Wearing What Is Comfortable

The obnoxious statements of evangelical Christians do nothing to alter the fact that clothing itself is ultimately about emphasizing functionality, signifying status, protecting wearers from the elements, or gratifying subjective senses of style.  On its own, it has absolutely nothing to do with the sexuality of wearers or observers.  Evangelicals often fail to see this and, ironically, try to sexualize nonsexual things more than many secular people do, especially when it comes to the attire of women.

Regardless of gender, people can and should wear or not wear whatever is comfortable, practical, and preferable for them.  If a person wants to cover their body because it makes them subjectively feel comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that.  If a person wants to expose their body because it makes them subjectively feel comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that either.  The activities and preferences of a non-legalist will determine what he or she wants to wear or not wear, since there is no moral obligation in any direction in terms of covering the body.

Maybe a person wants to prevent sunburns, so he or she will cover more more skin.  Perhaps a person wants to become more accepting of his or her body, and thus wears more revealing clothing.  There are numerous reasons why a person might wear or not wear clothing that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.  Clothing is never about sexuality in itself, since no clothing is itself sexual--not even lingerie [1].  People might subjectively or culturally perceive certain clothing to be sexual, though these perceptions have nothing to do with the nature of the clothing itself.  Of course, people are free to dress in a way that makes them feel sexy, if they enjoy such a feeling.  But many people wear certain clothing because it is practical or comfortable for them.

As for the evangelical myth that the Bible instructs people (particularly women) to hide the majority of their bodies, 1 Timothy 2:9, as I have explained before, has nothing to do with requiring that people cover their bodies to a certain extent.  It is about particular displays of wealth.  The verse restricts certain forms of expensive clothing from being worn during worship.  Ironically, less expensive clothing can be more revealing than clothes of a lesser cost.  Even if the verse was about covering bodies, it would apply to men as well as to women.

No one has ever been imbecilic enough to deny to me that the command of the preceding verse about prayer would ultimately apply to both genders, so consistency dictates that 1 Timothy 2:9 would also apply to men and women alike--if a thing is good or evil, the gender of a person is totally irrelevant.  Mosaic Law does not demand the covering of the human body, meaning that its command to not add to God's moral revelation can only mean that exposure of the human body is not sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2), and Genesis calls the human body "very good," even in a state of full nudity.  If 1 Timothy 2:9 did teach evangelical ideas about modesty, it would contradict significant doctrines in other books of the Bible.

Every person is free to wear whatever is comfortable for them without any concern whatsoever for the amount of the body it exposes or covers--or for who is offended.  Where there is no moral obligation, people can do as they please, and it is rationally and Biblically clear that there is no basis for submitting to the preferences of others when it comes to the matter of clothing.  Comfort, whether physical or psychological, is what people should dress for.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html