The Stripping of Modesty

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Thanks, Alex. I look forward to our continued discussion.

I appreciate being "realistic," but there is a very important place for pondering the "ideal" even in a messed-up world!

If we don't know what the ideal actually is, how can we make any good decisions about realistically pursuing the ideal in a less-than-ideal world?

We all know that humankind lost a lot at the fall, but the "pre-fall" reality is still the "after-the-fall" ideal. Think about it...

• Before the fall, we (humans) lives in perfect relationship with God. That's the ideal that we were created for. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to live in relationship with God anyway... pursuing that "ideal" with all our hearts. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.

• Before the fall, we lived in perfect harmony with other humans, and most highly expressed in the marriage relationship. That's the ideal God intended for human relationships and marriage. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to live in harmony with others anyway, particularly in the marriage relationship. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.

• Before the fall, we lived "naked and unashamed"... that's a perfect relationship with ourselves. That's the ideal we were created to be. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to have the capacity to live naked and unashamed anyway. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.

Oddly enough, however, that notion on the third point is so foreign to most Christians today as to evoke a quick and urgent reminder that we can never be "naked and unashamed" now because, "WE CAN'T GO BACK TO EDEN!!" and "IT'S AFTER THE FALL NOW... SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!"

But those same two objections apply equally to the first two points. No... we'll never regain it to the very level of pre-fall Eden, but shouldn't we still TRY???

Should we ever just "accept" the results of the fall and the curse and make no effort to combat those difficulties they brought to us?

• Should we tell women that because God cursed childbirth with pain, that they just have to deal with it? No epidurals, sorry. The pain is "God's Will" for you!
• Should we tell farmers that because God cursed the ground, they shouldn't attempt to irrigate or weed their gardens? Do NOT use week-killer! Why? Because thorns and thistles are now "God's Will" for you!
• Should we tell everyone that because disease and death are just part of the curse, that they are going to die someday, so if they get sick, it's just God telling them that "You're Time's up." You just have to live--and die--with the curse exactly as God handed it down to us all.

NO! We actively fight and use every means at our disposal to overcome and compensate for those curses... and we still try to make post-fall life as much as possible like pre-fall life. We actively seek to stave off death (an enemy) as long as we possibly can.

The pre-fall reality is still the post-fall ideal. Jesus even affirmed this when asked about marriage and divorce by the Pharisees... and He literally quoted Genesis 2:24 (pre-fall) as the answer to their post-fall question about marriage.

And that begs the question... would Jesus affirm pre-fall Genesis 2:24 as the ideal for a post-fall world, but reject pre-fall Genesis 2:25 (naked and unashamed) for the post-fall world? I don't think He would!

But, hey... we're talking "ideals" here rather than "realistic." I get that. But if we are going to make decisions about how to live in a post-fall world, shouldn't we first acknowledge what the "ideal" is that we need to pursue? We may not hit the target in the middle, but if we don't even know which direction to shoot, we will always miss it... and not just by a little.

David

You make a lot of good points, and those articles you shared are excellent. I'm not used to being on the losing side of a discussion, but here I am!

My thoughts so far:

--God made the body good; inappropriate contentographic exploitation of the body by our culture does no one any favors.

--If this wasn't a fallen world, none of this would be an issue; ultimately, sin is to blame for the unnecessarily complicated & sexualized views of the beautiful human body.

--We often operate with the potential of other people's sin in mind. Churches lock their doors & out their money in a safe to protect against others' greed, and this is not seen as a bad thing.

--Yet list is largely a conditioned response, and as such, the body must be seen in a non-sexual light to undo the damage of a inappropriate contentographic culture.

--I found a good example of how some British women are doing this: Women from tiny village pose nude to teach others about body image


I suppose the best way to continue this discussion, to more directly address my viewpoint, is this question: How would you want your daughter to dress? I'm unmarried, but I plan on having kids one day (if God permits; James 1:14), so this question rose in my own mind as how this whole discussion could be applied.

I was very impressed with both articles you shared, but what they did not address was different modes of dress. I agree with everything they said, but the implications of leggings, low-cut shirts, those muscle shirts for men (like tank-tops, but cut down the side a lot more), and any clothing that is more provocative were not addressed. Perhaps more acceptance & exposure to the human body would make such questions irrelevant, as people would stop dressing to attract attention to themselves if the body was seen more respectfully. Perhaps this also comes down to a question of the spiritually weak & spiritually strong, as Paul discusses throughout 1 Corinthians. What do you think?

