# Modesty Pertaining to the Christian Man



## hermanchauw

In complement to the thread on Modesty Pertaining to the Christian Lady, is there any standards/views for men?

I used an avatar of me without a shirt and i never thought of any immodesty, and no one around me has ever had an issue to raise with photos of topless men or men being topless at home or when doing physical labour, until a board member on another thread suggested that "i put on a shirt". 

1 Cor 11:14


> Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?



How would the Jews treat say a proselyte who is accustomed to having long hair?

Continuing to verse 15 and 16


> But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.



Is this custom that men cannot have "long hair" to be followed/enforced by all churches/Christians, regardless of culture?

Would a proselyte be required to cut his hair short if his culture has long hair?

In how i have been educated, my conviction is the principle is that men and women should dress differently.

Deut 22:5


> The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.


----------



## Tim

hermanchauw said:


> and no one around me has ever had an issue to raise with photos of topless men or men being topless at home or when doing physical labour



How do you know this is so? How would you have known if there were an issue? Would a woman have told you if she had lusted after what she saw? What I am getting at is that sometimes we assume that everything is okay, but we have no real way of knowing.

---------- Post added at 06:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 AM ----------

Let me compliment you on how quickly you responded when someone mentioned this to you, brother. It is good to be quick to remove any offense that someone perceives.


----------



## FenderPriest

I practice modesty by keeping the guns (Law and Order, respectively left and right) well concealed, and rarely put on a gun show. I also veil my ninja skills, as any true ninja would.


----------



## Romans922

I'm for modesty among men and boys. We need to start teaching at the earliest of ages. We often think that only women should be modest but that this doesn't apply to us. How much more should it apply to us if we are the head's of our house and modelling it for our wives, sons and daughters. Our children to go out in public with just diapers or no shirts/pants on. From the earliest ages, we are teaching modesty, and when old enough to have understanding we are communicating why and the heart issues. 

As an aside, when swimming, which for both men and women, can be the hardest to be modest...my son (3ish) and I wear those swimming/surfing shirts that are made for water. Also, protects for sunburn and UV protection. We don't get the skin tight one's but probably a size above that and it looks like wearing a tshirt, but for water. I like it.


----------



## lynnie

I can only speak for me but I don't think women have the gut response to exposed bodies quite the way men do. If I see a guy in a tight nylon thing at the beach or on a bike, I just think "yuck". A shirtless man does not cause me any sexual images at all, none. If big fat belly is hanging out over the waist it'll get another " yuck". 

I have known guys who work out and you can tell that they want people to admire their upper torso and big buff biceps. Perhaps they want to be attractive to the ladies. Well, that type also gets a "yuck" from me if the vanity is obvious.

I am not a lady with hangups in the intimacy area, thing are just great with hubby. I did have an unsaved friend in (secular) college who said guys in the dorm hallway in their underpants aroused her, but she was already living an immoral life. I suppose you might keep the shirt off and the shorts on, if you are concerned. Personally I would say the exhortation to put on a shirt in your avatar was legalistic, but I don't know how other women would react. This culture is just so sexualized and unclean anymore.

I have known a couple guys who were good- very good- at seducing women. None of them did it with their body, in fact, one was bald and overweight, and the other not a stud bod or handsome face at all. But, they were oh so tender and gentle and listened to women's emotional problems in a fatherly/brotherly way with total attention and compassion and a light affectionate touch on the hand, arm, shoulder. Next thing you know the women was in bed. Women don't go for the body, but they will fall over for a guy who pays attention and understands their feelings...somebody they can really talk to who is affectionate and tender. Tenderness is more addictive sometimes than anything else. A kind and tender guy, especially counselors, need to be careful to avoid warm touching or the girls fall in love quick. I've seen this a lot. One overweight, unattractive PCA elder in my last state had a couple dozen women in love with him (and he was faithful to his wife) just for his kind and tender listening ear.

Just my opinions. Tough subject really, and one that needs much prayer in today's world.


----------



## moral necessity

Ladies are not wired to respond visually in the same way and in the same degree as men do. Lynnie is correct. We should not equate a man w/o a shirt as causing a woman to stumble in the same way as it would affect the man if the situation were reversed. Rather, men need to be more careful relationally around women moreso than they need to be careful visually.

Blessings!


----------



## Romans922

Charles, while I agree with you and Lynnie, there are some women who do respond visually in that way. Where almost all, if not all, men respond visually this way, there are indeed some women (even Christian women, though few compared to men) who do so as well. Therefore, it is the duty of men, just as it is with women, to be careful with how we dress (modestly). This is an important issue that is seriously under-considered, often shot down as unimportant, and a distraction to other more important issues. 

The relational part is also important, we need to be careful who our heart is towards and what kind of interaction with have with women. 

As for myself, and as a Pastor. I never go into a home with a woman alone unless another man or my wife is with me. I make sure I am never alone with a woman. Any emails I get from women, my wife looks over. Any phone conversations with women, I make sure my wife is near so she can overhear what I am saying. That's as a married man, and as a married man I need to make sure that I am close to my wife to protect from temptation myself. For boys, my counsel is similar. Never be alone with a girl, never talk to a girl alone without someone to overhear.


----------



## hermanchauw

Tim said:


> How do you know this is so? How would you have known if there were an issue? Would a woman have told you if she had lusted after what she saw? What I am getting at is that sometimes we assume that everything is okay, but we have no real way of knowing.


I don't know.


----------



## gordo

Agree with Charles and Lynnie.


----------



## Miss Marple

Men or boys in swim trunks never attracted me in any way more than men or boys in a suit. Actually, I'll say a well dressed man is more attractive than one in a Speedo, absolutely for sure.

