Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe that Scripture cannot be used to defend the West's viewpoint that it's sinful for women to be publicly topless.

I want to challenge my viewpoint, and the quality of my arguments.
Prove me wrong, using scripture or rationality that's based on Christian principles in order to do so.

The burden of proof lies with the one asserting a positive, therefore you get to argue first.
 

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I believe that Scripture cannot be used to defend the West's viewpoint that it's sinful for women to be publicly topless.

I want to challenge my viewpoint, and the quality of my arguments.
Prove me wrong, using scripture or rationality that's based on Christian principles in order to do so.

The burden of proof lies with the one asserting a positive, therefore you get to argue first.
It says in Romans 13 that any commandment is summed up by this brief saying Love does not harm their neighbour. So I will look at how a woman going topless in the west will harm her.

It will be harmful because men in general are conditioned by society to objectify and sexualize her re: Matthew 5:28.

See also the following article about a situation where it was actually allowed and women wouldn't do it.
Ontario women can legally go topless. So why aren’t they? | TVO.org
 
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It says in Romans 13 that any commandment is summed up by this brief saying Love does not harm their neighbour. So I will look at how a woman going topless in the west will harm her.

It will be harmful because men in general are conditioned by society to objectify and sexualize her re: Matthew 5:28.

See also the following article about a situation where it was actually allowed and women wouldn't do it.
Ontario women can legally go topless. So why aren’t they? | TVO.org

1) Noted: you're considering how it harms her.

2) I agree in regard to their condition. However, I believe that this is a result of the taboo; in some cultures, it's not an issue. Thus, to perpetuate the taboo is to continue harming her. After all, if breasts are taboo, then cleavage leads to her harm as well (and, to a lesser degree: even clothed breasts). See refs. 1 & 2.

3) Addressed via #2.

---

Ref 1 (Bare beach breasts arouse fewer men).
Herold, E., Corbesi, B., & Collins, J. (1995). Attitudes toward female topless beach behavior: A study of male Australian university students. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4(3), 177-182.

Ref 2
No link, because the content is "NSFW:"
history.stackexchange -- Have breasts been proudly and publicly uncovered, in any culture, without general disapproval?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Modesty is not making all that much of yourself. Immodesty of the heart is the need to be noticed, and this drives immodest behavior. Which can mean drawing inordinate attention to yourself verbally. Or by the way you dress. Or by the way you simply appear. If someone always has to be the best dressed at an event, that's an immodest person. If someone has to show off what they've got, that's also immodest. A woman who willingly goes topless in an area that does not have very many women going topless most likely is doing so to draw attention to herself. If there's another one with better breasts who does the same thing in the same place, she's got a problem with that. Which indicates immodesty.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I believe that Scripture cannot be used to defend the West's viewpoint that it's sinful for women to be publicly topless.

I want to challenge my viewpoint, and the quality of my arguments.
Prove me wrong, using scripture or rationality that's based on Christian principles in order to do so.

The burden of proof lies with the one asserting a positive, therefore you get to argue first.
I am friends with an alcoholic. I don't imbibe much in general. But I certainly won't imbibe around the alcoholic. Alcohol is no real temptation for me. It never has been. I can drink or not drink easily. I usually choose to not drink. But I always choose not to drink around the alcoholic.

Men have a sky-high sex drive. 90% of men will admit to that and the rest will lie. I can grant that there could be heterosexual men who can see a topless woman and maintain control of their thoughts. But I will also adamantly add that most men can't.

Part of being a Christian is not subjecting others to temptation, even if that temptation exists only in their minds. It's as unfair as imbibing in front of an alcoholic. Exercising our liberty should not be the occasion of subjecting others to temptations that could break them.

But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.

For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?

Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.
1 Corinthians 08:09-13 (DRA)


St. Paul was at perfect liberty to eat meat but if eating it would cause scandal among other Christians, he would forgo meat entirely. I find it very difficult to believe that St. Paul would agree with you.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
1) Noted: you're considering how it harms her.

