I can easily run through, yet again, a concise summary of why evangelical modesty teachings are entirely nonsense. There is no standard of modesty revealed by logic or Scripture (with modesty here meaning a certain amount of clothing one must wear). In fact, on the Biblical worldview there is no such thing as any standard of modesty and there is no general obligation to cover one's body at all (Deuteronomy 4:2). There is nothing sinful about the human body, even when it is unclothed in its entirety (Genesis 1:31; see James 1:13, Isaiah 20:1-6, and Exodus 22:26-27). Then there's the fact that sexual attraction is entirely nonsinful in itself, and the Bible only condemns coveting someone else's spouse, wanting to commit a sexual sin, or mentally reducing a person to just one component of his or her being (objectification). Besides, no person can make another being with free will sin. And bikinis are not sexual whatsoever in themselves. There is also the idiotic tendency for evangelicals to treat women as asexual or demisexual beings and men as hypersexual beings, when gender has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is asexual, demisexual, and so on. For lengthier elaborations on these things, see earlier posts.
An error that needs to be extinguished for good, the one I want to magnify and dissect here, is the idea that bikinis are somehow sexual, when they are objectively nonsexual. Why does this myth persist in some evangelical minds? It only persists because of stubbornness on the part of its adherents. Nothing at all about the human body, physical beauty, and aesthetic attraction themselves is sexual. Unsurprisingly, misunderstanding these facts can lead to many manifestations of legalism, asceticism, and pointless guilt.
If I was to walk around without a shirt on, or even without any clothing, the exposure of my body does not mean that I am trying to attract female attention or that I am intending to show off my body (though absolutely nothing is wrong with either on their own). It is also true that a woman wearing a bikini is not necessarily doing so in an effort to attract male attention. Even if I and the hypothetical aforementioned woman did intentionally show our bodies hoping to attract the attention of the respective opposite gender, this is not necessarily sexual in nature. A desire to simply be thought of as beautiful, apart from sexual feelings, can motivate a person to show his or her body. Someone might feel confident at being admired independent of a relationship or of sexual fulfillment.
 |
| Nothing at all about bikinis themselves is sexual. |
Just as nothing about a male going shirtless is sexual, though the context or intentions behind the exposure might be, nothing at all about a bikini is sexual, and only the context or intentions in wearing it might be sexual. It is asinine to think that bikinis are sexual in nature or that every time a woman wears one she has sexual motivations, just as it is asinine to think that the exposed male form is inherently sexual or that a shirtless man must have sexual motivations for forgoing certain clothing.
I hope that this summer Christian legalists cease their stupidity, confront any heretical asceticism they might cling to about the alleged sinfulness of the human body, and come to both accept their own bodies as very good and have peace about seeing, and perhaps even admiring, the bodies of others.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment