When man was created he was naked. Once he sinned he recognized that he was naked, and felt shame. That began the clothing industry. The first designer was not DKNY, but YHWH. Several others have attempted their hand at the design business since YHWH created his first “fall” line (pun intended), but frankly, I’m not so sure YHWH approves of their designs.
We live in a culture that is clothing less and less of their bodies. Think of the bikini. Girls wear bikinis like it’s no big deal, but a bikini is nothing more than underwear worn in public (if a bikini is not immodest, then there is no such thing as immodest clothing!). It’s a little piece of cloth that barely covers the private parts of her body. Indeed, in many parts of Europe it is acceptable for a woman to only wear one piece of a two-piece bikini! How is it that our private parts have become public parts? How have we allowed our bodies to become a spectacle for all to see?
Do you think it could be that the public display of nudity is man’s attempt to act like the Fall never took place? Are we trying to get back to Eden while ignoring the very condition that expelled us from that paradise? What happened to our sense of modesty and shame? There should be a sense of shame when exposing our bodies in public, and yet that feeling of shame seems to be dissipating in our culture.
Is it to be explained by man’s lustful nature? After all, it’s usually men who design these skimpy clothes for women to wear (then again, many of these men are gay, so I’m not sure what they stand to gain)! Is it to be explained by low self-esteem, in which a woman will use her body to attract a man so he can provide her with the love she never received from her father? How do we explain it, and what do we do about it? Is there any way to reverse the trend?
Post Script. I came across this quote in my library of quotes that is quite fitting for this post: “It is becoming increasingly difficult to judge a woman by her clothes. Too often, there just isn’t enough evidence on which to form an opinion.”–E.C. McKenzie
July 24, 2009 at 3:35 am
I think it comes down to the way we view sex.
In the past, pre-marital sex has been frowned upon and no wife would want to cause jealosy in their husband by dressing inappropriately.
Now, as we glorify sex and view it as right to have, there is no shame in this immoral lifestyle. As there is no shame, it becomes a proud thing to do and so people “show off” their attributes.
Just as prostitutes advertise their wares, and the old priestesses of fertility gods advertised theirs, so the women (and men) of today’s world advertise their wares – Sex is public and a right for all…
Can we reverse the trend? While I think it is possible, I don’t think it will occur.
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 11:00 am
I tend to agree. I don’t think the trend will reverse, at least not anytime soon. And if it does, it will be more due to the shifts in the latest design fads than it will be a return to modesty.
Jason
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Excellent point, Jason. Can you imagine what would happen if you say an 8 year old little girl in barely underwear walking down the street? Some would call Child Services! Yet, you call it a bikini, and it’s fine.
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Polycarp,
Even if it was a 20 year old girl, someone would call the police for indecent exposure. And yet if it is called a bikini, it is fine.
Jason
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 5:01 am
[…] Public Nudity: When man was created he was naked. Once he sinned he recognized that he was naked, and felt […]
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 6:04 am
As you said “man felt shame” and covered himself. God did not. God does not want us to feel shame, fear, or a host of other anxieties, if we live within his framework. His framework does not include being clothed or he would have made us that way. Many tribes, who do not know that brand of religion nor the guilt complex that accompanies it, do not feel the shame nor the lust. You cannot gain God’s approbation nor Salvation by covering up your body. If it is part of some individual’s makeup to want to feel shame- maybe one should feel shame for how nasty most people would look without clothes on. Perhaps these “shameful” people would lose some weight then. We have to use our minds to be able to discern between man’s attempt to gain God’s approbation through works and God’s Plan for Salvation.
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 6:25 am
So, I guess 1st Timothy 2.9 means nothing?
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 6:28 am
P.S. So why is it a “return to modesty” means covering up what God has created? Isn’t that like taking “this little light of mine, I’m goin’ let it shine” and hiding it under a basket?
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 6:57 am
Polycarp- Picking single verses out of the Bible rather inculcating the entire works and extrapolating the intent is a dangerous thing to do. You run the risk of both taking them out of context and falling for the puritanical translations that look nothing like the original text. But, I’ll play your game once, just to prove my point. Verse 9 says that women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel” and then goes on to describe that apparel as jewelry. The context of the surrounding passages indicates that the woman is not to try to stand out from the other members of the church. If none of them are wearing anything, then no one stands out.
