not which me to swim next to me because of my skin color or cross necklace. Sorry, I can't be everything to every person!

 

[dallasapple]

Oh it is a big double standard. I can go to the beach swimwear sporting a 6-pack and no one will say anything. If a woman wears a bikini, watch out!

Men and women are both very visual. Women often spend a great deal of time and money to look good for men. Hair, make up, clothing, nails, jewelry, etc. Men spend time and money trying to put out an attractive image for women. Haircuts, designer threads, Rolex watches, high-end sports cars, teeth whitening, etc. All things to look visually appealing to women so he can have a much higher chance for successful dating. Often times if a guy looks a certain way; his chances for rejection are much higher. Women, like men are higher visual and will often times not date a man that looks a certain way and/or has a body type that they see they don't like.

Everyone hates to admit it but male-female attraction is called "sexual attraction" for a reason. If I am on the beach women are friendlier to me if I have my shirt off then if I wear my loosely fitting tank top. Likewise when I wear a designer suits/shoes and the nice watch; women tend to want to talk to me. I have no problem with that but I will not fool myself in to thinking that women are somehow less visual.

Different women and women have different looks to try to be sexually attractive. What is the standard? Depends on the culture to a great deal. If I was on the beach and a woman or man! came up to me and told me to cover up because they had a lust/SSA problem; I would suggest they look away.

Which BTW would be no different than if I said they did not which me to swim next to me because of my skin color or cross necklace. Sorry, I can't be everything to every person!

Exactly.It would NEVER end if men and women had to attemp to make sure we didnt attract the eyes of the opposite sex.

And I again find it higly sexist that its directed at women and supposedly its only about her legs and a lttle bit of cleavage which I dont buy for 1 second.

I for one cant concern myself with wether every single strange man I encounter in public may have issues or not and of the ones that do by which standards would they consider "reasonble modesty".

And you are right about women..Many men just dont like to hear it..because being "visual" has been pounded in their head as a "mans weakness"..Then further being so insulting that its 'legs and cleavage" reducing her to body parts when we all know its the "whole package".(well Im sure "body parts" can be isolated and cause stirrings too)...But in general your visuals are taking in more than that..and your other senses can kick in too...

If I was wearing a "mini skirt" and a blouse that showed "cleavage" but I had smelly greasy hair..appeared to have dirty skin..a bad odor..and hairy legs..???I dont think the "lust" problem would be present in many men.

Love

Dallas

 

[Johnnz]

I spent two hours in an aeroplane sitting next to a reasonably attractive young woman today. She wore a mid thigh skirt, with a buttoned front opening. When she sat down she revealed quite a lot of tanned, shapely legs. A steamy trip? A struggle with 'lustful thoughts'. No way. I am angered at the assumption than men become slathering slobs, held captive by their unholy lusts at the mere presence of an attractive woman.

I can see two major inconsistencies in many of the attitudes expressed on this and similar threads.

a) Men lusting at an attractive woman is not a modern phenomenon. In far more covered up times men had sexual thoughts about very well covered women. Once an ankle would induce lust. Can't see how now though.

b) Christian nudists exhibit the reality of being unclothed in mixed company without sexual arousal - the ultimate rebuttal of the 'body parts induce lust' position.

John
NZ

 

[OGM]

Exactly.It would NEVER end if men and women had to attemp to make sure we didnt attract the eyes of the opposite sex.

Ironically those trying the hardest to avoid looking attractive to the opposite sex are often the same ones that are complaining about; men not pursing women anymore, women that are cold, people marrying too late in life, of not finding “the one”, blah blah blah!

And I again find it higly sexist that its directed at women and supposedly its only about her legs and a lttle bit of cleavage which I dont buy for 1 second.

I for one cant concern myself with wether every single strange man I encounter in public may have issues or not and of the ones that do by which standards would they consider "reasonble modesty".