I do not observe extra attention to men/boys in swim trunks over and against them in a shirt and jeans on the part of friends, my daughters. . . even in my high school years, this was not the consensus in the private girl talk.

I am not advocating for men to run around unclad, but I'll bolster the point that lightly dressed men don't tend to affect women at all similarly to the way lightly dressed women affect men.

If anything, if we see a man inappropriately dressed, we tend to mock. There is currently a man on the show "Survivor" who is fond of wearing naught but a Speedo, and we all (we females) find him repulsive. Not attractive.


----------



## moral necessity

In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over. Their lusts are more relational. There are exceptions, I would grant, where some women would be more reactive than others by visual stimulation, but I don't think it goes as far as visual lusting, in my opinion. When they lust, they imagine a situation of themeselves relationally with that person. Men just need a picture, and can be totally disconnected from the relational aspect entirely. My wife has the hardest time understanding that. It makes no sense to a woman. Women aren't prone to neighing after their neighbor's husband because of his body visually. It's not a primary factor. If he's a jerk relationally, his perfect body becomes a zero.

That's all I have to add to the subject for now. I defer to the women to answer.

Blessings!


----------



## Tim

lynnie said:


> Personally I would say the exhortation to put on a shirt in your avatar was legalistic, but I don't know how other women would react.



I believe our brother has done right. We don't know how each individual may react, so our brother has attempted to remove any offense to the best of his ability. To remove a potential offense because we aren't sure or "just in case" is not legalistic, but rather quite considerate.


----------



## Romans922

I find it absurd to suggest that women and Christian women do not struggle with physical lust over men for which men should do what they are able to dress modestly. 

Genesis 39:6-7, "​​​​​​​​​​​Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. ​​​And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.”"

There is not a better reason why the Lord states what Joseph looked like and then says the woman cast her eyes on him and desired/lusted after him. Her lust wasn't because of being a good man, loving, kind, nice, but because he was handsome in form and appearance.


----------



## JoannaV

Someone in the other thread posted a link to a survey which investigated what clothing/situations men found to be stumbling blocks, and what they didn't. It would be interesting to see a similar survey done of women.


----------



## a mere housewife

I was wondering about this 'relational' care the other day -- for I have noticed at times various people advocating that men should not have friendships or be involved in helping or caring in any way for women who are not their wives, with this pretext. Yet I also notice in Scripture that almost every time the New Testament admonishes us not to have a perverted love for one another, as the world does, in lusts and immoderate affections, it goes on to admonish us to love one another only more fervently and purely, as family in Christ; and it seems clear that the apostles did not avoid their sisters or mothers in Christ (nor did Christ Himself -- and I might point out the same about someone like Samuel Rutherford, many of whose letters, still so helpful to the church, are written to sisters in the Lord whom he loved dearly). At some point the warnings that I have seen about having anything to do with a woman not married to you 'relationally' begin to sound like keeping only to the negative side of the apostles' injunction, and entirely overlooking the positive side of it -- which positive side is surely the whole point of the negative? Would you avoid your sister or mother 'relationally'? Would you not rather act in some measure of good faith that she can distinguish the love of a brother or son from that of a husband? I have wondered if it would be something of a safeguard for men when girls are dressed carelessly to think of them more as sisters, than as random women with whom one ought to have little to do? I do believe a right love for each other, on both sides, is the best opposition to the abuses of love; and we ought to seek that grace for fervent and pure, heavenly ties here in this world, from the Lord who enjoins it on us. Pergy mentioned how offensive burkas are on the thread about feminine modesty -- they proceed on the same principle as the string bikinis mentioned there, but on the opposite end of the spectrum: that a woman's form is entirely sexual. I think there may well be such a thing as relational 'burkas' as well, which seem to assume, because of abuses, that a woman is only capable of a relationship that involves sex. I don't see Scripture operating on the assumption that sex is as fundamental to all love as Freud and the world think it is; rather that element is something we are to put off in loving each other even more eternally and completely in the Lord. We need our brothers and our fathers here in the world, too (and there is a fullness of joy that crosses genders in such ties of affection, 2 John).


----------



## Romans922

a mere housewife said:


> I was wondering about this 'relational' care the other day -- for I have noticed at times various people advocating that men should not have friendships or be involved in helping or caring in any way for women who are not their wives, with this pretext. Yet I also notice in Scripture that almost every time the New Testament admonishes us not to have a perverted love for one another, as the world does, in lusts and immoderate affections, it goes on to admonish us to love one another only more fervently and purely, as family in Christ; and it seems clear that the apostles did not avoid their sisters or mothers in Christ (nor did Christ Himself -- and I might point out the same about someone like Samuel Rutherford, many of whose letters, still so helpful to the church, are written to sisters in the Lord whom he loved dearly). At some point the warnings that I have seen about having anything to do with a woman not married to you 'relationally' begin to sound like keeping only to the negative side of the apostles' injunction, and entirely overlooking the positive side of it -- which positive side is surely the whole point of the negative? Would you avoid your sister or mother 'relationally'? Would you not rather act in some measure of good faith that she can distinguish the love of a brother or son from that of a husband? I have wondered if it would be something of a safeguard for men when girls are dressed carelessly to think of them more as sisters, than as random women with whom one ought to have little to do? I do believe a right love for each other, on both sides, is the best opposition to the abuses of love; and we ought to seek that grace for fervent and pure, heavenly ties here in this world, from the Lord who enjoins it on us. Pergy mentioned how offensive burkas are on the thread about feminine modesty -- they proceed on the same principle as the string bikinis mentioned there, but on the opposite end of the spectrum: that a woman's form is entirely sexual. I think there may well be such a thing as relational 'burkas' as well, which seem to assume, because of abuses, that a woman is only capable of a relationship that involves sex. I don't see Scripture operating on the assumption that sex is as fundamental to all love as Freud and the world think it is; rather that element is something we are to put off in loving each other even more eternally and completely in the Lord. We need our brothers and our fathers here in the world, too (and there is a fullness of joy that crosses genders in such ties of affection, 2 John).