If one falls into the trap of singling out verses, one also sets oneself up to be arguing with fellow Believers, who pick out their own “pet” verses. Both sides of the abortion debate can be supported by out-of-context verses as well. One’s best bet is to study the Bible from the original languages, get a daily working relationship with God and keep your nose out of other people business, unless one wants to be in line for taking on the discipline God has in store for others.
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 7:29 am
Ryan, Peter also talks about modesty. it’s not just about ‘one’ verse, but about biblical precepts in the Church community. Further, we know from Scripture that the heart plays a very important past in our Christian lives – so, what does it say about the heart of a man or woman who decides to be indecent? Or rather, vain enough to showcase their bodies?
Since this is Jason’s blog, I’ll leave the rest of your comments to him. If it was my blog, it would be a different story.
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 11:59 am
Appetites are “getting” mechanisms, representing the ego’s need to confirm itself. This is as true of body appetites as it is of the so-called “higher ego needs.” Body appetites are not physical in origin. The ego regards the body as its home, and tries to satisfy itself through the body. But the idea that this is possible is a decision of the mind, which has become completely confused about what is really possible. (ACIM, T-4.II.7)
Remember that the Holy Spirit interprets the body only as a means of communication. (ACIM, T-8.VII.2)
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16)
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Polycarp,
Feel free to say everything on your mind. I won’t mind a bit! As traffic is picking up lately, and comments are becoming more abundant, I am having a difficult time keeping up, so I could use a little help around here.
Jason
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Ryan,
You won’t find a verse in the Bible that promotes nudity.
You said man covered himself. True, but not before God first made coverings for them. And why did they need them? It was because of their sin. The human body is a wonderful thing, and if there was no sin there would be no need to cover it. But there is sin, and thus we need to cover up.
Consider Isaiah 47:2-3. YHWH says of Babylon’s impending judgment, “Pick up millstones and grind flour! Remove your veil, strip off your skirt, expose your legs, cross the streams! 3 Let your private parts be exposed! Your genitals will be on display! I will get revenge; I will not have pity on anyone….” God links nakedness with shame.
As for 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul does not identify modesty with jewelry. That is a related issue, but in v. 9 he is talking about clothing. With that said, I’ll admit that this verse is not at all clear that it is referring to modesty in the sense of covering up one’s body. While I think that that is implicit, it appears that Paul is focusing on financially modest clothing, jewelry, etc. But even if there wasn’t a single Bible verse telling us to be clothed, or dress modestly, we should do so. Jesus warned us against lust and fornication. Walking around naked is not the best way to try to obey those commandments!
Jason
Jason
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Arthur,
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Could you clarify?
Jason
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 10:50 am
Ryan, with Jason’s permission (and understanding that he is free to delete my comments), I want to answer something you said that chapped me a bit.
The abortion debate does not belong here – it stirs up emotions, rightfully so, but to throw that into the mix of this conversation, well, it is a dishonest tactic.
As far as ‘God’s framework’ we must remember that even now we do not wholly live in the framework which God first intended. We still live in fleshly bodies, fighting temptation, and striving for home. Christ came to take away our sins, not the fact that things are still sin, or shameful.
Should we do things to make our brothers and sisters stumble? Lust is not magically cured by Christ, Ryan, and yet you would have women, and men, parade in shameful clothing attracting lustful glances. While things make me allowable, not all things are profitable.
