The Folly Of Modesty (Part 1)

Since it's summer and people will go swimming, I had to post about the dangers of immodesty and showing skin.  After all, bikinis are dangerous because they tempt people.  I'm just kidding!  I'm certainly not going to confirm the traditional Christian view of modesty but will obliterate it instead.  I realized several things about the issue long ago and have wanted to promote the information more overtly.  Since Christian and secular culture both have made it clear that female modesty is more urgent and of greater ethical concern than male modesty due to the supposed hypersexuality of males, despite the fact that men and women are both equally sexual and visual, most of this post will unfortunately focus on the task of addressing what society and the church generally think about it.  In particular, since it is summer, I will sometimes concentrate on the opposition to bikinis found among Christians.  Before the year ends, though, I want to separately post about the fallacies and absurdities of claiming men are "visual" and women aren't and why that is an incorrect conclusion.

Now, onward to destroy a false teaching prevalent within the evangelical church!  Be warned: this is a much longer post than usual.

No Biblical Basis


--1 Timothy 2:9-11--"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."


Let's inspect the ONE brief passage that people who tell women to cover themselves endlessly appeal to.  Christians can be quite fond of claiming that the sight of an attractive person can cause someone else to lust after them, and the danger only increases with lesser amounts of clothing.  Does this passage have anything at all to do with instructing women not to wear bikinis when swimming or not to wear whatever the culture considers "appropriate"?  It has nothing to do with that.  First of all, the text clearly defines the modesty it refers to as having to do with not wearing "expensive clothes" or "gold", not with how much skin is exposed.  Do expensive clothes or inexpensive ones cover less of the body?  Clearly the inexpensive ones.  Yet this is exactly what Paul is commanding people to wear.  His instructions here have nothing to do with condemning attraction or teaching shame about the human body.  The modesty he describes has to do with the expense of clothing, not its size.




There are some who would claim these woman are sinning.
However, no divine decree or logical syllogism justifies
this conclusion.

Now that I have proven that the Bible doesn't even comment on the modern evangelical "issue" of how much female clothing should cover, allow me to demonstrate why there is no standard at all and eventually why bikinis and the human body are good things.  After all, just because the Bible doesn't condemn something by name doesn't mean it's morally permissible.  The Bible never condemns human trafficking by that title, but it says to execute kidnappers (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7) and rapists (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), so obviously human trafficking is unspeakably evil since it involves two capital crimes.  The Bible doesn't mention unequal gender wages, but it does demand the legal equality of both men and women (Exodus 21:20, 21:26-27, Deuteronomy 15:12-18; see [1]).  Likewise, the Bible rarely condemns specific types of inhumane punishments like Roman crucifixion, but the general prohibition of all degrading forms of punishment in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), among other things (Deuteronomy 21:22-23, etc.), would indisputably condemn barbarous penalties like those used by the Romans [2].

So, despite the absence of an explicit Biblical injunction against, say, wearing bikinis, is there any reason to think that it is morally wrong for a woman to wear one?  Or for a man to not wear a shirt?  Or for someone to wear clothing that is otherwise adjudged revealing in some way?

No Verifiable Standard


Suppose a woman who is swimming wears a tankini--some people will label her modest and others will inevitably object.  If she wears multiple layers, some people can still object.  Whether she wears a bikini or not someone will accuse her of immodesty.  No matter what she wears or doesn't wear (whether swimming or not)--a bikini, sleeveless shirt, shorts, pants, or dress--there will always be people who are comfortable with her clothing and those who will call her immodest or immoral because of it.

But this is bullcrap reasoning.  For instance, how many inches of the legs must be covered?  Ask anyone who believes in modesty why an inch or millimeter further isn't the standard.  Not only will no one concur about where the line is, but they will have no explanation as to why their choice is correct but a less "modest" line isn't.  In philosophy, that's called "begging the question".  Issues like how much clothing someone should wear (and as I explained in another post, violence and profanity in entertainment [3]) have no objective standard and are therefore entirely up to the subjective preferences of the individual.  There is no point at all in insisting otherwise.  These things do not hurt people, so there is no connection between them and morality.  God hates injustice, racism, murder, rape, vengeance, kidnapping, and other activities that do harm people or the offender's relationship with others or himself, but never once does he condemn innocent or harmless behaviors.  For instance, I will use an example relevant to this page.  When it comes to sexuality, God despises promiscuity, adultery, sexual objectification, sex trafficking, forced sex, and sex with animals; the Old Testament is clear about this.  These things objectively hurt people who are made in God's image, while only a lunatic or a very uninformed person would say the same about attraction, close friendships with the opposite gender, dating, dancing, flirting, or wearing bikinis or other revealing clothing.  Yes, revealing clothing has nothing to do with sexuality in and of itself anyway, but I'm making a specific point here.  The Bible doesn't even mention many of these things and they do not objectively hurt people.  The difference between sin and an activity for us to decide to engage in or abstain from is obvious and distinct.

