As I mentioned in the previous post in this series [1], Christian ideas of modesty in 21st century American churches often amount to the average ignorant church member and shallow Christian blogger teaching women that they have a crucial moral obligation to cover their bodies, especially if they are physically attractive, because if males lust after them they are at least partly responsible and they could have possibly prevented that lust by wearing more. This is because God is said to have intentionally created men to be hyper-visual and hyper-sexual creatures that likely want to have sex every time they view a pretty woman. Because of this innate and unconquerable biological difference, women cannot imagine how little it takes to make a man lust and therefore women should appropriately cover their bodies to ensure they are not the cause of male lust. God is also often described as morally allowing nudity only in the presence of a spouse (with some possible exceptions like a necessary doctor's examination), with nudity or minimal clothing being shameful in other contexts.
This is a very accurate general summary of the majority of modesty teachings I have encountered.
There is usually no mention of how females are just as physically attracted to males as males are to females and that the Bible affirms this repeatedly; there is usually no acknowledgment that the Bible neither ever prescribes a specific standard for modesty nor even says one exists; there is only infrequent explanation of why 1 Timothy 2 commands women not to wear expensive clothes and therefore has nothing to do with not wearing revealing clothing; there is usually no reference to the command in Deuteronomy 4:2 not to add to the moral revelation and legislation God so carefully detailed; there is often little emphasis on the undeniable fact that the Bible teaches that the human body is good and not sinful; there is rarely a sound explanation of how no one can cause another person to sin; there are usually no words dedicated to explaining that physical attraction and even sexual desire are not synonymous with the lust condemned by the Bible and so vehemently opposed by modern pulpits [2].
Now let's see some of my additional thoughts on the subject since my first post!
The "Spectrum Fallacy"
The "spectrum fallacy" (my own phrase!) refers to people assuming that a spectrum of appropriateness of clothing exists and that both ends (something like bikinis or nudity on one side and something like burkas on the other) represent errors. It is not uncommon to hear Christians talk about how revolting bikinis are while saying that burkas are unnecessary because they go too far in the opposite direction, and it is also not uncommon to hear some feminists claim that burkas are oppressive while claiming that bikinis go too far in the opposite direction.
I find myself utterly fascinated by how proponents of some standard of modesty truly believe they have found the right standard. I mean, if people are obligated to wear clothing in order to not be "inappropriate" or "tempting", how can we know that burkas aren't morally mandatory? We can't! Any lesser standard proposed instead of burkas will inevitably be arbitrary and subjective and cannot be proven by logic or supported by the Bible. And if people are not obligated to "overly" cover themselves, how can we know that bikinis are immoral? We can't! Besides, there are many bikini variants, with many of them covering different amounts of the body.
People commit the spectrum fallacy when they prescribe a particular standard for how much clothing should cover (while already committing the naturalistic fallacy) and condemn people who posit a different modest standard closer to either end of the spectrum, with bikinis on one end and burkas on the other. Christians and feminists alike often reject both "extremes" and endorse something in the middle of the imaginary spectrum of appropriateness as they condemn other positions along the same spectrum.
 |
| People who oppose mandating that women wear burkas have no standard by which to then turn around and at the same time condemn bikinis for going "too far" in the other direction and exposing too much. Likewise, the inverse is true. Those who condemn bikinis as too revealing have no standard to claim that burkas go "too far" to the other end of the spectrum but some form of clothing that covers less doesn't. |
Men and Women Are Both "Visual"
Genesis 39 houses an intriguing story. This story records how a powerful individual attempts to use a position of authority to seduce someone into sexual immorality. The individual repeats the attempts on a regular, daily basis when the target consistently refuses. Eventually, in a particularly aggressive outburst, the individual seizes the clothing of the objectified person. The victim of this sexual harassment fortunately escapes, possibly fleeing naked, because the aggressor snatched away the victim's clothes.
If I were to claim this story occurred in the modern era, many people would automatically assume that the aggressor was a man and the victim was an woman. However, this is the story of an unnamed woman (Potiphar's wife) sexually objectifying, sexually harassing, and then forcefully confronting a young man named Joseph with the possible intent to sexually force herself on him if he did not flee. In addition to all of this, we do not know what age gap existed between the two, meaning she could have been significantly older than him. Does this narrative surprise the average Christian reader of this decade? Not me.