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

I guess my point is this: Modesty has a real effect on people. The original post makes this clear, as does my own life experiences, that people in this fallen world will often respond to a higher call when the easy route is removed. When a girl dresses in a way that doesn't accentuate certain parts of her body, a lustful guy is no longer able to take the easy route of checking out her body; he must now understand that there is more to the person.

I am very thankful for this whole conversation, as it has led me to a much deeper appreciation & call to remember that I really should strive for something more ideal. I lock my doors at night to protect against other people's sinful natures, but I can still pray for them to reach God & find peace with what they have; doing so is something I haven't considered before, but you have brought me into a pattern of thinking more in terms of what we should really be striving towards; thank you for that.

I would want my daughter to dress as she wishes, in terms of colors & many other aspects of clothing. But I want her to dress in pants that don't accentuate the butt, and in a shirt that isn't cut high or low. I don't know what fashions will look like in 15 years or so, when I may have to worry about a daughter's apparel. I can & should pray that society will have better sexual morality & genuine appreciation of the human body by then.

I suppose modesty could be considered a harm-reduction technique; it doesn't solve the overarching problem, but it mitigates some of the symptoms. If nude beaches were a thing in America, I would have no problem going there, especially with a family, as such exposure to normal bodies (not inappropriate content images) seems like it would be beneficial for the kids, and for all of us. And we'd save money on swimsuits! ,

@MyChainsAreGone , I await your answer to how you would want your daughter to dress, as I pray & know that it will be good.

 

[Darkhorse]

[QUOTE="Unofficial Reverand Alex, post: 74985635, member: 405139" If nude beaches were a thing in America, I would have no problem going there, especially with a family, as such exposure to normal bodies (not inappropriate content images) seems like it would be beneficial for the kids, and for all of us. And we'd save money on swimsuits![/QUOTE]

Nude beaches are a thing in the USA (there are several), and they are indeed beneficial for families.

My wife and I went to them together before we were married, and after we were married, we took the kids along. It teaches many things, including true modesty.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

It teaches many things, including true modesty.

Interesting. Can you elaborate?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I guess my point is this: Modesty has a real effect on people. The original post makes this clear, as does my own life experiences, that people in this fallen world will often respond to a higher call when the easy route is removed. When a girl dresses in a way that doesn't accentuate certain parts of her body, a lustful guy is no longer able to take the easy route of checking out her body; he must now understand that there is more to the person.

Actually, Alex, I have to disagree. "Modesty" (as the OP meant it) does not have any effect ON people... it simply seems to minimize the opportunity for the expression of the lust that lives in their heart.

First of all, does this so-called "modesty" really prevent anything? Can a man lust after a fully-clothed women who is "modestly" dressed? Of course he can. And of course men do.

Now it is true that many men believe that it is the simple sight of a woman's body that "triggers" a lustful response in a man, so they fully expect that they won't have a lustful response if a woman's body is not visible... so, naturally, they don't. But that doesn't mean that they don't have lust in their heart... it just means that they didn't express it this time. And if we're really honest about it, it also means that his internal false belief that the problem is outside of himself is going to be more even more deeply affirmed in his heart. That will only make it more difficult to root out at a later time.

Consider the actions of Jesus... He did very little if anything to prevent the Pharisees from expressing and thereby betraying the pride and hatred they had in their hearts. At times, it seems He acted in a way that He knew would provoke them... and "trigger" their hateful and prideful responses.

What good does it do to avoid a sinful response in someone else? Wouldn't it be better for it to be exposed so that it can be dealt with? Jesus sure seemed bent on exposing that sin in the Pharisees!

I'm not saying that we should always do that... but I'm saying that the result of "triggering" someone is NOT the measure of right or wrong. And I'm also saying that sometimes, the exposure of that sin is better for that sinner than participating with the false strategy for fighting the problem just to avoid it's expression!

I would want my daughter to dress as she wishes, in terms of colors & many other aspects of clothing. But I want her to dress in pants that don't accentuate the butt, and in a shirt that isn't cut high or low. I don't know what fashions will look like in 15 years or so, when I may have to worry about a daughter's apparel. I can & should pray that society will have better sexual morality & genuine appreciation of the human body by then.