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 11:06 am
Part 1
From what I have observed in life and experienced, here are my thoughts – first in blanket statements, then my explanation:
If an extremely large unattractive woman walked down the street in a bikini, it is my prediction that the majority of viewers would not be led in lust
If an extremely curvaceous attractive woman walked down the street in a bikini, it is my prediction that many viewers would be led in lust/arousal
If an extremely curvaceous biological sister of any of the viewers walked down the street in a bikini, it is my prediction that the majority of the siblings would not be led in lust/arousal
I (Michael) have been told that I look very sexy in a suit (pants, shirt, tie, coat, shoes) – and playful “suggestive” ideas accompanied the remarks
I have heard women comment that a man in Speedos (think of swimmers) is a turn off, yet a man in swimming trunks, is a turn on (the reference had something to do with what was perceived as feminine vs masculine – if what the man wore was skimpy, that was perceived as feminine, and it was a turn off – the perception of masculine however was a turn on) – it should be noted that this was coming from a remnant of a particular cultural perspective…
Here is my first main point in regards to those statements:
Perception/Preference/culture. Why is it that an overweight woman for the most part does not “spark” lust but a fit or voluptuous woman does? Or on the flipside– an overweight man is not seen as sexy, but yet a fit/athletic man is seen as such? Why is it that for some people, the more you show, the less desirable you seem? How is it that with some people, you are perceived sexier in a suit that in form showing workout clothes? To me, the mind is the key to how we interpret what we see. I feel this is important because I think at times we just assume that when someone is wearing clothes that would be viewed as skimpy, tight, revealing, etc, we assume that lust will be the reaction from viewers. While that is possible and in some cases probable, its not absolute. It depends. One factor I think it depends on is the history of the onlooker. What was their childhood like? Or teenage years? What were they exposed to sexually? Why is it that one of my friends can look at a woman in a tight sweater and tight jeans and begin to lust, yet I can look at the same woman and not lust? Could it be because he was sexually exposed at a very impressionable age, while I was not? Yet then again, why is it that I can look at a woman in spandex workout clothes and lust but a friend of mine see the same and not lust? What have we experienced in our lives to be so quick or NOT so quick to lust? Or why do we NOT lust when the individual is overweight and unattractive? How has one man’s mind been conditioned to think and perceive in such a way, but yet his friends thinks and perceives in a different manner? Once again– perceptions/personal preferences. It depends on the individual, their history/experiences, which is correlated with culture -and I think this is very important when we talk about the issue of shame and modesty.
What is modest? An issue to me is this: what is modest to one is not modest to another. Considering that truth, there will always be debate. And I must admit that I lack the confidence in a universal acceptance (even universal in Christianity) of what is modest, because we all have a different perspective, and the bible is not explicit on this subject. As for shame, that depends on what one believes. To me its connection to the perception aspect. If you think that tight jeans is modest, then you wont have shame about wearing them or seeing someone else wear them. Yet if you think tight jeans is NOT modest, then more than likely you will have shame concerning wearing them and seeing them on others. It depends on the individual. Now, I DO believe that some people at one point had a certain standard of modesty or certain amount of shame concerning their clothing, but yet that has decreased over time. For some, it has INcreased. Why has that happened? It depends.
End of Part 1
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 11:16 am
Part 2
Jason, I wanted to directly take a stab at some questions you posed in this part, after giving general thoughts I had to share in the first part I wrote…
“There should be a sense of shame when exposing our bodies in public, and yet that feeling of shame seems to be dissipating in our culture. Is it to be explained by man’s lustful nature?”
In some cases, I believe so. In other cases, once again, I think its perspective. I think the lustful nature fluctuates from person to person, based upon their experiences, and MAYBE dna/biological factors. One man may feel no conviction wearing a tank top. I am one of those men. Yet another man may feel that is too extreme and is not modest. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong? Or better yet, IS one right and one is wrong? Could they both be right? Could they both be wrong?
“Do you think it could be that the public display of nudity is man’s attempt to act like the Fall never took place?”
Hmmm – interesting question. I am not convinced it is that extreme. From my observations, wearing less clothing, or tight clothing, or revealing clothing was not from a conscious perspective of ignoring the fall of man (you may not have meant that literally anyhow) – but rather it was from a stylistic perspective. Or perhaps from a vain perspective. Or perhaps from a lustful perspective. It depends. But basically, if your question is literal, I don’t think people wear “questionable” clothing with the mentality of “I am going to wear this, despite the circumstances and factors involved with Adam and Eve in the garden.”
“Are we trying to get back to Eden while ignoring the very condition that expelled us from that paradise?”