What standard in the Bible says that this is morally better
than . . .

this or that either is immoral?  Or that this is better than . . .

this or that either is immoral?  Or that this is better than . . .

this or that either is immoral?  Or that this is better than . . .

this or that either is immoral?  Or that this is better than . . .

this or that either is immoral?  Or that this is better than . . .

this or that either is immoral?  There is no such standard
described in the Bible.  Biblical morality reveals the standard
for things like sexual acts, justice, and interpersonal relationships.
It never even hints at a moral standard for the amount of clothing
someone should wear or that we have any obligation to cover
our bodies.  We have freedom to dress as we want.  The human
body is good, not evil, as are attraction and admiration of beauty.

Anyone who believes in a certain standard of modesty because of emotional preferences and tells others they found some objective line of modesty commits the fallacy of emotional appeal.  Those who agree on a type of clothing as modest or immodest can't cite anything beyond their agreement as a reason and therefore commit the fallacy of appeal to popularity.  People can't justify belief in modesty because the church has taught it for so long, because that is an appeal to tradition.  Tradition doesn't make anything true.

The Human Body Not Inherently Sexual


In the movie Prometheus a character played by actress Noomi Rapace named Elizabeth Shaw removes all of her garments except for a bikini-like layer of clothing in order to allow a machine to perform an operation on her.  For the entire scene and some time afterwards she wears minimal clothing, yet there is nothing sexual about her body or the tone of any frame of the scene.  Many people have either forgotten or never understood that the human body and beauty by themselves do not equate to sexual things.  Finding someone's body attractive, clothed or unclothed, is also not, in itself, a sexual thing at all.  Enjoying and visually admiring the bodies of men and women does not automatically herald the presence of sin.  A body is just a body and the exposure of one does not mean that sex will occur; admiring a body does not mean the admirer wants to have sex with the object of the admiration and does not mean that the admiration has a sexual bent.  So then why do people in America often act like they believe otherwise?  Simply put, because many of them just inherit false beliefs from society and then sexualize almost everything as a result.

Attraction Not Sinful


Many evangelicals attempt to justify their negative view of the human body and attraction between the two genders (people who think men are attracted to women but think the opposite is not true are deluded) by referring to Matthew 5:28, where Jesus condemns lust.  Some people read into this verse that everything from looking at someone of the opposite gender to feeling attracted to anyone is dangerous or sinful.  But God does not condemn attraction (Genesis 1:28, Deuteronomy 21:10-11) or the human body (Psalm 139) or almost anything else the evangelical church claims.  The word used for "lust" in Matthew 5:28 refers to coveting what does not belong to oneself.  So a man or woman could appreciate the beauty of someone else's spouse and enjoy deep friendship with them without lusting, but if he or she decides to wish to take the person from their spouse, sin has occurred.  Some people claim that a "second look" or some other line represents when lust is crossed into, but if someone can look at another person without lusting once then they could look indefinitely or an infinite number of times without lusting.

As I proved in the preceding paragraph, attraction is not lust or sinful, and can even be something people cannot decide to experience or not.  People may not be able to force themselves to feel or not feel attraction, but they have full volitional control over their physical actions and motives.  And it is our actions and motives that God will judge, for only these can be corrupt.  If an unmarried man or woman can enjoy the beauty of the opposite gender without sinning, then it logically follows, by necessity, that a married person can do the same.  There is nothing morally wrong with a married person experiencing attraction for someone other than his or her spouse or noticing that someone else is attractive.  Many people feel false guilt over this.  There is nothing rational or Biblical about teaching a position contrary to the one described here and spouses should not feel threatened by this.  What God does despise and what he condemns repeatedly with great severity is a spouse sexually betraying the other by committing an act of adultery (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 22:22), which truly damages the relationship, and someone coveting the spouse of another person, desiring to take him or her for themselves (Exodus 20:17).