I hope my post did not suggest that men should avoid women as sisters in Christ or anything like that. I believe we should be praying for, interacting with and serving our sisters, just guarded at the same time. For many cultural reasons for myself, as a Pastor. One accusation against my character having to do with an unlawful relationship would end my ministry as a Pastor in our culture. So while men should be brothers to their sisters in Christ, I believe this should at the same time be guarded and protected for all parties involved.


----------



## Afterthought

a mere housewife said:


> At some point the warnings that I have seen about having anything to do with a woman not married to you 'relationally' begin to sound like keeping only to the negative side of the apostles' injunction, and entirely overlooking the positive side of it -- which positive side is surely the whole point of the negative? Would you avoid your sister or mother 'relationally'? Would you not rather act in some measure of good faith that she can distinguish the love of a brother or son from that of a husband?


I've often wondered what that would look like. Do you have any particulars in mind?


----------



## moral necessity

Romans922 said:


> I find it absurd to suggest that women and Christian women do not struggle with physical lust over men for which men should do what they are able to dress modestly.
> 
> Genesis 39:6-7, "​​​​​​​​​​​Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. ​​​And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.”"
> 
> There is not a better reason why the Lord states what Joseph looked like and then says the woman cast her eyes on him and desired/lusted after him. Her lust wasn't because of being a good man, loving, kind, nice, but because he was handsome in form and appearance.



Blessings to you!

Scripture does not state the reason directly. I would expect your exegesis to demonstate that.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## a mere housewife

Raymond, I try to keep up with what is going on in my brother's lives, let them know I love them, let them know I pray for them -- when they come into town I go to see them and talk to them and don't even mind hugging them. If they are in trouble I want to do what I can to help. I have a certain delight in being with them, even in how they look and how they behave -- I have the same delight in the presence of my sisters. I am very close to some sisters in the Lord here and elsewhere, whom He has brought into my life; and I have some beloved brothers in the Lord as well. I believe that love for them prohibits wrong care, as much as it prohibits lack of care. Of course we are all wretched sinners and must guard against wrong care and seek grace against it, but I believe that not caring is equally wrong and wretched, and to be guarded against. This world is a hard place. Our ties of love are one of the joys and comforts of heaven in it.

Andrew, I wondered if I were confusing past statements and philosophies I have encountered with the discussion here: thank you for the clarification. Testimony is certainly important. So is love in the Lord. (edit: perhaps I should clarify that I believe from Scripture, that a pure and fervent love for one another is a significant aspect of our testimony before the world. And I believe this aspect of our testimony gets under-emphasised, and sometimes even thrown under the bus entirely, in our desire -- certainly praiseworthy in itself -- not to be perceived as having the wrong kind of merely earthly, sensual love.)


----------



## a mere housewife

I've been thinking about this while I did my laundry. My concern in jumping in is that we do not stigmatise as fornication or immodesty, or make a sin out of something Scripture does not forbid (I have some history with environments that do that). Indeed what Scripture does forbid seems rather designed to foster truly loving relationships with one another as family members in the Lord. I think if one is thinking impurely about a brother or sister in Christ it is not because one loves them too much; but not enough. 'Love one another with a pure heart, fervently' -- surely the purity and the fervency go hand in hand.

I do not suggest that everyone should do things this way, but I do not listen in on my husband's phone conversations, nor read all his emails, nor make sure I am always with him around other women. I know he has been and is very important as a son or a brother to a few women I love. I don't assume they are 'in love' with him in a perverted sense because they love him dearly and have come to rely on him to listen and give counsel and be kind: of course they need him; and God has put him into their lives. We're all so dependent on one another. I think it would be very uncharitable for me to assume that there is something sexual in this, and that lack of love would be a sin. Some of the remarks above make me wonder if there is a lack of charity in some assumptions about the response of women to tenderness. Did Paul hedge his injunctions to Timothy to treat the women like mothers and sisters (and I hope one treats their mothers and sisters tenderly) because they might have emotional needs that are met by such treatment? Of course we need tenderness and respond to it: we are humans, and the weaker, more fragile ones at that. Tenderness does not equal sex. I have personally encountered more damage done by pastors who couldn't treat women without stiffness and standoffishness, who couldn't behave with a natural brotherly concern and kindness toward them for fear of being perceived in the wrong way, than otherwise.

The only time my husband was accused of something heinous was once when he took a friend along to see a girl in trouble, specifically for testimony's sake. They were all accused of something even worse. Happily nobody with whom such an accusation could matter could even for an instant take it seriously -- knowing the parties involved better than that. One can accommodate a propensity to think and speak evil within rational limits, but ultimately our judgment is with the Lord; and it is His loving commands, and not the tyrannical standards of uncharitable and unrighteous judgment, that ought to rule our conduct. I won't distract from the main focus of the thread more -- but I don't think it is right to class as 'immodesty' a gentle relating to women which Scripture rather encourages than forbids.


----------



## Kim G

I believe the last survey I saw said that one in four women now admit to being visually attracted to men. I'm one of them. I never understood the whole "women are emotional, men are visual" thing because it's NOT true for me. That being said, I am to guard my mind from lust just like any other Christian should. And maybe I'm not visually attracted to the extent that men are because I've heard lust is a constant battle for many men, and it's not for me.