Hmmm. Help me see it Jason because I am not sure about this question. Or rather how it relates. Now I know how intelligent you are and you have corrected me/explained to me concepts I was not grasping at first (and I am very thankful brother!), but this one, I don’t see it…yet. Meaning, the condition that expelled us was not nakedness, nor was it shame, but rather it was disobedience to God’s command to not eat the forbidden fruit. So my question would be, how does that relate to the nudity aspect we are discussing in regards to these times? I am a little blurry on that…
“Is it to be explained by low self-esteem, in which a woman will use her body to attract a man so he can provide her with the love she never received from her father?”
It CAN be, or it could NOT be. I know, that statement did not answer anything, LOL. But I am just saying that to say this: it depends. A woman may wear fitted jeans not because she has low self-esteem, had a loving-less father, and wants to attract a man with her body, but rather could have a great loving father, and be a lesbian!
“How do we explain it, and what do we do about it? Is there any way to reverse the trend?”
I don’t think there is a reverse except the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. lol. Now, I do believe that the mind can be conditioned to view what we see differently, yet that takes time and discipline. Yet who is to say a man will not be equally as aroused by a women in a long evening gown as a women in a bikini? It’s all about what you personally perceive as desirable. It may not be the same for the next individual. Nevertheless, even without all mind training and discipline, the innate sexual longing will not disappear. So we must lean to control it. You asked what do we do about this issue? Conclusively speaking, I am with the “to each his/her own” motto. I can explain why a man or a woman should or should not wear this or that, but its only coming from my perspective, molded by my experiences, influenced by my interpretation of scripture. The next guy might feel differently based upon his outlook in those same categories. It just depends….to each his/her own…
Fyi, I thought the post script was VERY humorous! LOL
End of part 2
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Michael,
You have hit on a very important point. Modesty is, in many ways, culturally conditioned and even individual-driven. There are places in the world where a woman’s breasts are exposed all the time, and the men think nothing of it because the breasts are not sexualized in those cultures. They view them as “milk boxes” (as a South Korean friend of mine once called them) for the babies. I’ve heard that in some cultures a woman’s back is deemed sexual, because in those cultures the back is always covered up. And yet Indian women often cover everything up except for their back!
So the question becomes, what is modest and immodest in our culture? While we may think a woman looks sexy in a long evening gown, it does not excite the imaginations like a woman who is barely clad in a bikini (I would argue that it is sexy in a different way than a woman in a bikini is sexy). Even if one is sexually aroused by the evening gown, it leaves a lot more to the imagination than does the bikini!
And of course, the goal is not to prevent all men from lusting. Some men are such horn dogs that they could lust after a woman wearing a potato sack! But women should cover up sufficiently so as to force those horn dogs to have to imagine a lot, instead of taking all the work out of it for him by putting it all on display. So while I agree with you that modesty is even person-particular to some degree, I think in general we can agree that the less clothing someone wears, or the tighter the clothing one wears, the more likely it is to incite lust in men.
Jason
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Jason,
I definitely agree with your conclusion: “the less clothing someone wears, or the tighter the clothing one wears, the more likely it is to incite lust in men.”
And the culture reference is very true. Particularly the question, what is modest in OUR culture….good question…
Another question: do you think the burden falls on men equally? Some of the mens clothing as well can be “snug” (lol) or somewhat enticing (that is what I am told rather). I know I purposely USE to wear form fitting clothing with the intent of my pecs and biceps and broad shoulders (lol) receiving attention. And have you seen the jeans being made now? At least for my generation and younger – they are so skinny and some what tight fitting!
Anyhow, do you think the burn of modesty goes both ways, where we as men need to be modest, or is the focus more so on the women to monitor how they present themselves for the sake of the male species?
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Michael,
No, I don’t think it falls on men equally, though I do think it falls on men as well. If Paul’s reference to modesty in 1 Tim 2:9 does include modesty in the sense of “covering oneself,” I think it’s important to note that the direction was given specifically to women, not men. Why? Because men are much more visually stimulated than women are. All it takes to turn a man on is to look at a woman, but for a woman to be turned on by a man, he has to do something impressive! We are sexually stimulated in very different ways. As one man described the difference between men and women when it comes to sexual arousal, “Men are like lightbulbs and women are like irons. Men are turned on immediately while women have to warm up.”