Responsibility For Sin


No one can make someone else sin.  While in almost every other regard Christians understand this, they don't apply the obvious principle to the issue of female modesty.  If someone has a beautiful house, is another person sinning to admire it and find it beautiful?  Does admiration mean they have or will covet it?  NO!!!  Does the admiration become sinful just because the one admiring already has a house of his or her own?  Of course not!  And if someone struggled with coveting the house or car of another person, would anyone suggest that the house or vehicle be covered to at least a "suitable" degree in order to avert the coveting?  We would laugh at anyone who proposed such a "solution", yet evangelical Christians fall for the same unintelligent reasoning all the time when it comes to clothing and the human body. Did Jesus tell the person being lusted after in Matthew 5:28 to wear more clothes?  No, he rebuked the one lusting instead.   Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts, motives, attitudes, and actions, and no one else is responsible for them at all.  The exact reasoning people use to claim that a man or woman can invite lust by not wearing clothing or clothes of a certain type is the same "logic" used to blame rape on rape victims, because their clothing was "asking for it".  Think that excuse will survive a confrontation with God?  This is as stupid and invalid as saying that a person who mocks another individual "was asking" to be assaulted or that someone who enrages an unstable person "was asking" to be murdered, yet even mocking someone can be sinful, though revealing clothing is not.  Does anyone truly believe God will agree that someone can make another person sin?  Based on Exodus 21:18-19 and 21:12-14, God clearly holds people fully accountable for their assaults and murders despite whatever justification they believe they have, and he treats lust and rape no differently.

Can guns cause murder?  Can verbal disputes cause assault?  The Bible
condemns both murder (Exodus 21:12-14) and assault (Exodus 21:18-19)
but it never prohibits arguments or ownership of weapons.

Defying these asinine positions, European countries that allow and encourage public nudity have far lower rates of sexual assault than America does.  In 2010, Spain, a country that openly permits public nudity, had a rape rate of 3.4% while America had one of 27.3% the same year [4]!  Only a very ignorant or fallacy-prone person would claim that bikinis or nudity or the human body in general lead to acts like rape or other sexual sins.  Of course they cannot cause anyone to sin.  But not only is there no possible causation, as the sight of clothing or a body cannot make anyone commit any action whatsoever (duh!), there is not even any correlation between the two (though logic renders statistics completely unnecessary here)!

Since lust and coveting are Biblically identical, allow me to use different examples.  At a certain time of my life I was extremely apathetic towards other people in general.  I had arrived at the conclusion, after a long period of hoping otherwise, that I couldn't make anyone change their mind or embrace reason and truth, and that correct conclusion combined with deep frustration and anger towards other people for their unreasonableness and sin led me into a horrific apathy.  I could have blamed my severe apathy on the idiocy of other people.  But I didn't, because I knew it would be dishonest and factually incorrect to do so.  I couldn't transfer responsibility for my anger and apathy to those around me because I alone was responsible for it.  Just as I was responsible for my apathy, people who lust alone hold responsibility for their sin.  Modesty has no value in reducing lust, but even if that statement was not true, some men and women would still objectify and lust after each other even when "fully" clothed.  Clothing does absolutely nothing to alleviate or prevent lust, and lack of clothing does absolutely nothing to contribute to sexual objectification.  Many Americans sexualize everything because they've been conditioned to, not because everything is inherently sexual.

A Double Standard


Something that bothers many people is the deeply-entrenched double standard regarding modesty.  Churches might enforce a pointless and legalistic modesty standard on women but not men.  Why?  Well, because "men are visual", of course.  I hate this deplorable, false, contra-Biblical assumption.  While this requires more extensive elaboration on another time, men are nowhere near as "visual" as society stereotypes them to be and women are absolutely JUST as visual as males are, in the sense that the degree of visuality of a person has nothing to do with gender, but with individual personality--and even the Bible affirms this multiple times.  The church has absorbed nonsense gender roles and stereotypes from contrived societal beliefs that not all cultures have held and has incorporated them into its theology, though nowhere does the Bible teach these things, and logic and experience refute them in full.  Both male and female Christians have told me that they deeply enjoy the opposite gender's beauty and sometimes reveal that they have healthy but strong sexual desires, and there is nothing wrong or unnatural about that.  Unfortunately, many things like this truly deserve their own subsequent post and can't be unpacked fully here [5].