I think modesty is usually about appropriateness. If I were a guy, I probably wouldn't have a shirtless picture on the PuritanBoard because of the nature of the board. But I wouldn't see an issue with wearing just shorts to the beach.

And I second Heidi's perspective about being treated as a sister-in-Christ instead of a stumbling block for lust. Growing up in a fundamentalist baptist environment, we were told that if a pastor drove by a female member of his congregation walking home in a thunderstorm, it would be wrong for him to pick her up and take her home because someone might think something wrong. And if a deacon's wife had a miscarriage, the pastor couldn't give her a hug if he saw her crying in the foyer of the church. THAT is improper sexualization of the female.


----------



## py3ak

I should think the reactions to Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, and so forth, the existence of "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob" among people older than 14, and the whole phenomenon of Bieber Fever would quench the idea that it is only an occasional, aberrant woman who finds some men visually appealing.

It is true that the text of Genesis does not contain a conjunction telling us that it was because of Joseph's good looks that Potiphar's wife found him appealing. It is also true that the two statements are in immediate juxtaposition, that they are not in immediate juxtaposition randomly, and that when an explicative relationship between two statements is obvious to common sense, it is often left unstated in narrative.


----------



## kappazei

We need to be considerate towards those in our midst who struggle with same sex attraction as well. Not just towards how our Christian sisters view us. 
A rather distasteful segway but there it is.


----------



## moral necessity

For clarity:

1. I am for propriety and am not advocating men to be immodest or improper.

2. There is a vast difference between "visual stimulation/arousal" and "lust". One is God-given and proper; the other is that properness becoming a torrent or tempest. Until that differnece is acknowledged, we're probably talking past one another.

3. The passage in Genesis spends far more time leading up to the interaction elaborating on Joseph's wealth, prosperity, wisdom, honorableness, favorable regard by the king, governing power, and authority over nearly every aspect of the affairs of the entire land, and finally says "he was a goodly person and well-favored (vs.6)"...any woman would agree that her desire for him was grounded in far more things than a visual appearance. Also, Joseph was not being immodest, so improper dress was not the cause.

4. I am in much more favor of promoting fellowship and commonality on the board, and progress towards proper edification. In that regard, I rest the issue to your conscience and the work of the Holy Spirit thereon. I also will strive to let the women cast the vote for how they respond to unclothed men, and whether or not this factor by itself tends to lead them to _lustful_ thoughts about an unclothed body (not merely a general arousal/stimulation). I think three have already expressed their opinions in this regard.

Blessings, fellowship, and prayers...

Genesis 39
1And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither. 

2And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. 

3And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand. 

4And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand. 

5And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field. 

6And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured. 

7And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 

8But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; 

9There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?


----------



## JoannaV

moral necessity said:


> 2. There is a vast difference between "visual stimulation/arousal" and "lust". One is God-given and proper; the other is that properness becoming a torrent or tempest. Until that differnece is acknowledged, we're probably talking past one another.



Therein may be the difference. In the survey linked to in the other thread, quite a few males expressed how they might have an instinctual reaction to a family member before they could mentally note who it was and reign in their thoughts. I'd suspect this wouldn't be such a problem for most females?


----------



## KMK

It might be more constructive for men to let their 'modesty' be in the form of reticence. Women are most attracted to men who pay them a great deal of attention. (I know this because my wife is a big fan of the RomCom genre.  ) I know plenty of well-dressed men who cause women to stumble because they get entirely too intimate with female coworkers.


----------



## Galatians220

KMK said:


> It might be more constructive for men to let their 'modesty' be in the form of reticence. Women are most attracted to men who pay them a great deal of attention. (I know this because my wife is a big fan of the RomCom genre.  ) I know plenty of well-dressed men who cause women to stumble because they get entirely too intimate with female coworkers.



True, dat.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Much good discussion here--a credit to the PB!

We are really blessed, ladies and gentlemen, to have ladies like we do commenting on this board. People ask what gifted women are to do if church office is closed to them. What a ridiculous and insulting question! They do a whole host of wonderful things, including contributing to a board like this. Right? Heidi, you and your sisters are a great blessing to so many of us. We must not interact with our sisters like the horrors that Kim reported (and I can assure you that she's not engaging in hyperbole).

And do think of how Paul interacted with sisters in the Lord. When he says, by the Spirit, there is neither male nor female but we are one in Christ this has powerful redemptive-historical significance (Gal 3:28). Taken with the others in that list, what this means is that the Lord does not deal with us primarily as bond or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female but as humans made in His image, fallen in Adam, and made alive in Christ. 

To be sure, the Bible does address men as men and women as women. But this is not its primary address and interest. I realize that feminism has been a problem for the last century and a half. We need to address it biblically, however, and not simply react against it by going to some imagined extreme. The Bible does speak to sexual (or as people say today, and I have long resisted, "gender") roles, but it most commonly and fundamentally speaks to the need of redemption for all, including male and female. 

How thankful I am that there is but one mediator between God and mankind (the Greek word there means men and women), the man (and even the word here is not the one for male, highlighting not Christ's maleness but His humanity) Christ Jesus, who came to save men and women, and can do so because He is a mediator for His own in the race of men and women (I Tim. 2:5; as He is not, e.g., for angels).

Peace, 
Alan


----------



## py3ak

Modesty is far broader than the topic of lust. I think we tend to create some confusion when that fact is not born in mind. 