2) I agree in regard to their condition. However, I believe that this is a result of the taboo; in some cultures, it's not an issue. Thus, to perpetuate the taboo is to continue harming her. After all, if breasts are taboo, then cleavage leads to her harm as well (and, to a lesser degree: even clothed breasts). See refs. 1 & 2.

3) Addressed via #2.

---

Ref 1 (Bare beach breasts arouse fewer men).
Herold, E., Corbesi, B., & Collins, J. (1995). Attitudes toward female topless beach behavior: A study of male Australian university students. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4(3), 177-182.


Ref 2
No link, because the content is "NSFW:"
history.stackexchange -- Have breasts been proudly and publicly uncovered, in any culture, without general disapproval?
Another cause of harm is alienation.

For example, back in the 1980s when the United Church (Canadian Denomination similar to Methodists maybe?) decided all of a sudden to allow homosexual clergy, they didn't vote on it and just acted on it. When a lesbian pastor was sent up north to a small town to be pastor of the town's only church, and then got pregnant later, it resulted in there being 6 or so churches later on.

In the same way, just because culture does not support it does not mean it should change immediately. The culture needs to acclimate to the new paradigm so it doesn't cause further harm and schisms (along with proportional knee jerk responses)

It is written in the proverbs a bunch of things that God hates, and the thing He apparently hated the most was someone who caused division. So this methodology implying that we should just change things and tough beans for the people who would experience a culture shock is short sighted and results in ungodly fruit.
 
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Another cause of harm is alienation.

For example, back in the 1980s when the United Church (Canadian Denomination similar to Methodists maybe?) decided all of a sudden to allow homosexual clergy, they didn't vote on it and just acted on it. When a lesbian pastor was sent up north to a small town to be pastor of the town's only church, and then got pregnant later, it resulted in there being 6 or so churches later on.

In the same way, just because culture does not support it does not mean it should change immediately. The culture needs to acclimate to the new paradigm so it doesn't cause further harm and schisms (along with proportional knee jerk responses)

It is written in the proverbs a bunch of things that God hates, and the thing He apparently hated the most was someone who caused division. So this methodology implying that we should just change things and tough beans for the people who would experience a culture shock is short sighted and results in ungodly fruit.

So then, you're arguing about the route taken rather than the destination. I'll not argue against your viewpoint in this regard, I believe we're close to being on the same page.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
So then, you're arguing about the route taken rather than the destination. I'll not argue against your viewpoint in this regard, I believe we're close to being on the same page.
I'd say so also. Blessings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackhole
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am friends with an alcoholic. I don't imbibe much in general. But I certainly won't imbibe around the alcoholic. Alcohol is no real temptation for me. It never has been. I can drink or not drink easily. I usually choose to not drink. But I always choose not to drink around the alcoholic.

Men have a sky-high sex drive. 90% of men will admit to that and the rest will lie. I can grant that there could be heterosexual men who can see a topless woman and maintain control of their thoughts. But I will also adamantly add that most men can't.

Part of being a Christian is not subjecting others to temptation, even if that temptation exists only in their minds. It's as unfair as imbibing in front of an alcoholic. Exercising our liberty should not be the occasion of subjecting others to temptations that could break them.

But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.

For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?

Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.
1 Corinthians 08:09-13 (DRA)


St. Paul was at perfect liberty to eat meat but if eating it would cause scandal among other Christians, he would forgo meat entirely. I find it very difficult to believe that St. Paul would agree with you.

I believe you should use Mat 5 to make your argument, not Rom 14. Romans has in mind acting in a way which another Christian believes (distinguishes) to be sinful, even though it's not -- and then leading that Christian to act against their own distinction/conscience.