I want my daughter to dress in a way that does NOT buy into the culture's sexualization of the body, OR the church's sexualization of the body through false "modesty" standards!

Dress appropriately for the situation. If at the beach, then wear beach attire that's appropriate for that context. And even a bikini is quite "normal" at the beach. So would I have any problem with my daughters wearing bikinis at a beach? Not at all. If they traveled to Europe where it's quite normal for women to sunbathe topless, would that bother me if they did so? Not at all. Even at a nude beach where the "norm" is full nudity, would that bother me if my daughters participated fully nude? Not at all. It' all about what's appropriate for the situation.

Attire and/or behavior that is intended to attract sexual attention to the body... now that's a problem no matter how covered or uncovered she may be. Or HE may be.

I suppose modesty could be considered a harm-reduction technique; it doesn't solve the overarching problem, but it mitigates some of the symptoms. If nude beaches were a thing in America, I would have no problem going there, especially with a family, as such exposure to normal bodies (not inappropriate content images) seems like it would be beneficial for the kids, and for all of us. And we'd save money on swimsuits!

Good for you! And I would recommend that you follow through on that suggestion. The experiencing of the truth in such a context might be the very fastest way to confirm the truth in your heart and deactivate the false expectations and conditioning that you and every other western male have had burned into our minds and hearts.

But "modesty" is no "harm-reduction" technique at all. Like it says quite clearly in Colossians 2:20-23, any and every man-made rule for righteousness (no matter how "wise" they appear to be) are of ZERO use in "restraining sensual indulgence" (NIV).

@MyChainsAreGone , I await your answer to how you would want your daughter to dress, as I pray & know that it will be good.

See above...

 

[Darkhorse]

While "modesty" really means "humility" or "humbleness", I am following the trend in this thread, which defines "modesty" as "not displaying one's body in a sexually suggestive way" or "trying not to entice someone sexually by the display or actions of one's body".

Using these definitions of "modesty", how can nudity be "modest"? (I'm speaking here of interpersonal mixed-sex nudity).
Simply by realizing and understanding a basic truth: nudity and sex are not inexorably linked. You can have either one without the other being present.
We have lost sight of this truth by making interpersonal nudity almost nonexistent, except in sexual situations (sexual relations, inappropriate content, strip clubs, etc.).
Like Pavlov's dogs, we have been conditioned to associate sex with nudity virtually every time we encounter it. Make no mistake; this IS a conditioned response.
Earlier generations experienced interpersonal nudity to a greater extent than we do, due to nude swimming and non-private bathing being much more common than now.

Modern instances of non-sexual interpersonal nudity usually consist of medical exams or procedures, or group showers for athletes. Even these have been drastically reduced for the sake of "modesty", while inappropriate content continues to be an ever-rising sewer of "immodesty". This is NOT a co-incidence; these two factors ARE related.


Nude beaches return people to the understanding that nudity and sex are independent, and are linked only by the actions of the people in question.
If the people in a mixed-sex group are not doing sexual things, then it is not a sexual situation. Certainly sexual attractions are present, but they always are, whether nude or clothed.
We all learn to control our feelings and impulses.

Nude beaches also teach that the rules of proper behavior are the same, whether people are nude or clothed.

Being nude with others in non-sexual situations "de-conditions" (extinguishes) the conditioned response of automatically associating sex with nudity.
Extinguishing a lifetime of conditioning usually takes repeated efforts, but it happens, and eventually becomes permanent (unless re-conditioned).

This de-conditioning is the ultimate state of "modesty". While people are aware of each other's nudity, it becomes almost totally unimportant.


The first time I went to a nude beach, I expected it to be an erotic experience. I thought: how could it be anything else? I had seen photos of totally-nude people lying on beaches, and if the reality were anything like that...

After my initial excitement died down, I began to see the people in a completely different way.
I now understood that being nude with a group of nude people didn't make it a sexual situation at all. They were just a typical crowd of typical people enjoying a beach in all the typical ways, only without coverings of any kind. They were just wearing the skin that everyone has, while going about their recreational pursuits.


