It is one of Western culture's stubborn but easily-refutable myths: someone can devalue himself or herself (though honestly this is usually said more about women) by merely exposing his or her body to certain extents, the person in question allegedly "objectifying" and diminishing the "dignity" of himself or herself. I find that this horrendously illogical (and unbiblical!) idea that someone devalues his or her dignity by wearing revealing or minimal clothing still needs to be defeated within my sphere of contact with others, since some people have not yet admitted the truth of the matter. Secular people have no basis to make judgments about dignity, value, or morality by, so their comments are totally irrelevant, and Christians cannot rally around the Bible here unless they want to quote some nonexistent verse.
There is no amount of clothing or lack of clothing that affects the objective value of an individual. Human dignity does not have anything to do with clothing, but everything to do with bearing God's image. A man without a shirt on a beach and a man wearing one on a beach do not have different degrees of "dignity". A woman wearing a bikini on a beach (even a very small one) and a woman wearing a one-piece swimsuit on a beach do not have differing degrees of dignity. A clothed person and a naked person do not differ in their dignity.
It doesn't matter what someone wears--bikini, speedo, thong, nothing at all--besides all the reasons why modesty teachings are bullshit Biblically and logically [1], the idea that some clothing carries more "dignity" than others is based entirely on subjective, arbitrary cultural or individual constructs and has nothing to do with reason or Scripture. Then there's the stupid double standards that condemn women for exposing body parts that men can expose without social outcry (example: male and female breasts are equally not sex organs, yet people freak out at female breasts as if they are), made even more asinine by the fact that women are generally attracted to men just as men are generally attracted to women [2].
It may be helpful to yet again define objectification to see what its true source is.
If a man sees an attractive woman or a woman sees an attractive man and experiences a sensation of physical attraction, no objectification has occurred. Marital status is entirely irrelevant. If a man sees a woman in a bikini or a woman sees a shirtless man and finds pleasure in observing that person, no objectification has occurred. If a man sees an attractive nude woman or a woman sees an attractive nude man and notices that person's body, no objectification has occurred. If the man or woman feels attraction, no objectification has occurred. Even if the man or woman experiences physical sexual arousal (which can be involuntary and does not logically indicate mental sexual desire), no objectification has occurred. One can experience this without ignoring or denying the full humanity of the other person, without violating that person's human dignity. But if that man or woman mentally reduces the attractive person to nothing but an attractive body that exists for his or her viewing pleasure, then objectification has occurred; if that man or woman treats the attractive person as if he or she is not a full human being with a mind, emotions, an autonomous will, and so forth--dimensions beyond just a beautiful body--then objectification has occurred.
Objectification and dignity have nothing whatsoever to do with either clothing or its absence. It has everything to do with the mind of a person who does not respect the full humanity of another person. A person does not objectify himself or herself by wearing or not wearing clothing; some people objectify others because of their own lack of respect for them. The problem of sexual objectification has never existed because of clothing or the human body. And if someone objectifies another person, sexually or otherwise, the human dignity of the objectified person has not changed. Again, people have dignity by nature of bearing God's image, not a kind derived from clothing.
People objectify people, not clothing. Bikinis and other clothes do not affect or have anything to do with human dignity. Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
No comments:
Post a Comment