Why do adherents of modesty teachings who find women
wearing bikinis morally offensive (on wholly illogical
and subjective grounds, of course) not condemn men who
do not wear shirts?  If they think the Bible does not teach
that women are visual and sexual beings just like men are.
have they not read of Potiphar's wife in Genesis 39 and
other Biblical passages affirming the visuality and
sexuality of women?

Nudity Not Sinful

Some Christians realize that if there is no standard for modesty then there is no rational or moral way to condemn nudity, and they would object to what I have explained in this post on such grounds.  But a Christian who would dispute this claim must contradict what the Bible actually teaches about it.  To quickly summarize (and there is far more to this than I can address here), God created humans naked and called it good (Genesis 1:31, 2:25), never prescribed judgment against simple public nudity (Deuteronomy 4:2), commanded Isaiah to remove all of his clothing and preach entirely naked for three full years (Isaiah 20:1-6), allowed public nudity in Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:26-27), and instructed Moses to make other laws that seem absurd if nudity was not involved (Deuteronomy 23:1, for example).  And, of course, nudity cannot cause lust or sexual sin.  However, there is not even necessarily anything morally wrong with sexualized public nudity.

I want to mention a great oddity I've encountered throughout the past few years.  I've even heard and read many ironic assertions by Christians saying that the two thieves crucified alongside Jesus deserved their crucifixions (see [2]-c in the links below) right next to statements about how "extra-marital" public nudity is a sin Jesus died for.  The ironic part is that the Romans crucified people after stripping them naked for maximum degradation.  Such Christians are knowingly or unknowingly teaching that 1) we should do what is good, 2) justice is good, 3) the two thieves deserved to be crucified (meaning their crucifixions were just), and so 4) it was just for the sadistic Romans to strip the thieves naked and thus 5) forced public nudity was good (since justice is good).  This bullshit goes unchallenged although it has major ramifications.  Contradictory to what many say, Mosaic Law condemns many individual components of Roman crucifixion so outright and so explicitly that only a very ignorant or malicious person would say that the Romans who crucified men and women were anything other than some of the most cruel and wicked people to ever live.  See [2] for Biblical proof of the utter injustice of Roman crucifixion from the framework of Christianity--including the forced nudity involved in it.  The Bible does not teach that God condemned voluntary public nudity but the forced nudity and crucifixion of criminals was just; it teaches the exact opposite of what these fallacious fools claim!

For a more thorough explanation of this you can visit other articles where I explore this topic in greater detail [6].


Conclusion


Ultimately, people are morally free to wear or not wear whatever they wish at the beach and in their private and public activities.  Any moral opposition to their choices is logically indefensible, as one can never justify such criticism from any rational argument or passage of Scripture.  Nothing I have articulated and proposed here suffers from irrationality or distortion of the Bible.  There are great benefits to the truths I have explained.  If people realized the folly of modesty teachings, they could liberate themselves from endless legalism and speculation on the subject and could enjoy comfort with the human body instead of feeling threatened by it.  They could celebrate its beauty and the natural and MUTUAL attraction between males and females, which God has never condemned.  People wouldn't have to suffer the anxiety of wondering if the beauty God gave them is a curse or if they've caused someone else to sin.  This is what the church needs to teach, not the absurd nonsense it has grown accustomed to in its place.

Men and women have no objective moral obligation to cover
their bodies to a certain degree at beaches or swimming
pools, contrary to the fallacious ideas of many evangelical
Christians.

[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/bible-on-gender-equality.html

[2].  See here:
  A.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/bible-on-torture-part-1.html
  B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/bible-on-torture-part-2.html
  C.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html

[3].  "And people can't object to violence and profanity as universal reasons why someone shouldn't play a game because there is no objective line that marks when something has become too violent or too riddled with profanity . . .  While the Bible prohibits the actions of murder and assault and kidnapping and robbery, we cannot claim there is some way to know if visual depictions of such things go 'too far'.  God has revealed no special knowledge on this matter.  And no one can propose a universal standard here without committing at least one of several logical fallacies, most likely an emotional appeal.  People can't agree on where the line is, and even if they did agree their consensus does not prove they are right."--
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-artistic-legitimacy-of-gaming.html

[4].  http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime

[5].  I have written elsewhere on both how women are visual and how the Bible teaches that both men and women are beautiful without elevating the beauty of one gender over the other.
  A.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
  B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html

[6].  See here:
  A.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html
  B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/bible-on-nudity-part-2-refutation-of.html