Another point to remember is that clothing and demeanor function together - even in a static image, posture and expression will modify the message sent by clothing. And people are different - something attractive to one pushes another one over the line to repulsion. I've never understood the conquests lounge lizards and their ilk have been known to make, and yet there is daily evidence that greasy hair and polyester clothes are not the female repellent it would be rational to suppose them.

All of this applied to male modesty means that clothing is not irrelevant, even if it is not primary. But it also means that clothing doesn't have to be skimpy in order to be alluring - a monkey suit or a frock-coat are not an infallible guarantee that some boundary of modesty will not be crossed.

But it should never be thought that modesty=unattractiveness or vice versa. On the contrary, genuine modesty is a wonderful and beautiful quality. While it does not draw undue attention to itself, to those who perceive it, it will be pleasing - attracting you to the person who shows it. A modest and unassuming young man is, so far, a likeable young man; a modest lady carries with her a grace that is lovely to behold. Modesty is not, ultimately, a marring of beauty - it is a finishing perfection that sets other attractive qualities in their respective places and lets the whole be seen with proper perspective. If we pursue it, male or female, merely as a way to get the opposite sex to keep their hands off us, we run the risk of neglecting the broader context modesty addresses, of turning a positive virtue into a merely negative avoidance, and of ultimately raising an antagonism and suspicion between the sexes that hinders proper and due affection and confidence.

Thank you for your solid words, Dr. Strange. While not following her on all points, it does sometimes seem that Dorothy Sayers raised a question that needed to be asked when she wrote the book, _Are Women Human?_ The woman is not without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. In the image of God created he man; male and female created he them.


----------



## FCC

My son and I had a strange but educational experience yesterday. We went to a local hiking trail to bird/forage. When we approached the trail there is a sign in post, where hikers can sign a log book to record their visit. The usual book was gone and in its place was a "business" card with the statement "Nude hiking, try it you might like it." This also had a newgroup web site posted on the card and we immediately had second thoughts about hitting the trail! We then had a long talk about nudists and their practice. I didn't think about the current posts here on PB until I logged on this morning, but it seems providential that came up when it did.

We talked about the whole nudist worldview and their basic denial of the need for humanity to be clothed. The far deeper meaning of clothing than just protection from the elements and comfort. Indeed, in Genesis 3:21 God clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals and took away their inadequate, self made clothing of leaves! John Gill wrote on this passage, "yet was substantial, and sufficient to protect them from all inclemencies of the weather; and they might serve as to put them in mind of their fall, so of their mortality by it, and of the condition sin had brought them into; being in themselves, and according to their deserts, like the beasts that perish: as also they were emblems of the robe of Christ's righteousness, and the garments of his salvation, to be wrought out by his obedience, sufferings, and death; with which being arrayed, they should not be found naked, nor be condemned, but be secured from wrath to come." 

Gill notes several things for us to keep in mind today about our clothing: First, It is protection from inclement weather. Second, it is to put us in mind of our fall, and the sin that is now present in our lives. We now die because of sin and our clothing should be a constant reminder of that. Third, it is an emblem of our need of Christ's righteousness! We should seek to be fully clothed, or as Paul puts it "to put on Christ." Without the righteousness of Christ we are undone and our clothing is an outward representation of this great truth!

Matthew Henry wrote, "Observe, 1. That clothes came in with sin. We should have had no occasion for them, either for defence or decency, if sin had not made us naked, to our shame. Little reason therefore we have to be proud of our clothes, which are but the badges of our poverty and infamy. 2. That when God made clothes for our first parents he made them warm and strong, but coarse and very plain: not robes of scarlet, but coats of skin. Their clothes were made, not of silk and satin, but plain skins; not trimmed, nor embroidered, none of the ornaments which the daughters of Sion afterwards invented, and prided themselves in. Let the poor, that are meanly clad, learn hence not to complain: having food and a covering, let them be content; they are as well done to as Adam and Eve were. And let the rich, that are finely clad, learn hence not to make the putting on of apparel their adorning, 1Pe_3:3. 3. That God is to be acknowledged with thankfulness, not only in giving us food, but in giving us clothes also, Gen_28:20. The wool and the flax are his, as well as the corn and the wine, Hos_2:9. 4. These coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain, slain before their eyes, to show them what death is, and (as it is Ecc_3:18) that they may see that they themselves were beasts, mortal and dying. It is supposed that they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great sacrifice, which, in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all. "

Modesty is commanded to humanity in the very beginning! Our clothing is a part of our spiritual being and it displays our beliefs to the watching world! This is a very worthwhile topic and one that needs to be deeply examined by every Christian and should be preached on from every pulpit.


----------



## a mere housewife

Dr. Strange, Ruben and I were saying this morning that you are a such a helpful example of what it is to relate genially to your sisters in Christ here. We ladies appreciate your counsel and kindness and your looking out for us. Thank you.

You dear brothers will have to be putting up with us for eternity you know: you might as well start enjoying our presence now . And I think my husband is right (is that terribly shocking?): modesty should make us more comfortable and delighted in each other, not create yet more suspicion and discomfort and inability to be around each other than immodesty. Even if it weren't Joseph's good looks, but his wisdom, etc. that made Mrs. Potiphar try to seduce him, surely we are not going to blame Joseph for being wise and so on (or even for being good looking), as if the point of the narrative is Joseph's immodesty. Just at some point a lust problem is in a man's heart, at some point a problem with responding to good qualities and brotherly attentiveness without purity is in a lady's heart (as Dr. Strange said, we all alike need the gospel of grace). 'No blame can be attached to him,' as Owl said of Pooh, when his house fell over.