I have several posts in my CF blog about my journey into nudism, in much more detail.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Let me see if I can give you some moderate, middle-of-the-road advice, @Unofficial Reverand Alex.
You said you were worried about your future daughter dressing in some way that was too sexual. I think that's a perfectly valid concern. The vast majority of Western people aren't nudists. Not everyone wants to be a nudist. Clothing is very practical even if there are times you don't need to wear it. The vast majority of Western people see a naked human body, especially of a young woman, as sexual. Whether this is "conditioned" or not, this has been a fact for centuries, if not millennia. inappropriate content has increased this to levels unheard of before.

I think a nuanced, balanced view is in order. Frankly, I think this applies to many issues Christians have to deal with. For this case, I'd say that you should let your future daughter wear what she wants once she starts buying her own clothes. But warn her that young men may, at times, stare at her if they get glimpses of parts of her body that are more often covered. Now, many Christian parents take this out of proportion. It's true that men are (whether through "conditioning" or otherwise) more sexually aroused by visual stimuli--not that women never get aroused by a guy in a speedo or something, but men are more visual and it's biologically "easier" for them to get aroused. Especially because they live in a culture that offers both men and women so much inappropriate content.

However, I also think that most guys, inappropriate content-addicted or otherwise, are not so fallen as to be unable to see a woman as anything other than a sex object just because she's in a bikini or something. They also know that the rules of society prevent them from simply taking a woman that they find attractive and having their way with them. But I think a lot of fundamentalist Christian parents and man-hating feminists forgot this, and so both groups had these ideas that if young men had their way, they'd rape a woman for wearing a skimpy outfit. Even if that happens sometimes, it doesn't happen all the time. So if your future daughter is in a bikini on a beach in public, she has nothing to be afraid of except for maybe a guy staring at her a little bit. And that's ok. At a beach, people inevitably "check people out". Part of the reason other people do not like going to beaches, because it's crowded and some people don't like to be stared at even if they're not objectively ugly. So if you have sons instead of daughters don't treat them like potential rapists for staring at a woman in a bikini.

As for the daughter thing, well, the last thing I'd say is that if she is in any way familiar with the guy who's staring at her, she can consider making friends with him. If a girl is friends with a guy, that guy will see her as a friend in turn and not necessarily have an uncontrollable erection every time he sees her in a bikini. Even if he has a crush on her he won't see her that way. There was a woman who I had a crush on to the point of having sexual fantasies about her at times (which I shouldn't have done, but I did it anyway because that's part of the human sex drive, sinful or otherwise). She's not attractive, just plain-looking. I didn't get aroused looking at her, I got aroused thinking about how (so I thought) we'd make a great couple and should get married and do what married couples do, all when the woman herself wasn't around. So lust starts in the heart, even if you look at a woman with lust--whether you think that's getting aroused by a woman in a bikini, which I don't think it is unless you start imagining yourself doing sexual things to her, or if it's seeing a woman and having a desire to possess her as your own, which is what Christians of the past were rightfully worried about and tried to address wrongly with a misguided view of what modesty means in the Bible.

And as awkward as this sounds, I think communication is key. If a bunch of women are wearing skimpy outfits and turning a guy on, then it should be up to the key to, if he knows these women, speak up and tell them to please stop dressing the way they are because he's having too many sexual thoughts about them. If he doesn't know these women, then he can just avoid them because people see strangers all the time. I remember once seeing some woman at a pool when I was a teenager. I was in this balcony condo and could see her without seeing me. She had decently-sized breasts and somewhat openly adjust them in her bikini (she probably wasn't trying to be sexual, but there were often kids and families at that pool that wouldn't have liked her doing that). I remember getting aroused because, well, I was a teenager and that's what teenage boys get aroused by. But I didn't have sexual thoughts about her later. I didn't try and imagine having sex with her. I don't think I "lusted" after her--I just stared, a bit rudely, and got aroused. If that was all David did when he saw Bathsheba, I don't think he would have sinned. I didn't understand this difference for quite a while, and I think it would benefit your future children regardless of sex to understand that. Young women aren't instruments of sin for young men. Young men's minds aren't factories of sin. If someone wants someone else to be modest, they'll have to be polite and ask, or just leave the tempting situation, as the Bible instructs. Otherwise, no one should assume any harm has been done.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Actually, Alex, I have to disagree. "Modesty" (as the OP meant it) does not have any effect ON people... it simply seems to minimize the opportunity for the expression of the lust that lives in their heart.