In Ezekiel 16 and 23, God, in two highly sexual chapters of the Bible that repulse or unsettle many Christians due to rather blunt sexual language, chose to use a woman's insatiable lust as an especially depraved allegory for Israel's spiritual abandonment of him. Interesting, isn't it? He did not feature a promiscuous, lustful man, but instead, in both cases, used a lustful female to embody theological promiscuity. God never denied that women have deep sexual desires and natures just like men do, never once stating that one gender is more biologically prone to sexual desire or lust than the other. Since one of the central premises cited in favor of modesty is the belief that men are indescribably and uncontrollably visual, I wanted to more thoroughly discuss the idiocy of this idea. It has become so accepted by the secular and Christian world that many men and women seem to believe it simply because it is so common.
So were men intentionally created with overwhelming levels of sexual desire, a predisposition to lust, and an innate tendency to elevate selfish sexual desires over emotional bonding while women were designed as beings that seek "emotional attachment" and have minimal sexual desires? Nowhere does the Bible support this nonsense, which can often be found taught in complementarian churches. I certainly know with absolute certainty that this is not true because I can't relate to the claim that men are sex-obsessed and lust after every woman they see. I do not want to have sex and I do not mentally objectify females.
What?!?
I definitely think the human body--male and female--is pleasurable to look at, but I have no desire to sleep with attractive women I see and I do not objectify them by ignoring the other dimensions to their personhood. I cannot relate to these sins at all. Now, as I have stated at least once before on this blog, I am asexual. Still, my own nature proves to me that men are not helplessly visual creatures. To claim all or most men are "visual" and all or most women aren't because some members of each gender fit into those societally-conceived and stereotyped categories is to commit the fallacy of composition, assuming that what is true of the part is true of the whole. Men and women are both visual creatures, with the degree drastically varying between one individual and another. Both genders are comprised of sexual beings, with the level and intensity of sexual desire different between one person and another. Is this truly a revolutionary idea? I have even heard Christian women explain how they definitely have deep sexual desires and that if they hadn't found other Christian women with the same feelings they might think no other women possess them. It is pathetic that women have to treat their sexuality as something secret, unnatural, or abnormal. The Bible does not conceal the truth that women are very visual [3].
The Bible describes both men and women who had stunningly beautiful bodies and faces [4] and does not elevate the beauty of one gender over that of the other, which is something that my society indulges in--and since my culture views females in general as inherently more attractive than males in general (while largely holding to aesthetic relativism and denying that beauty is objective!), this may possibly contribute to the idea that men are allegedly hardwired to be hyper-visual as compared to women. Some ancient societies like the Greeks valued the male body more than female beauty; our culture does the opposite. Both of them cannot be right at the same time, but both ideas can be simultaneously incorrect. Likewise, some annihilated societies of the past believed the inverse of American sexual stereotypes--women were viewed as the ones with overwhelming sexual passion, not men! These beliefs vary from culture to culture and simply reflect the social conditioning of a particular geographical area.
What benefit would there be from God making one gender very visual and the other one almost apathetic towards physical looks and immune to sexual impulses? What sense would that make?
There are some Christians who realize that gender-specific double standards for modesty are absurd, but these people generally try to become consistent in an erroneous way. Instead of proclaiming that there is no standard for male or female modesty, they use the same tactics and fallacious arguments used to argue for female modesty to argue that since women lust after men, men should cover their bodies adequately as well [5].
 |
| Many members of both genders are beautiful and enjoy showing their bodies to others. Men and women alike seem to possess a natural, innate desire to "show off" their bodies without being objectified--and there is nothing sinful or unnatural about this. |
"Do not add to what I command you . . ."
Christianity teaches that the human body is good (Genesis 1:28) and thus to label the human body sinful is to indulge in a major error. God designed male and female bodies to be beautiful and for us to recognize and enjoy this, not to shirk from it or from the body he created with such magnificence. The Bible says not to become drunk, not to avoid all alcohol. The Bible says not to commit adultery, not to fear married individuals of the opposite gender or avoid their presence or friendship. The Bible says not to covet or degrade others in your heart, not to look away from the beauty he imbued them with. The Bible says not to steal, not to abstain from admiring someone's possessions. Deuteronomy 4:2 is an invaluable verse, preceding 30 more chapters of an entire book that helps outline the specifics of Christian morality while reminding people to never add to or subtract from the imminent moral commands to follow.