Many years ago I was observing people in a department store. A group of very attractive ladies were walking in one direction, and a group of good looking guys were walking in the other direction. The guys were staring and looking back at the girls with googly eyes, but the girls acted oblivious to the presence of the guys. It’s as if they weren’t even there. While girls definitely appreciate a man’s sculpted body, that alone is usually not enough for them to lust after him. They need him to say or do something that they find romantic.
Jason
LikeLike
July 29, 2009 at 6:05 am
The comments thus far has been a mouthful. I will have to say that the scriptures give us a good idea on what modesty is and how we (men and women alike) should conduct ourselves. It is my understanding of modesty that it is truely an issue of the heart FIRST, and once the heart is submissive and humbled towards God, then the outward man will fall into place. With that established, (speaking as one who lives in Western culture), I don’t see how a bikini can be justified as acceptable, modest, or allowable clothing based on the Biblical definition of modesty. Let’s go over what the scriptures say about women and modesty?:
1 Tim 2:9-10
“9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel, with SHAMEFACEDNESS and SOBRIETY; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”
For sake of time, i would like to focus on the capitalized words for a clearer understanding.
MODEST: Marked by simplicity; having a humble opinion of yourself; Not offensive to sexual mores in conduct or appearance. Humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness.
SHAMEFACED: Extremely modest or shy. Showing a sense of shame.
SOBRIETY: Dignified and somber in manner or character and committed to keeping promises;
With that established and these words defined in the english, I don’t see how one (who is sincere and knowledgable in the scriptures) can say that a bikini, hot pants, spandex, cleavage-showing blouses, or walking around bear-chested, can be looked upon as “MODEST, SHAMEFACED, OR SOBER”. This is not about legalism or trying to set up some pharissee religion, its about holiness and embrassing God’s Word with honesty. I’m interested in any feedback…..
Shalom! 🙂
LikeLike
July 29, 2009 at 9:07 am
I just read an old article by a gentleman named George Vegara. He was expounding on the story in Genesis. When Adam and Eve covered themselves, they did so with “sewed fig leaves.” When God prepared to put them out of the Garden, “…He made tunics of skin and clothed them.” The author goes on to say, “the purpose of clothing is to CONCEAL, not REVEAL–conceal nakedness.”
I really like that!
LikeLike
July 29, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Michael,
Exactly!
Jason
LikeLike
August 2, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Jason,
I wish I was home on my iMac instead of out of state on my iPhone. It limits my desire to write.
I will quote one of our teacher’s (Seagraves) regarding the answer to all Church problems; TEACHING. This subject is rarely taught on anymore.
Exodus 28:42 tells that God considers exposing the thigh as nakedness. This would seem to preclude a bikini.
Great comments as well. If I remember when home I will add a more in depth comment.
LikeLike
August 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Darren,
You are right. It is rarely taught on. It is simply proclaimed (at least in holiness churches).
As for Ex 28:41, I’m not so sure what we can derive from this.
First, this command was only for the priests (males in particular).
Second, on what basis should we conclude that this is not like so many other priestly commands—merely ceremonial in nature, having nothing to do with morality per se?
Thirdly, if I am not mistaken, this was just their underwear. This wasn’t the garment seen by others. Are you saying we have to wear knee-length boxers under our clothes?
Fourthly, I am not certain that this means we are to cover up from our waist to our knees. The translations all indicate that it is from the waist to the thigh. That would seem to indicate the privates region only. I’m interested in your response.
Jason
LikeLike
August 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Jason,
I agree mostly with your points. I was simply pointing out what God defines as nakedness, which is a principle that applies to all not just the Priest. Perhaps my view of the thigh is incorrect, but I consider it to end at the knee, thus my point of from waist to knee.
This is a principle that is applicable to us, as mentioned above, because it is God defining what He considers nakedness.
I am not ignoring context (though I would like to because writing this on an iPhone is not as easy as a computer), I am simply looking at an applicable principle found in this verse. (by the way it’s verse 42 not 41) This mention of exposing the thigh as nakedness is mentioned in Isaiah as well.
By the way, I prefer boxers too.
LikeLike
August 22, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Does this discussion have anything to do with why the showers are no longer used in so many middle, junior and high schools?
LikeLike
August 24, 2009 at 4:46 pm
No. I was not aware of that, however.
Jason
LikeLike