First of all, does this so-called "modesty" really prevent anything? Can a man lust after a fully-clothed women who is "modestly" dressed? Of course he can. And of course men do.

Now it is true that many men believe that it is the simple sight of a woman's body that "triggers" a lustful response in a man, so they fully expect that they won't have a lustful response if a woman's body is not visible... so, naturally, they don't. But that doesn't mean that they don't have lust in their heart... it just means that they didn't express it this time. And if we're really honest about it, it also means that his internal false belief that the problem is outside of himself is going to be more even more deeply affirmed in his heart. That will only make it more difficult to root out at a later time.

Consider the actions of Jesus... He did very little if anything to prevent the Pharisees from expressing and thereby betraying the pride and hatred they had in their hearts. At times, it seems He acted in a way that He knew would provoke them... and "trigger" their hateful and prideful responses.

What good does it do to avoid a sinful response in someone else? Wouldn't it be better for it to be exposed so that it can be dealt with? Jesus sure seemed bent on exposing that sin in the Pharisees!

I'm not saying that we should always do that... but I'm saying that the result of "triggering" someone is NOT the measure of right or wrong. And I'm also saying that sometimes, the exposure of that sin is better for that sinner than participating with the false strategy for fighting the problem just to avoid it's expression!

I want my daughter to dress in a way that does NOT buy into the culture's sexualization of the body, OR the church's sexualization of the body through false "modesty" standards!

Dress appropriately for the situation. If at the beach, then wear beach attire that's appropriate for that context. And even a bikini is quite "normal" at the beach. So would I have any problem with my daughters wearing bikinis at a beach? Not at all. If they traveled to Europe where it's quite normal for women to sunbathe topless, would that bother me if they did so? Not at all. Even at a nude beach where the "norm" is full nudity, would that bother me if my daughters participated fully nude? Not at all. It' all about what's appropriate for the situation.

Attire and/or behavior that is intended to attract sexual attention to the body... now that's a problem no matter how covered or uncovered she may be. Or HE may be.

Good for you! And I would recommend that you follow through on that suggestion. The experiencing of the truth in such a context might be the very fastest way to confirm the truth in your heart and deactivate the false expectations and conditioning that you and every other western male have had burned into our minds and hearts.

But "modesty" is no "harm-reduction" technique at all. Like it says quite clearly in Colossians 2:20-23, any and every man-made rule for righteousness (no matter how "wise" they appear to be) are of ZERO use in "restraining sensual indulgence" (NIV).

See above...

While "modesty" really means "humility" or "humbleness", I am following the trend in this thread, which defines "modesty" as "not displaying one's body in a sexually suggestive way" or "trying not to entice someone sexually by the display or actions of one's body".

Using these definitions of "modesty", how can nudity be "modest"? (I'm speaking here of interpersonal mixed-sex nudity).
Simply by realizing and understanding a basic truth: nudity and sex are not inexorably linked. You can have either one without the other being present.
We have lost sight of this truth by making interpersonal nudity almost nonexistent, except in sexual situations (sexual relations, inappropriate content, strip clubs, etc.).
Like Pavlov's dogs, we have been conditioned to associate sex with nudity virtually every time we encounter it. Make no mistake; this IS a conditioned response.
Earlier generations experienced interpersonal nudity to a greater extent than we do, due to nude swimming and non-private bathing being much more common than now.

Modern instances of non-sexual interpersonal nudity usually consist of medical exams or procedures, or group showers for athletes. Even these have been drastically reduced for the sake of "modesty", while inappropriate content continues to be an ever-rising sewer of "immodesty". This is NOT a co-incidence; these two factors ARE related.


Nude beaches return people to the understanding that nudity and sex are independent, and are linked only by the actions of the people in question.
If the people in a mixed-sex group are not doing sexual things, then it is not a sexual situation. Certainly sexual attractions are present, but they always are, whether nude or clothed.
We all learn to control our feelings and impulses.

Nude beaches also teach that the rules of proper behavior are the same, whether people are nude or clothed.

Being nude with others in non-sexual situations "de-conditions" (extinguishes) the conditioned response of automatically associating sex with nudity.
Extinguishing a lifetime of conditioning usually takes repeated efforts, but it happens, and eventually becomes permanent (unless re-conditioned).

