I'm going to admit to you that my knee-jerk reaction though is that there ARE Scriptures that speak against tempting others to lust, that equate lust with the act of adultery, and that we are told to be modest in our clothing (which admittedly has more to do with adorning the heart than the body in the passages that come first to mind - there may be others though).
I'm also a bit wary of being drawn into philosophical thinking that allows one to begin to interpret Scripture not according to its intent.
I agree that we shouldn't define our ethics of one scenario based on philosophical thinking about another. The rightness or wrongness of nudity does not change based on inconsistent thinking or hypocrisy related to violence. The key phrase there is "to interpret Scripture not according to its intent", which we are all prone to do with moral questions (in a more restrictive or less restrictive direction depending on our preconceived notions).
Analogies like the sports example help me to guard against hidden subtexts. A hidden subtext might go something like this: the Bible says do nothing from rivalry or conceit, honor God with our bodies, and love our neighbor. [Hidden subtext: I like Football and it is not taboo in our culture, therefore I can rationalize football's rivalry, conceit, bodily harm, unloving violent hits, and trash talk]
Another might go like this: the Bible says we should dress modestly, and lust is a sin. [Hidden subtext: I am uncomfortable with nudity and it is taboo in our culture, therefore I can infer that modesty refers to nudity even though the next part says, "adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes", and that Looking at an art model is lust, even though the original Greek word and the contextual meaning probably wouldn't apply to such a circumstance].
You could also use hidden subtext in the opposite direction to rationalize nudity and condemn football - which was the exercise I went through in my head and posted above earlier in this thread. Just to see how it played out. I'm not sure what's right, but I'm pretty sure that circumstances matter in both cases.
Hidden subtext is everywhere in Christian life, especially among those of us who see the Bible as the source of truth. We all acknowledge Romans 13:14: But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. Yet we all gratify desires of the flesh. I did when I drank my morning coffee - a totally unnecessary drink with an addictive stimulant, and when I ate a sugar and fat-filled cookie after lunch.
On the other hand, I may be very tempted to fall back on this hidden subtext: "Whew! I don't gratify my body's desires because I don't smoke, take drugs, cheat on my wife, and all the other stuff I see on the news. That verse doesn't really apply to coffee, sugar, craft beer, or any of the stuff I like."
I hope you'll understand that I do NOT accuse you in this
Likewise! This post isn't directed at you, nor is it saying that you demonstrate hidden subtexts. Your openness to dialogue is helpful in hard questions like these. As Christians we need to break out of our own echo chamber and constantly try on other perspectives.