----------



## jwright82

The fact that p0rnography is far more a problem for men than women is evidence to the fact that men are more visually aroused than women, I think that studies show this as well. 
In fact I read of a study onetime, and looking back I don’t think it was a very Christian thing to read but it caught my attention, of a test between men and women and their honesty about sexual arousal. 
Without going into details the test concluded that men are very basic and straightforward about what arouses them. Women on the other hand are probably not as honest; this was a secular test amongst secular people so I hope not to offend any godly women here, about it for whatever reason. But the psychologists concluded that probably it is not an honesty factor so much as a far more complex type of arousal system for women. This means that any simplistic way of describing what arouses women misses the boat on the depth of psychological/biological involvement for women. 
In fact a biological case can be made for this. All this to say that I don’t disagree that women can’t be visually aroused, only that the why is more complex for women and that deserves at least some consideration in the question of modesty.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

*Clean, Neat, In Good Taste, and Unremarkable*



moral necessity said:


> In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over.



As a pastor I have counselled (with my wife of course) a young lady who was frequently engaged in watching Internet p0rnography. And recent surveys among college students have revealed that an alarmingly high percentage of college women also view pornographic websites on a regular basis. Is it less then men? Yes. But there are plenty of women ensnared in these kinds of 'visual' sins. So I would be less dismissive of those concerned about causing a young woman to stumble.

Having said that, I for one don't go around shirtless (Not that that would cause anyone to stumble!) but I don't. Even when I was in highschool and the Navy and had a nice physique, I would still swim with a shirt on. So I think that's a good idea. Additionally, as one member has already pointed out, men should be careful when dressing up (especially for church). That we not adorn ourselves in "costly array." This kind of immodesty can be equally offensive. And it isn't just with guys who wear suits. I am often amazed at the imodesty of the "Rock star" pastors on TV, with their graphic T's, frayed jeans and emmo hair styles. They look like they just stepped out of some catalogue! This is "costly array" also. And it alienates those in our churches who are poor, or who just aren't very hip. 

As men, every day of the week and especially on the Lord's Day, we should endeavour to wear clothes that are clean, neat, in good taste, and unremarkable. And by unremarkable I mean that nobody really thinks twice about what your wearing. If you are consistently getting comments from the ladies of your church about how nice you look on Sunday's or at other times, I would consider toning it down. 

I have two black suits. They are identical. I got them on sale from J.C. Penny. I wear essentially the same suit every Lord's Day. I wear only white Oxford shirts and a conservative tie (not real bright or flashy). This enables me and my congregation to be concerned about things other than what I'm wearing. During the week, I wear khakis and a button-up shirt.

Clean, neat, in good taste, and unremarkable.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

In my humble opinion the issue can not be boiled down to the "Lust factor" alone. For in doing so we disect the negative lust factor from focusing on the opposite sex with the correct attitude, *remembering our relational positions, one to another, given us by God*.

To put another way, I believe the issue is more properly stated as incorrectly viewing the other sex as less than human, less than a fallen soul in a fallen world, less than one who experiences pain, sorrow and suffering, and most importantly, less than a fellow human in desparate need of the very same Savior we are in need of. The *active viewing* of another as a sexual object is a *symptom* of an improper viewing of the person. We need to stop addressing symptoms, and get to the core issue of viewing others with a proper Christ Centered Love for them.

I personally believe that there is a reason for the "Logical Order" God gave us in the Moral Law. 
First Table relationship between God and Man
Second Table relationship between Man and Man

To break it down further:
An improper relationship with God (in the first table) will result in an improper relationship with man.

And still further:
Not Honoring God and striving for a proper relationship with Him in the (First table) will lead to an improper view of our relational positions of our fellow man, Not Honoring our Father's and Mothers (Person's of authority - or recognizing God has given us "Relational Positions" to fellow man.) 

This results in:
An improper view of others - mentally treating them as less than human. Mentally, treating them as creatures Not Created in the Image of God. This is truly showing a Hatred for the fellow man, to treat them as objects of personal gain, personal pleasure/gratification, or with indifference, and not as Living souls in need of our Savior.
This could certainly lead to adultry - which WLC points out that the following (among others) are forbidden therein "*...fornication,* rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all *unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections*...*wanton looks*..."

This order is again repeated in Matthew 15:19. _For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies._


----------



## py3ak

That's good stuff, Ben. Adultery is not a loving act, and more love would mean less adultery.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

moral necessity said:


> In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over. Their lusts are more relational. There are exceptions, I would grant, where some women would be more reactive than others by visual stimulation, but I don't think it goes as far as visual lusting, in my opinion. When they lust, they imagine a situation of themeselves relationally with that person. Men just need a picture, and can be totally disconnected from the relational aspect entirely. My wife has the hardest time understanding that. It makes no sense to a woman. Women aren't prone to neighing after their neighbor's husband because of his body visually. It's not a primary factor. If he's a jerk relationally, his perfect body becomes a zero.
> 
> That's all I have to add to the subject for now. I defer to the women to answer.
> 
> Blessings!



First, I want to thank Herman for starting this topic. I think it is invaluable for men to understand the struggles of their Christian sisters.

Second, I answer Charles as a young woman who struggled for years with this exact problem (along with EVERY SINGLE other young woman I knew in the 16-30 year age bracket). ALL my friends and relatives struggled with this issue. Perhaps this was not an issue before our society became super over-sexed, but I would consider women lusting after men extremely serious. If "lusting after men" were not something women were highly suseptible to, why is there a Playgirl magazine? Why does every "hot" actor have to appear shirtless or nude? Women in today's society are completely sold on looking at men's bodies. If women are honest, can any woman claim she has not "checked out" many men's bodies? I do not know one young woman who does not have this struggle. 