This de-conditioning is the ultimate state of "modesty". While people are aware of each other's nudity, it becomes almost totally unimportant.


The first time I went to a nude beach, I expected it to be an erotic experience. I thought: how could it be anything else? I had seen photos of totally-nude people lying on beaches, and if the reality were anything like that...

After my initial excitement died down, I began to see the people in a completely different way.
I now understood that being nude with a group of nude people didn't make it a sexual situation at all. They were just a typical crowd of typical people enjoying a beach in all the typical ways, only without coverings of any kind. They were just wearing the skin that everyone has, while going about their recreational pursuits.


I have several posts in my CF blog about my journey into nudism, in much more detail.

Let me see if I can give you some moderate, middle-of-the-road advice, @Unofficial Reverand Alex.
You said you were worried about your future daughter dressing in some way that was too sexual. I think that's a perfectly valid concern. The vast majority of Western people aren't nudists. Not everyone wants to be a nudist. Clothing is very practical even if there are times you don't need to wear it. The vast majority of Western people see a naked human body, especially of a young woman, as sexual. Whether this is "conditioned" or not, this has been a fact for centuries, if not millennia. inappropriate content has increased this to levels unheard of before.

I think a nuanced, balanced view is in order. Frankly, I think this applies to many issues Christians have to deal with. For this case, I'd say that you should let your future daughter wear what she wants once she starts buying her own clothes. But warn her that young men may, at times, stare at her if they get glimpses of parts of her body that are more often covered. Now, many Christian parents take this out of proportion. It's true that men are (whether through "conditioning" or otherwise) more sexually aroused by visual stimuli--not that women never get aroused by a guy in a speedo or something, but men are more visual and it's biologically "easier" for them to get aroused. Especially because they live in a culture that offers both men and women so much inappropriate content.

However, I also think that most guys, inappropriate content-addicted or otherwise, are not so fallen as to be unable to see a woman as anything other than a sex object just because she's in a bikini or something. They also know that the rules of society prevent them from simply taking a woman that they find attractive and having their way with them. But I think a lot of fundamentalist Christian parents and man-hating feminists forgot this, and so both groups had these ideas that if young men had their way, they'd rape a woman for wearing a skimpy outfit. Even if that happens sometimes, it doesn't happen all the time. So if your future daughter is in a bikini on a beach in public, she has nothing to be afraid of except for maybe a guy staring at her a little bit. And that's ok. At a beach, people inevitably "check people out". Part of the reason other people do not like going to beaches, because it's crowded and some people don't like to be stared at even if they're not objectively ugly. So if you have sons instead of daughters don't treat them like potential rapists for staring at a woman in a bikini.

As for the daughter thing, well, the last thing I'd say is that if she is in any way familiar with the guy who's staring at her, she can consider making friends with him. If a girl is friends with a guy, that guy will see her as a friend in turn and not necessarily have an uncontrollable erection every time he sees her in a bikini. Even if he has a crush on her he won't see her that way. There was a woman who I had a crush on to the point of having sexual fantasies about her at times (which I shouldn't have done, but I did it anyway because that's part of the human sex drive, sinful or otherwise). She's not attractive, just plain-looking. I didn't get aroused looking at her, I got aroused thinking about how (so I thought) we'd make a great couple and should get married and do what married couples do, all when the woman herself wasn't around. So lust starts in the heart, even if you look at a woman with lust--whether you think that's getting aroused by a woman in a bikini, which I don't think it is unless you start imagining yourself doing sexual things to her, or if it's seeing a woman and having a desire to possess her as your own, which is what Christians of the past were rightfully worried about and tried to address wrongly with a misguided view of what modesty means in the Bible.