In other words: if a woman exposes her breasts in front of a woman whom believes it's sinful to expose the breasts, and is tempted to the same thing, that fits Romans 14. However, men don't have breasts, so they can't be tempted to do this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Modesty is not making all that much of yourself. Immodesty of the heart is the need to be noticed, and this drives immodest behavior. Which can mean drawing inordinate attention to yourself verbally. Or by the way you dress. Or by the way you simply appear. If someone always has to be the best dressed at an event, that's an immodest person. If someone has to show off what they've got, that's also immodest. A woman who willingly goes topless in an area that does not have very many women going topless most likely is doing so to draw attention to herself. If there's another one with better breasts who does the same thing in the same place, she's got a problem with that. Which indicates immodesty.

I mostly agree with you, but 1Ti 2 has in mind conduct within the church. The standard seems to be loosened (but probably not eliminated) in other contexts, c.f. Saul's kingly apparel, what the priests wore, or Joseph's coat of many colors.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I believe you should use Mat 5 to make your argument, not Rom 14
Did you even read my post??? I cited 1 Corinthians 08:09-13.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First, it doesn't matter what particular thing a non-believer does. A non-believer is condemned because of non-belief, so whether a non-believing woman covers herself or uncovers herself is irrelevant. She is still just as condemned either way.

So this is only a question for women who believe in Christ and who are members of His body. Is there a problem in the Body of Christ for women to be topless?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything edifies. -- 1 Corinthians 10

Although some translations attempt to place "everything is permissible" in the mouths of the Corinthians rather than Paul, the text does not make that indication (Koine Greek doesn't have quotation marks) and not all translations make that leap of judgement. More significantly, it fits with Paul's teaching about the Law in other places, such as Romans and Galatians, that Paul would have told the Corinthians that they were not bound by the Law--the written code.

In other words, the written code did not contain either a prescription or a proscription of specific activity that would lead to a righteous life. The Pharisees constantly examined the scriptures for acts that were sinful and were scrupulous in avoiding anything that might have been a sin. Yet, Jesus stated that righteousness demanded more than that. Righteousness is a higher bar than finding "sin" in the bible and avoiding it.

Whether Paul had originally said "everything is permissible" or the Corinthians coined the phrase themselves, Paul did not dispute that. Rather, Paul established two new standards of judging the actions of a Christian:

1. Choose actions that are beneficial.

2. Choose actions that edify.

Make no mistake, this is a far higher standard than "it says in the bible right here that is a sin." Do those things that are beneficial, do those things that edify.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual edification.


Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. -- Romans 14

Although Paul is using food as his example because food was the particular issue at hand, this applies to everything else: Do not be the cause of a brother to stumble.

Everything is permissible.

We're not looking at the specific act for inherent good or bad, but rather how it affects our relationship, first, with other members of the Body of Christ, and secondly how it affects the mission of the Body of Christ in the world (1 Corinthians 5:1).

So let's say that Christian Fred likes to have a drink or two of wine at meals, have a pleasant conversation with his wife, and go to bed. There is no sin in Fred's drinking.

But Fred invites to dinner brother Melvin who he knows is a alcoholic, yet Fred pours Melvin a drink, and encourages Melvin to have a second, being aware that Melvin might then leave the meal, buy a bottle of wine, and end the night in a drunken stupor or worse. It doesn't matter whether the act itself is inherently a sin. It is not a sin for Fred, but it is a sin for Melvin, and Fred led Melvin to Melvin's sin.

It also doesn't make a difference whether the matter leads Melvin to the same action. Melvin may merely think, "Well, Fred takes liberties according to what he likes, so I will take liberties according to what I like," and Melvin may decide to go gambling--which is the liberty he craves. Fred has caused a brother to stumble, and that is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's a moot point as fully exposed breasts during normal activity aren't really all that attractive. Shapely breasts are very alluring however when partially covered/exposed in a teasing manner, especially with the right clothing. :tongueout:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am friends with an alcoholic. I don't imbibe much in general. But I certainly won't imbibe around the alcoholic. Alcohol is no real temptation for me. It never has been. I can drink or not drink easily. I usually choose to not drink. But I always choose not to drink around the alcoholic.