Because there is no syllogism or portion of Mosaic Law or the New Testament which reveals a specific standard for how much of our bodies clothing should cover--and nowhere is one even hinted at--no one can soundly claim that there is one. People have no right to claim that one exists or that they have discovered it; they can merely express subjective personal dislike for certain types of clothing or swimwear. If burkas or other such clothing are not morally mandatory and if bikinis and other such clothing are not inappropriate, then there is nothing wrong with any degree of exposure of the human body. The logical conclusion that follows the information I have presented is that if there is no such thing as an ontological or moral standard for how much clothing a man or woman should wear then God clearly does not oppose even full public nudity. This should not disturb Christians. After all, God commanded Isaiah to be naked for three years (Isaiah 20:1-6); his moral legislation acknowledged and even endorsed public nudity (Exodus 22:26-27); he created humans naked (Genesis 2:25) and then called it very good (Genesis 1:28); he never once instructed men and women to wear a certain amount of clothing or to even wear clothing at all (other than Jewish priests in Exodus 20:26); he never once condemned simple nudity, nor did he prohibit people from taking pleasure in either seeing it or being naked. Wearing or seeing something like bikinis, seeing or participating in nudity, and experiencing pleasure from doing so are not sinful alone. The human body is the supreme apex of God's creation, not the physical embodiment of sin and temptation.
Christians who dislike seeing bikinis or shirtless males or the human body in general for fear that they will lust should not swim in public places instead of condemning others for violating their subjective perceptions of a nonexistent moral obligation. Legalism about modesty teachings has infested the church with its many fallacies and additions to the moral revelation of Scripture--in contradiction of the very Bible Christians claim is authoritative (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Biblical Morality Allows Innocent Behavior
A small sampling of Biblical morality shows that the Bible condemns practices like abusing one's parents (Exodus 21:15), the slave trade (Exodus 21:16), legally discriminating against women (Exodus 21:26-27), oppressing foreigners (Exodus 22:21), failing to help a personal enemy in need of help (Exodus 23:4-5), neglecting the poor (Leviticus 19:9-10), seeking revenge (Leviticus 19:18), militarism (Deuteronomy 20:10), mistreating animals (Deuteronomy 22:6-7), sexual assault (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), vigilantism (Deuteronomy 25:1), cruel and degrading punishments (Deuteronomy 25:3), dishonesty in business (Deuteronomy 25:13-16), etc.
Much of that sounds strangely comparable to modern moral ideas, doesn't it?
Nowhere in all the extensive legislation of Mosaic Law--which is the most exhaustive and clear place of moral revelation in the entire Bible--does God condemn or caution against innocent things like enjoying alcohol responsibly, using certain four-letter words to express confusion or frustration, developing intimate and lifelong nonromantic friendships with members of the opposite gender, appreciating secular literature, and so on. It is clear that Biblical morality is concerned with how humans treat each other and treat the God responsible for their existence, not with how much freedom or pleasure God can arbitrarily prohibit. Many think that the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament were implemented in order to protect the Jews from food-borne diseases due to the lack of scientific awareness of bacteria, for instance.
In short, Biblical morality overlaps with what some might call "humanistic" moral principles far more often than one might anticipate. As mentioned above, Deuteronomy 4:2 even warns people not to impose moral obligations in areas where God did not specifically legislate or reveal ethical truths. Things like "modesty" are left entirely to the subjective whims of the individual and are never described as objective moral obligations.
Conclusion: Peace is Possible
 |
| Peace about issues like lust, body image, sexuality, legalism, and responsibility for sin is very liberating in this era of church legalism, societal infatuation with obsession over sex and sexualization of everything, and false guilt due to erroneous positions on lust and sexuality. |
Learning the truth about the human body and the absurdity of moral revulsion at its exposure can bring great peace--peace because attraction is not sin, because physical attraction is not a unilateral sensation that only males experience but is bilateral and mutual between the genders, because no one is obligated to conform to any standard of "modesty" taught by society or the church or one's family, because the human body is not evil, and because God grants us freedom to wear and not wear what we wish. As evidenced by other posts on my blog, I am very body-positive and I despise legalism--adding to revealed moral commands in order to prevent sin. Christians need to understand these truths and actually apply them, and I will continue to emphasize these points until Christians abandon the cultural conditioning, subjective preferences, extra-Biblical rules, and logical fallacies they are forced to rely on in order to perpetuate these asinine beliefs. Just as Jesus stated, the "truth will set you free" (John 8:32): free from legalism, free from unnecessary fear and anxiety, free from ignorance, and free to relax in the peace that knowledge brings.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
[2]. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus never says not to look at beautiful men and women; he merely says not to look with lust. This alone demonstrates that looking at beautiful humans and enjoying it is not lustful or sinful. In Matthew 5, a very misrepresented chapter all around, Jesus condemns wanting to commit sins like murder or adultery even when there is no physical action that follows. Some linguists and theologians have noted that the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word used for "covet" in the Decalogue (Exodus 20) is used in Matthew 5, meaning Jesus was just repeating the command not to wish to take someone's spouse away from them found in Exodus 20:17. With this definition, sexual objectification is not technically lust. Objectification is reducing someone to just one aspect of their personhood, with sexual objectification obviously occurring when someone ignores that a man or woman is not just an attractive sexual being but also an emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and social being. Clearly, lust is not a "second look" or recognition of beauty or physical attraction or desire to have sex in the future or even sexual arousal; it is coveting someone else's spouse who belongs to them or a desire to commit a sexual sin. See here for an explanation of what sexual objectification is and why clothing or lack of it has nothing to do with it: http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-clothing-objectify.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
[4]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html
[5]. For examples, see below:
A. "I was actually convicted about this on a personal level last year. I was engaged to a wonderful and godly man named Zack (whom I am now married to), and our wedding day was only three months away. Out of desperation to get fit before my big day, I purchased an intense workout video serious.