And as awkward as this sounds, I think communication is key. If a bunch of women are wearing skimpy outfits and turning a guy on, then it should be up to the key to, if he knows these women, speak up and tell them to please stop dressing the way they are because he's having too many sexual thoughts about them. If he doesn't know these women, then he can just avoid them because people see strangers all the time. I remember once seeing some woman at a pool when I was a teenager. I was in this balcony condo and could see her without seeing me. She had decently-sized breasts and somewhat openly adjust them in her bikini (she probably wasn't trying to be sexual, but there were often kids and families at that pool that wouldn't have liked her doing that). I remember getting aroused because, well, I was a teenager and that's what teenage boys get aroused by. But I didn't have sexual thoughts about her later. I didn't try and imagine having sex with her. I don't think I "lusted" after her--I just stared, a bit rudely, and got aroused. If that was all David did when he saw Bathsheba, I don't think he would have sinned. I didn't understand this difference for quite a while, and I think it would benefit your future children regardless of sex to understand that. Young women aren't instruments of sin for young men. Young men's minds aren't factories of sin. If someone wants someone else to be modest, they'll have to be polite and ask, or just leave the tempting situation, as the Bible instructs. Otherwise, no one should assume any harm has been done.

I appreciate all your input. I'll have to pray on this for a while.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

I accidentally came across an article on modesty that seemed relevant to this discussion.

I Never Knew a Bikini Could Hide So Much - Chastity

I never thought of this modesty as a woman-to-woman body comparison before. It still highlights an issue with society, but a different one from the lust that is usually discussed.

I suppose much of my argument about modesty is utilitarian. Yes, people should be able to wear whatever they want, without others' sinfulness being involved, but does it work? Are people really led to a more Godly view of the body when people dress immodestly? Or are they, like the OP & the woman in the article, led out of their sinfulness to something greater, when other people help them out by wearing less tempting attire?

I wonder if part of the reason why we haven't been able to come to each other side on this argument is if both signs are necessary.

Actually, Alex, I have to disagree. "Modesty" (as the OP meant it) does not have any effect ON people... it simply seems to minimize the opportunity for the expression of the lust that lives in their heart.

True. Lust can still live in a person, even if they don't lust after a particular person. But what will it take for someone to look at more in the body of a person? Drawing attention to the smile, the family, the thoughts and feelings of another person is really what's necessary to undo the objectification of another's body. Modesty can often be the 1st step in this... Discussions such as this may be the necessary second step!

I have been praying on this awhile & I will continue to do so. This is not intended to be a conclusive statement, just my thoughts so far.

May we continue to be open to God's lessons!

 

[lovelife34]

I accidentally came across an article on modesty that seemed relevant to this discussion.

I Never Knew a Bikini Could Hide So Much - Chastity

I never thought of this modesty as a woman-to-woman body comparison before. It still highlights an issue with society, but a different one from the lust that is usually discussed.

I suppose much of my argument about modesty is utilitarian. Yes, people should be able to wear whatever they want, without others' sinfulness being involved, but does it work? Are people really led to a more Godly view of the body when people dress immodestly? Or are they, like the OP & the woman in the article, led out of their sinfulness to something greater, when other people help them out by wearing less tempting attire?

I wonder if part of the reason why we haven't been able to come to each other side on this argument is if both signs are necessary.


True. Lust can still live in a person, even if they don't lust after a particular person. But what will it take for someone to look at more in the body of a person? Drawing attention to the smile, the family, the thoughts and feelings of another person is really what's necessary to undo the objectification of another's body. Modesty can often be the 1st step in this... Discussions such as this may be the necessary second step!

I have been praying on this awhile & I will continue to do so. This is not intended to be a conclusive statement, just my thoughts so far.

May we continue to be open to God's lessons!

I think it's interesting that you think this "modesty thing" only applies to women. I never look at guys with "cleavage" and lust over them. Or guys wearing shorts. I think you haven't been into the fitness side of YouTube. Men wear muscle shirts and tight shirts to show their muscles and physique. Ita the opposite of "modesty" but I don't get lustful thoughts from that. They always say, "men are visual creatures," but women aren't blind. We are also visual creatures. But it's interesting how women don't usually lust after men, even if they are topless. I think we need to hold ourselves accountable. This whole "men are visual creatures" argument is dangerous, because you hear some people ask questions like "what was she wearing?" When discussing someone's rape.... it's quite dangerous in my opinion. There's nothing inherently sexual about the female body. We have been taught to objectify it. So you need to unlearn that objectification, not be lazy and try to tell women what to wear. God sees the heart. Many of these women aren't deliberately trying to cause anyone to lust after them. If it's 100 degrees outside and it's hot...why should women wear turtlenecks and shapeless sweatpants? The other thing is, we don't look at little toddlers wearing skirts and shorts in this same way, so we know that the objectification of female bodies is learned overtime.