Topless Danes

[Angel4Truth]

The actual word is pharmikah not poison.

 

[Chajara]

The point that is being ignored in this thread is that if no one covered up and we all walked around naked except when it's too cold, then guess what? No one would care. It would no longer be a lust issue. It's the fact that it's a taboo that makes it tantalizing. If men got to see boobies all over the place, they wouldn't look twice at them. Problem solved.

I also believe that women are not responsible for men's sexual desires. But then, I also have a different definition of lust. I don't believe a man looking at an attractive woman and wanting to sleep with her is wrong. It's natural, and how they were made. It's when they allow that desire to override their self control and actually go after her with the intention of sleeping with her that it becomes lust. That's my opinion, anyway. But when they notice a woman, appreciate her beauty, and then shrug it off and go back to what they were doing? How is that wrong? Don't we all do that, even women?

 

[Archivist]

This doesn't float either -- and using extremes like this doesn't work. (it's quite typical to go from 1/2 naked to putting someone in a "burka" as an extreme opposite) -

It's no different than your statement about women going topless in church (which has nothing to do with the OP).

If you look at clothing styles from 50-100 years ago, you can see how modest they used to be decades & centuries ago tho.

You say this as a blanket statement. It is true for some cultures but noy all cultures.

They understood it wasn't right long ago... these are LATER changes that came over time.

This is a cultural issue.

I call it rebellion, others call it "liberation".

You are free to call it what you want.

We all have an inner conscience, and most of the world (outside pigmy tribes in the back 40 jungles) knows it's an area to be covered, again, this came LATER in time, it wasn't the norm. decades & centuries ago.

Proof? I think that history says otherwise.

This happens as people continue to push the envelope and get more and more steeped into sin & rebellion to God.

But women going topless isn't rebellion to God anymore than men going topless is rebellion to God.

Fetishes are on the person individually - they probly need deliverance from perversion of some sort at the root.

What is your background. Are you a psycologist? Do you have any training that would support this?

God has given men a natural sexual desire, when it gets into kinky fetishes, you will predominantly be able to track it back to something that needs to be dealt with or repented of.

So women going topless causes kinky fetishes. Do you have proof for that?

That's not up to others to cover the entire body head to toe becuz of people's uncontrolled perversions. But we DO know what sexual organs are - and even then on beaches people are bearing their rear ends there too.

Breasts are not sexual organs and this thread is not about bearing one's rear end.

Modesty verus immodesty; we all know what it is, despite all the attempts to debate in support of topless women.

And, again, female modesty in terms of Scripture deals with overadornment.

 

[Tissue]

The actual word is pharmikah not poison.

And the actual translation is "sorcerers", not "druggies".

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes because at the time those who dabbled in magical arts used drugs to enhance the experiences - which is why it was translated that way - but its most definately referencing drug use even though some people dont want that to be the case.

 

[Tissue]

Yes because at the time those who dabbled in magical arts used drugs to enhance the experiences - which is why it was translated that way - but its most definately referencing drug use even though some people dont want that to be the case.

There are multiple possible intepretations that are equally as valid as your's, and would result in drug use being ok.

Once again, it's got nothing to do with what I WANT to be the case. It's got to do with what Scripture actually says.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Scripture actually condemns drug use and calls a womans nakedness before other than her husband to be shame.

You cannot have it both ways that its a cultural thing when you have to admit it says it - but then say "its got to do with what scripture actually says".

Thats all over the map.

 

[HuntingMan]

Women in Demark have gained the right to go topless in public pools.

Why should this be an issue? Shouldn't women have the right to go topless anywhere that men can go topless?

It absolutely should be an issue because of the way men perceive female breasts.
My question is wondering why any christian, male or female, wouldnt understand why this is a problem.

 

[Nadiine]

It absolutely should be an issue because of the way men perceive female breasts.
My question is wondering why any christian, male or female, wouldnt understand why this is a problem.

my sentiments EXACTLY! And why they're the ones promoting it as acceptable.

Female breasts have ALWAYS been a focal point of male sexual arousment.

Is it a violation on CF policy to ask any of these guys promoting topless females if THEY are sexually stimulated by viewing women's boobs.

Do they have topless bars in Denmark too?

 

[Chajara]

It absolutely should be an issue because of the way men perceive female breasts.
My question is wondering why any christian, male or female, wouldnt understand why this is a problem.

Because most men only perceive female breasts as sexual objects when they are taught that they are sexual objects. If they saw them all the time, they would be no more tantalizing than a pretty face or healthy and beautiful hair, or a nice set of hips (which are very obvious even when clothed.)

 

[Tissue]

Scripture actually condemns drug use and calls a womans nakedness before other than her husband to be shame.

You cannot have it both ways that its a cultural thing when you have to admit it says it - but then say "its got to do with what scripture actually says".

Thats all over the map.

Why is that, in any way, a contradiction?

There are cultural mandates in Scripture, this is almost universally accepted. These are the sorts of mandates that applied to a specific culture, but no longer apply to us. Again, read Leviticus.

Reading what Scripture actually says is impossible. That's my point. You MUST interpret it. I interpret it, you interpret it, everyone interpret it. No one can hold Scripture in their hand and understand it without interpreting it.

 

[Tissue]

It absolutely should be an issue because of the way men perceive female breasts.
My question is wondering why any christian, male or female, wouldnt understand why this is a problem.

Because we actually have a bit of familiarity with psychology.

Fact of the matter is, though, that my generation is quite likely to see things this way, whereas your generation will hold fast. Eventually, my generation will be the major political/social force in America (which will be only another decade or so). So on your way into retirement, we'll start seeing more and more of these things talked about.

And in that, I find comfort.