It is obviously very sexiest and insulting. Legs and cleavage obsession, ha, it songs so comical. Yeah, you have to live your life. Besides; you should not have to cater to those that have “libido-control” issue so strong they can’t function with civility. I would not put a shirt on at the beach because someone told me he has SSA issues. He is free to get out of eyesight if he wants too. BTW if he knew he had those issues he should have known better than to frequent a public beach, right? Just saying!

Many men just dont like to hear it..because being "visual" has been pounded in their head as a "mans weakness"..Then further being so insulting that its 'legs and cleavage" reducing her to body parts when we all know its the "whole package".(well Im sure "body parts" can be isolated and cause stirrings too)...But in general your visuals are taking in more than that..and your other senses can kick in too...

Visual judgment is highly integrated in to the thought processes of both genders. Many “women” are interior designers. One of my clients is a major TV sports network. The actually visual “look” of the network is controlled by a department headed by and consisting of at least 80% “women”. Many producers and creative people in television and film are…here we go…”women”! The look and style of my firm was orchestrated by a…hold on a “woman”! Many fashion designers of men’s clothing are actually…”women”!

So I have never believed women are somehow a visually-challenged gender. As a matter of fact I was always taught the opposite. Even my pastor told us not to expect a positive response from a woman if you ask her out while you “look” sloppy, disheveled or scary. I have heard women complain when a guy that talked to them “looked” like a mess. If a guy dresses like something out of 1977 disco he better not hope for a date because he would “look” awful to most women. Visuals are extremely important to both men and women.

If I was wearing a "mini skirt" and a blouse that showed "cleavage" but I had smelly greasy hair..appeared to have dirty skin..a bad odor..and hairy legs..???I dont think the "lust" problem would be present in many men.

You are 100% correct! The mini skirt and cleavage would not magically negate the other factors going on. If anything the more skin you showed, the more the lack of hygiene would be accentuated. It is about the sum, not the individual parts.

 

[Alive_Again]

Each person knows on the inside what is appropriate for dress or not for the culture and location. Some people have a seared conscience. That's one reason why we have the Word of God. It demonstrates the standard for mature Christ-like behavior. It is possible for even Christians to be "of the world" in certain matters. Our own society "dictates" a standard that is far beneath the Lord's standard. We must renew our minds to the Spirit Word.

If Jesus were here, you wouldn't catch Him in a thong or have one showing at the rear of His pants. If He were a woman, there wouldn't be cleavage or short skirts. He would be perfect in modesty, the very definition. Whatever He (the Head) would do, undoubtedly His body (in His perfect will) would also do. That would be the mature body. Everything short of that would be immature behavior. Our identity is "in Christ". We're not separated by any standard. The body is supposed to do what the Head says. There is often a disconnect between the purposes of God and His people.

The modesty would not be because of some implied shame, but rather beauty. There is a beauty in modesty. It's what separates the "shapely" pole dancer from the woman next door.

In our walk of the Spirit, we should not draw attention to ourselves. He must increase, we must decrease. We must neither offend, nor cause others to sin.

On the inside, if you're walking in the light, each person should know what is right and wrong. God writes His laws on our hearts. If we want to do His will, we'll know. We are sojourners in this world. This is not a restored paradise in Christ. We're living in a battlefield where people are perishing on every side. We also have the word of admonition regarding His people who sin, when God was not pleased with them. We must fight the good fight of faith and deny ourselves as a good soldier. Only the youngest children are permitted "liberties" outside of the expectation of modesty. Let us use wisdom in the choices that we make. There are a great cloud of witnesses observing what we do. Choose well.

 

[OGM]

Our own society "dictates" a standard that is far beneath the Lord's standard. We must renew our minds to the Spirit Word.

Our society does not have a standard per say. The standards are based on settings to a large degree. Would I dress on the beach the same way I would in the boardroom or presenting a case in front of a Judge? I sure hope not!

If Jesus were here,

you wouldn't catch Him in a thong or have one showing at the rear of His pants. If He were a woman, there wouldn't be cleavage or short skirts. He would be perfect in modesty, the very definition. Whatever He (the Head) would do, undoubtedly His body (in His perfect will) would also do. That would be the mature body. Everything short of that would be immature behavior. Our identity is "in Christ". We're not separated by any standard. The body is supposed to do what the Head says. There is often a disconnect between the purposes of God and His people.