If it were not true, there would not be multi-millions of fangirls lusting after the Backstreet Boys, 'N Sync, Justin Beiber, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc (like another poster pointed out). You can bet that nearly every single one of the Backstreet Boys' 130 million cds were bought by a girl struggling with lust. If this were not true, there would be no "boy bands" or "Japanese and Korean pop industries" or "fan fiction" websites. Millions of young girls are creating explicit X-rated stories, drawings and graphic sexual video stories about their favorite celebrities - this is rampant. Most people here would seriously die if I showed you the things millions of 8-30 years old girls/women are spending 4+ hours every single day doing online for 10+ years of their lives. These girls are computer experts, photoshop experts, can create videos like movie directors and webpages like professionals - all because they spent years and years doing this. Countless girls easily spend $50,000-100,000 on books, magazines, cds, videos, shirts, concert tickets, movie tickets, memorabilia. They've seen each Twilight movie 30 times. Each Lord of the Rings 50 times. If it were not true, there would be no "teen boy magazines" like Bop, Teen Dream, etc. Marketing boys to girls is certainly a multi-billion dollar market. What young girl do you know who has not hung up posters of "cute boys" on her bedroom walls? And in today's younger society, it is not buff guys that are the most attractive - it is thinner guys. Nearly any young girl who has even a "crush" on any boy, will be tempted to fall into the sin of checking his body out. If he is wearing a no shirt (no matter how unattractive he thinks his own body is), she will lust. Along with millions of other girls, I have done it. For years and years and years.

In response to Charles "In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over." Along with nearly every single American teen girl with a crush on a cute boy celebrity, I bought at $3-25/ea many 100s of magazines to lust at. Not p0rn magazines, but "teen boy" magazines used like p0rn. They have 5-10 to choose from in every Barnes & Noble right now. And along with many girls, I bought many hard drives to store all the 100,000+ pictures and videos I downloaded. I was not alone. Charles, EVERY fangirl is like this. I wasn't even the most obsessed, I was probably middle. Total, I probably could have literally bought a house for all the money I spent on my obsession. My best guess is that every single female "die hard fan" of a celebrity boy/guy is doing nearly same thing I did.

I consider this issue so serious and I thank Herman again for bringing up this topic. I believe lust for girls is among the top 5 sins we struggle with. It still shocks me that men buy that old claim that women "aren't visual". As far as I've lived, this is a myth. I don't know one woman under 30 who hasn't stuggled with this issue. This was the only major ongoing sin my whole life - stuck in my life for 10+ years, since I was age 7. (Another myth is that girls start as teens. Most girls I've known started much earlier.) No sin has ever clung to me so strongly and put such a barrier between me and God. I easily gave up everything else for God. But I could not give up my "cute boy" for God for all those years.

I am glad for all the Christian women who have not had to struggle with this issue. However, having first hand experience caught in this sin, I am deeply aware how "insane" these girls go over the bodies of men. And this sin of lust leads right into a deep obsession with p0rnography. My Justin Timberlake pictures were my p0rnography, even if he wore clothes.

I do not consider a girl asking her Christian brother to please help protect her from sinning "legalistic" at all.


----------



## Pergamum

FenderPriest said:


> I practice modesty by keeping the guns (Law and Order, respectively left and right) well concealed, and rarely put on a gun show. I also veil my ninja skills, as any true ninja would.



I sometimes wear a man-burqua.

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 AM ----------




Pilgrim Standard said:


> In my humble opinion the issue can not be boiled down to the "Lust factor" alone. For in doing so we disect the negative lust factor from focusing on the opposite sex with the correct attitude, *remembering our relational positions, one to another, given us by God*.
> 
> To put another way, I believe the issue is more properly stated as incorrectly viewing the other sex as less than human, less than a fallen soul in a fallen world, less than one who experiences pain, sorrow and suffering, and most importantly, less than a fellow human in desparate need of the very same Savior we are in need of. The *active viewing* of another as a sexual object is a *symptom* of an improper viewing of the person. We need to stop addressing symptoms, and get to the core issue of viewing others with a proper Christ Centered Love for them.
> 
> I personally believe that there is a reason for the "Logical Order" God gave us in the Moral Law.
> First Table relationship between God and Man
> Second Table relationship between Man and Man
> 
> To break it down further:
> An improper relationship with God (in the first table) will result in an improper relationship with man.
> 
> And still further:
> Not Honoring God and striving for a proper relationship with Him in the (First table) will lead to an improper view of our relational positions of our fellow man, Not Honoring our Father's and Mothers (Person's of authority - or recognizing God has given us "Relational Positions" to fellow man.)
> 
> This results in:
> An improper view of others - mentally treating them as less than human. Mentally, treating them as creatures Not Created in the Image of God. This is truly showing a Hatred for the fellow man, to treat them as objects of personal gain, personal pleasure/gratification, or with indifference, and not as Living souls in need of our Savior.
> This could certainly lead to adultry - which WLC points out that the following (among others) are forbidden therein "*...fornication,* rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all *unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections*...*wanton looks*..."
> 
> This order is again repeated in Matthew 15:19. _For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies._




Benjamin,

Does the phrase "wanton looks" refer to the looker or the lookee?