After watching about thirty seconds of the first workout video, I realized that most of the guys on the screen were ripped out and were shirtless. I knew this probably wasn’t the best thing for me to be looking at…but after all, I wasn’t really “watching” it – I was just following the exercise . . .
Several days later my fiancé asked me a question out of the blue that totally caught me off guard. “So, what kind of outfits are the men in your workout video wearing?” Zack asked me out of curiosity. My heart sank. I had to be honest. 'Well…they’re kinda wearing athletic shorts…and…well, ya know…not really a shirt…for most of the time.'
. . . The struggle of lust is usually talked about as a “guys problem” and us girls feel like we’re off the hook. Our culture is putting shirtless, half naked, ripped out men in front of us and nobody is telling us not to look. Well, if you’re like me, then you know that lust and fantasies can be just as much of a problem for girls as it is for guys."
--https://www.girldefined.com/shirtless-guys-at
B. "If God is concerned about women being set apart, modest and holy in a pagan culture, it makes sense that the same underlying principle would apply to men as well. God wants Christian guys and girls to reflect the purity and holiness of His Son through what we wear.
Whether it’s a guy or girl, modesty should be a priority, because it sets us apart from our pagan culture. It covers our nakedness and reminds us of our need for a Savior . . .
Lust isn’t just a guy problem. Girls struggle with lust too. Why do you think there’s a massive influx of movies, books, and magazines featuring sexualized males? Not every girl struggles with lust to the same degree, but it hits all of us sooner or later.
God designed us to be attracted to the male body. Female lust has been an issue since the beginning of time. Remember Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:6-10)? She wasn’t the first or the last woman to lust after a good looking guy."
--https://www.girldefined.com/shirtless-guys-christian-girl
C. "All that said, while wading through the murkiness of acceptable social and religious attire, we tend to forget that women are sexual creatures as well. God created humans to enjoy sex within the confines of a biblical marriage. This means that both sexes enjoy this activity and both, then, are prone to lust. That’s right, men, what you wear can cause women to lust. Further, what you don’t wear likely will cause women to lust. Confused? Don’t be, this is easy; what don’t you wear when you go swimming? What don’t you wear when you’re playing pick up ball and it’s hot out? What don’t you wear while running?
A shirt.
Please fight the urge to blow off the rest of this article, because this is important. In the secular mind there are only two reasons why a man wears a shirt when he goes swimming, either 1) he’s out of shape and embarrassed about it or 2) he fell asleep sunbathing and his skin is fried like KFC. That’s it.
An article on the Christian post a couple of years ago recounted the following exchange:
After one lake outing I did hear a faithful girl say, 'Wow! ________ looks fiiiiine with those 6-pack abs!' It was clear she was not talking about one of her female friends…they were all wearing one-piece suits. No abs on display . . .
But there are countless Christian men in great shape and shirtless at every opportunity. Do we think that a half-naked man wouldn’t cause a woman to lust? Do we not think our sisters in Christ are going to be carnally tempted when you ditch the shirt on a hot day? How can we in good conscience exhort women to ensure they wear tankinis so as to cover any unnecessary skin while we nearly bare all at the very same time? Is that leading our women well? I think not."
--https://entreatingfavor.com/christian-men-modesty/
No comments:
Post a Comment