First of all: Jesus was a fisherman. The clothing he wore for fishing may or may not be the same cloths he would presently use if he was speaking to a present day government body. Also if he did indeed go for a swim on the beach I don't know what he would wear. Would he be covered up from wrist to elbow? I don't know.

Alive_Again I want to ask you a few question:

Do you believe a man swimming without a top on is immodest and if so why?

Do you believe a woman swimming in a one piece is immodest and if so why?

 

[Alive_Again]

Alive_Again I want to ask you a few question:

Do you believe a man swimming without a top on is immodest and if so why?

In the culture that we live, it is generally acceptable for men to go without a top in swimming environs. Also in places where it is excessively hot in outdoor work environments. Occasionally for recreation.

Do you believe a woman swimming in a one piece is immodest and if so why?

That depends on what you mean by one piece! If you mean covering her "top" and bottom, if it is not too revealing, it would be considered modest. The functionality of the suit is supposed to facilitate your swimming, not in revealing your body. Their are fashion considerations, but those are largely worldly considerations. We consider fashions to some extent as Christians, but it should not be considered sexually suggestive within the culture that we live in. In the U.S., it is considered sexually suggestive in public for a woman to go topless. In parts of Africa, it is not. Usually when they are introduced to the Lord, that changes.

If you took a poll of Christians in European and North American nations to determine if women going topless was considered sexually suggestive, it would be resoundingly affirmative. I've never been to New Zealand, and I'm not cutting it down, but we want to be "found clothed" as the Word states.

Can you really see Jesus wandering around nude in front of other women? Take a poll on that (with Christian women)!

 

[Johnnz]

Well, baptisms in Jesus' time were often conducted nude. Its possible that a naked Jesus was baptised nude by a naked John. Manual workers often worked naked, or semi naked (topless). Jesus' accepting public display of affection from a woman with a seamy past would have been scandalous.

On cultural values - we err greatly when we assume our cultural values are in fact biblical ones. All cultural values require biblical scrutiny. It was the missionaries imposing their cultural values onto other peoples that brought about unclad people clothing themselves, a fact recognised by many modern missionary thinkers and those societies themselves. Current western sexual prudery can be questioned on biblical grounds; we might just have got some things really wrong. This thread has highlighted some inconsistencies that require serious thought.

John
NZ

 

[Archivist]

In the culture that we live, it is generally acceptable for men to go without a top in swimming environs. Also in places where it is excessively hot in outdoor work environments. Occasionally for recreation.

But that hasn't always been the case. A man's bathing suit during the the Victorian era included a top.

That depends on what you mean by one piece! If you mean covering her "top" and bottom, if it is not too revealing, it would be considered modest. The functionality of the suit is supposed to facilitate your swimming, not in revealing your body. Their are fashion considerations, but those are largely worldly considerations. We consider fashions to some extent as Christians, but it should not be considered sexually suggestive within the culture that we live in. In the U.S., it is considered sexually suggestive in public for a woman to go topless.

But that is a matter of culture, and dress does evolve. As I said, 100 years ago men's bathing suits included tops. That is no longer the case.

In parts of Africa, it is not. Usually when they are introduced to the Lord, that changes.

It changes not because there is anything inappropriate about an exposed breast, but rather becasue of the cultural bias of western missionaries.

If you took a poll of Christians in European and North American nations to determine if women going topless was considered sexually suggestive, it would be resoundingly affirmative. I've never been to New Zealand, and I'm not cutting it down, but we want to be "found clothed" as the Word states.

Again, that is a matter of culture. In the 1800's it would have been inappropriate for a man to be seen on a beach without a top. When I was younger it was the norm for men to wear suits and ties to professional baseball games. That generally doesn't happen today. Today in warmer weather it isn't unusual to see men at baseball games without shirts. Times change.