Men have a sky-high sex drive. 90% of men will admit to that and the rest will lie. I can grant that there could be heterosexual men who can see a topless woman and maintain control of their thoughts. But I will also adamantly add that most men can't.

Part of being a Christian is not subjecting others to temptation, even if that temptation exists only in their minds. It's as unfair as imbibing in front of an alcoholic. Exercising our liberty should not be the occasion of subjecting others to temptations that could break them.

But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak.

For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?

Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.
1 Corinthians 08:09-13 (DRA)


St. Paul was at perfect liberty to eat meat but if eating it would cause scandal among other Christians, he would forgo meat entirely. I find it very difficult to believe that St. Paul would agree with you.



It's important to distinguish between lust and sinful lust. When you're single and dating, you're lusting - probably very intensely, for that woman. However, thus far my description hasn't included any sin. It becomes sin when you strongly desire something you can't rightly have, which is what Christ reiterated in Mat 5 (c.f. tenth commandment; I can expand, if necessary.) I also believe that fantasizing about any specific person to whom you're not married is sinful lust. Being aroused however, is not.

To further evidence this point: Christ says of himself, using the same Greek word, that he lusted. Lust is not inherently sexual, nor was Christ's lust sexual; it's simply strong desire, which is not inherently sinful.

Thus, appreciating and being aroused by a woman (and her breasts) is to lust, but that has not reached the point of sin.

But also consider that any nice thing I own can be coveted after. If I drive a Firebird, I'll tempt some to have an inordinate desire for my car (and therefore stumble). Does that mean I shouldn't own one? This is a qualitative comparison. If your argument is quantitative lust, then where do we draw the line?

It may be best to interpret 1Co 8 in the same way as Rom 14: that we should avoid tempting believers to do the same actions as we do, by their viewing our performance (e.g. eating profane meat), as long as they believe it's sinful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's a moot point as fully exposed breasts during normal activity aren't really all that attractive. Shapely breasts are very alluring however when partially covered/exposed in a teasing manner, especially with the right clothing. :tongueout:

You may enjoy this reading, if you have an ILL that can get their hands on it:

Morrison, D., E. & Holden, C., P. (1970). The burning bra: The American breast fetish and women’s liberation. Pennsylvania State University.

Bras are intended to enhance appearance, leading to more desire.

Also, the meaning of "moot" is the opposite of its typical usage: Definition of MOOT
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
First, it doesn't matter what particular thing a non-believer does. A non-believer is condemned because of non-belief, so whether a non-believing woman covers herself or uncovers herself is irrelevant. She is still just as condemned either way.

So this is only a question for women who believe in Christ and who are members of His body. Is there a problem in the Body of Christ for women to be topless?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything edifies. -- 1 Corinthians 10

Although some translations attempt to place "everything is permissible" in the mouths of the Corinthians rather than Paul, the text does not make that indication (Koine Greek doesn't have quotation marks) and not all translations make that leap of judgement. More significantly, it fits with Paul's teaching about the Law in other places, such as Romans and Galatians, that Paul would have told the Corinthians that they were not bound by the Law--the written code.

In other words, the written code did not contain either a prescription or a proscription of specific activity that would lead to a righteous life. The Pharisees constantly examined the scriptures for acts that were sinful and were scrupulous in avoiding anything that might have been a sin. Yet, Jesus stated that righteousness demanded more than that. Righteousness is a higher bar than finding "sin" in the bible and avoiding it.

Whether Paul had originally said "everything is permissible" or the Corinthians coined the phrase themselves, Paul did not dispute that. Rather, Paul established two new standards of judging the actions of a Christian:

1. Choose actions that are beneficial.

2. Choose actions that edify.

Make no mistake, this is a far higher standard than "it says in the bible right here that is a sin." Do those things that are beneficial, do those things that edify.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual edification.


Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. -- Romans 14

Although Paul is using food as his example because food was the particular issue at hand, this applies to everything else: Do not be the cause of a brother to stumble.

Everything is permissible.

We're not looking at the specific act for inherent good or bad, but rather how it affects our relationship, first, with other members of the Body of Christ, and secondly how it affects the mission of the Body of Christ in the world (1 Corinthians 5:1).

So let's say that Christian Fred likes to have a drink or two of wine at meals, have a pleasant conversation with his wife, and go to bed. There is no sin in Fred's drinking.

But Fred invites to dinner brother Melvin who he knows is a alcoholic, yet Fred pours Melvin a drink, and encourages Melvin to have a second, being aware that Melvin might then leave the meal, buy a bottle of wine, and end the night in a drunken stupor or worse. It doesn't matter whether the act itself is inherently a sin. It is not a sin for Fred, but it is a sin for Melvin, and Fred led Melvin to Melvin's sin.

It also doesn't make a difference whether the matter leads Melvin to the same action. Melvin may merely think, "Well, Fred takes liberties according to what he likes, so I will take liberties according to what I like," and Melvin may decide to go gambling--which is the liberty he craves. Fred has caused a brother to stumble, and that is wrong.

1) "Greater condemnation." Consider the condemnation of Hitler vs. Mother Theresa.

2) Your synopsis of permissible things, etc. seems quite mature and very similar to Christ's teaching about lust in Mat 5; it's sin before the act occurs. I appreciate your exposition.

3) I addressed Rom 14 and 1Co 8 above, please see those.

4) If it's not that the specific act is a sin, but that it may be harmful (at least in the given context): then we're talking ethics. And ironically, my ethical viewpoint is perhaps the primary reason I studied this topic. Specifically: I view supporting female toplessness as the proper Christian thing to do, because it's improper gender discrimination, and because it leads to more lust (see my previous reference to a study with beachgoers). Gen 2-3 doesn't support this gender discrimination, and until approximately 1937 (I can provide multiple sources), it was illegal in the U.S. for men to show their nipples in public. This freedom did not extend to women. Now, if women are hot - they can't cool off as well as men can. Their babies have to feed, on a hot day, under a blanket; I believe this should be considered child abuse.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,185
US
✟1,441,619.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's a moot point as fully exposed breasts during normal activity aren't really all that attractive. Shapely breasts are very alluring however when partially covered/exposed in a teasing manner, especially with the right clothing. :tongueout:

You must be quite a bit older than I am.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's important to distinguish between lust and sinful lust. When you're single and dating, you're lusting - probably very intensely, for that woman. However, thus far my description hasn't included any sin. It becomes sin when you strongly desire something you can't rightly have, which is what Christ reiterated in Mat 5 (c.f. tenth commandment; I can expand, if necessary.) I also believe that fantasizing about any specific person to whom you're not married is sinful lust. Being aroused however, is not.

To further evidence this point: Christ says of himself, using the same Greek word, that he lusted. Lust is not inherently sexual, nor was Christ's lust sexual; it's simply strong desire, which is not inherently sinful.

Thus, appreciating and being aroused by a woman (and her breasts) is to lust, but that has not reached the point of sin.

But also consider that any nice thing I own can be coveted after. If I drive a Firebird, I'll tempt some to have an inordinate desire for my car (and therefore stumble). Does that mean I shouldn't own one? This is a qualitative comparison. If your argument is quantitative lust, then where do we draw the line?

It may be best to interpret 1Co 8 in the same way as Rom 14: that we should avoid tempting believers to do the same actions as we do, by their viewing our performance (e.g. eating profane meat), as long as they believe it's sinful.
Those are some very impressive logical contortions you went to.

The reality is that women going topless in front of heterosexual men is a temptation for men and it's therefore sinful. Again, our liberty as Christians ends where other people's foibles and temptations begin.
 
Upvote 0