 

[HuntingMan]

1) Paul addressed modesty in terms of verdressing, not underdressing. Actually public nudity was fairly common in much of the Roman Empire during Paul's time.

And what else was going on in Pauls day in Rome that you approve of that scripture may not ?
How did GODLY JEWISH women normally dress in scriptures ?
If you can show that women like Mary walked around with her breasts hanging out, then you might have an argument.

2) Men are responsible for their own actions. If they are fatasizing about sex, that isn't the woman's fault.

This is the single most bogus line of logic for allowing immodesty that Ive ever seen.
We know full well that men are very visually stimulated, so lets just take off our clothes and then blame them for looking and doing precisely what they are hardwired to do.

 

[Nadiine]

Because most men only perceive female breasts as sexual objects when they are taught that they are sexual objects. If they saw them all the time, they would be no more tantalizing than a pretty face or healthy and beautiful hair, or a nice set of hips (which are very obvious even when clothed.)

well then the same would apply to female GENITALS too, shouldn't it?
If men are "trained" to think boobs are "sex objects", the same would have to apply to women going nude for bottomless arousal too, no?

You are completely ignoring the NATURAL sexual urges of men that God has implanted in men (visually).
Did you ever stop to wonder why women don't have the same type of arousal when they see men's bodies & private parts?
We have a whole different system of attraction and sexual stimulation - not to say 0 women have ANY visual arousal, but they operate differently.

This isn't about "training" men not to be aroused at certain body parts - it's a natural function and again, you're ignoring scripture on modesty in apparel - ask what modest means, it isn't 1/2 nude.

 

[Tissue]

And what else was going on in Pauls day in Rome that you approve of that scripture may not ?
How did GODLY JEWISH women normally dress in scriptures ?
If you can show that women like Mary walked around with her breasts hanging out, then you might have an argument.

Just because she didn't doesn't mean it's sinful.

This is the single most bogus line of logic for allowing immodesty that Ive ever seen.
We know full well that men are very visually stimulated, so lets just take off our clothes and then blame them for looking and doing precisely what they are hardwired to do.

You say hardwired. I'd say softwired, as regards breasts as an explosive sexual stimulus.

 

[HuntingMan]

Because we actually have a bit of familiarity with psychology.

Psychology is actually our friend in this area.
We know that men are visually stimulated. A mans can become sexually aroused even from seeing certain shapes even tho no real woman or photo of a woman is actually being seen.
I spent some time in school learning just what sorts of ways to draw a mans eyes to an advertisement using this sort of thing.
One of the reasons I got away from that area of advertising and graphics.

Fact of the matter is, though, that my generation is quite likely to see things this way, whereas your generation will hold fast. Eventually, my generation will be the major political/social force in America (which will be only another decade or so). So on your way into retirement, we'll start seeing more and more of these things talked about.

And in that, I find comfort.

Eventually this new generation will become a new Sodom.
It is inevitable...

 

[Tissue]

well then the same would apply to female GENITALS too, shouldn't it?

Very likely, yes. Irrelevant, however, as men do not walk around bottomless. The argument is about equality for women and men as regards toplessness.

You are completely ignoring the NATURAL sexual urges of men that God has implanted in men (visually).
Did you ever stop to wonder why women don't have the same type of arousal when they see men's bodies & private parts?
We have a whole different system of attraction and sexual stimulation - not to say 0 women have ANY visual arousal, but they operate differently.

I think it's fairly safe to say you have no background in psychology whatsoever. I took an Intro to Psych course for three weeks then dropped it, but that seems to make me the expert here. So hey, listen to what I have to say.

Some women are stimulated visually just as much as men (a fair percentage, I'd bet).

There.

This isn't about "training" men not to be aroused at certain body parts - it's a natural function and again, you're ignoring scripture on modesty in apparel - ask what modest means, it isn't 1/2 nude.

Wrong. It's cultural.

You won't dig deeper and actually study this. But then, that's normal fare, isn't it? It's your position, all the way, no worries about facts other people might present.

It's quite literally like trying to argue with a pile of beans.

 

[Nadiine]

And what else was going on in Pauls day in Rome that you approve of that scripture may not ?
How did GODLY JEWISH women normally dress in scriptures ?
If you can show that women like Mary walked around with her breasts hanging out, then you might have an argument.

exactly, he hasn't answered that yet -- but I'd LOVE to hear it.
We know full well that wasn't the custom; in fact, God warned His people NOT to do what the gentiles outside Israel were doing - and not to get tangled up in those types of things.
CHRISTIANS are not to follow the world's lifestyles when they break His principles and laws.

Deep down, I think we ALL know it in our hearts. You know, it's one thing to talk about it and even see some nudity on tv, but when it's up front, in person right in front of you with strangers - going topless/bottomless, I think we would all know in our hearts that it's wrong.

(anyone sensitive to hearing the Spirit anyways).

 

[Tissue]

Psychology is actually our friend in this area.
We know that men are visually stimulated. A mans can become sexually aroused even from seeing certain shapes even tho no real woman or photo of a woman is actually being seen.
I spent some time in school learning just what sorts of ways to draw a mans eyes to an advertisement using this sort of thing.
One of the reasons I got away from that area of advertising and graphics.

Sexual arousal at the sight of a rhombus isn't lust.

Eventually this new generation will become a new Sodom.
It is inevitable...

Of course. Because we do things differently than you.

I usually love old people, but some of them can be quite arrogant/self-conceited.

 

[Tissue]

We know full well that wasn't the custom; in fact, God warned His people NOT to do what the gentiles outside Israel were doing - and not to get tangled up in those types of things.

I'm 99.9% sure the Israelites weren't the first to use chariots.

How can you possibly quote that verse and be so certain it's referring to toplessness?