----------



## kappazei

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> If it were not true, there would not be multi-millions of fangirls lusting after the Backstreet Boys, 'N Sync, Justin Beiber, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc (like another poster pointed out). You can bet that nearly every single one of the Backstreet Boys' 130 million cds were bought by a girl struggling with lust. If this were not true, there would be no "boy bands" or "Japanese and Korean pop industries" or "fan fiction" websites. Millions of young girls are creating explicit X-rated stories, drawings and graphic sexual video stories about their favorite celebrities - this is rampant. Most people here would seriously die if I showed you the things millions of 8-30 years old girls/women are spending 4+ hours every single day doing online for 10+ years of their lives. These girls are computer experts, photoshop experts, can create videos like movie directors and webpages like professionals - all because they spent years and years doing this. Countless girls easily spend $50,000-100,000 on books, magazines, cds, videos, shirts, concert tickets, movie tickets, memorabilia. They've seen each Twilight movie 30 times. Each Lord of the Rings 50 times. If it were not true, there would be no "teen boy magazines" like Bop, Teen Dream, etc. Marketing boys to girls is certainly a multi-billion dollar market. What young girl do you know who has not hung up posters of "cute boys" on her bedroom walls? And in today's younger society, it is not buff guys that are the most attractive - it is thinner guys. Nearly any young girl who has even a "crush" on any boy, will be tempted to fall into the sin of checking his body out. If he is wearing a no shirt (no matter how unattractive he thinks his own body is), she will lust. Along with millions of other girls, I have done it. For years and years and years.



I've long suspected that there has been a concerted effort by the entertainment industry and related marketters to encouage women to become more visually oriented, ie to give women more male characteristics. 
The philosophical undergirding is certainly there (radical feminism). The economic incentive is certainly there. The industry has more than its share of gender confused people and their advocates. As a matter of fact, the topic of gender confustion has often been in the theatres through history The artistic community has always sought to energize itself by pushing against any sort of boundary. Incidently, has anyone noticed that advances in entertainment related technology currently wieghs heavily toward the visual, except for the advent of the i-pod and i-tunes? 

So I submit that women are _inherently not_ as erotically stimulated by visual media as men but a warped world view, coupled with market greed is creating social pressure to conform today's woman into taking on this male characteristic of taking part in activities that stimulate visual lust.


----------



## py3ak

kappazei said:


> So I submit that women are inherently not as erotically stimulated by visual media as men but a warped world view, coupled with market greed is creating social pressure to conform today's woman into taking on this male characteristic of taking part in activities that stimulate visual lust.



I don't understand the strength of attachment to this idea. _Why_ must we believe that "women are not wired that way"? Why is this supposition, for which no Scriptural support has been offered, so certain that we must account for testimony that undercuts it? I'm not saying your thesis is wrong - more evidence would be needed to confirm or refute; but I don't understand the provenance of this idea or the certainty with which it is held.


----------



## kappazei

Thanks Ruben; I do admit that this is a suppostition. In my Christian experience, this was the supposition that I got from various Christian leaders pertaining to marriage...such as Focus on the Family.


----------



## Scottish Lass

KMK said:


> It might be more constructive for men to let their 'modesty' be in the form of reticence. Women are most attracted to men who pay them a great deal of attention. (I know this because my wife is a big fan of the RomCom genre.  ) I know plenty of well-dressed men who cause women to stumble because they get entirely too intimate with female coworkers.



I think this is still the core difference. Yes, bodice-ripper novels and rom-com movies include the now-obligatory shirtless men, but how the man treats the woman (in fiction or real life) is often a major component. The actor who plays Jacob in the _Twilight_ series isn't necessarily just handsome; the way his character treats Bella has a lot to do with why girls (and plenty of moms my age, sad to say) swoon over him. 

Ask a girl or woman _why _she finds a celeb (or co-worker, etc.) attractive---I'd vouch you'd get a different type of answer than if you asked the same question to a man about a female actress or coworker.


----------



## moral necessity

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over. Their lusts are more relational. There are exceptions, I would grant, where some women would be more reactive than others by visual stimulation, but I don't think it goes as far as visual lusting, in my opinion. When they lust, they imagine a situation of themeselves relationally with that person. Men just need a picture, and can be totally disconnected from the relational aspect entirely. My wife has the hardest time understanding that. It makes no sense to a woman. Women aren't prone to neighing after their neighbor's husband because of his body visually. It's not a primary factor. If he's a jerk relationally, his perfect body becomes a zero.
> 
> That's all I have to add to the subject for now. I defer to the women to answer.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I want to thank Herman for starting this topic. I think it is invaluable for men to understand the struggles of their Christian sisters.
> 
> Second, I answer Charles as a young woman who struggled for years with this exact problem (along with EVERY SINGLE other young woman I knew in the 16-30 year age bracket). ALL my friends and relatives struggled with this issue. Perhaps this was not an issue before our society became super over-sexed, but I would consider women lusting after men extremely serious. If "lusting after men" were not something women were highly suseptible to, why is there a Playgirl magazine? Why does every "hot" actor have to appear shirtless or nude? Women in today's society are completely sold on looking at men's bodies. If women are honest, can any woman claim she has not "checked out" many men's bodies? I do not know one young woman who does not have this struggle.
> 
> If it were not true, there would not be multi-millions of fangirls lusting after the Backstreet Boys, 'N Sync, Justin Beiber, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, etc (like another poster pointed out). You can bet that nearly every single one of the Backstreet Boys' 130 million cds were bought by a girl struggling with lust. If this were not true, there would be no "boy bands" or "Japanese and Korean pop industries" or "fan fiction" websites. Millions of young girls are creating explicit X-rated stories, drawings and graphic sexual video stories about their favorite celebrities - this is rampant. Most people here would seriously die if I showed you the things millions of 8-30 years old girls/women are spending 4+ hours every single day doing online for 10+ years of their lives. These girls are computer experts, photoshop experts, can create videos like movie directors and webpages like professionals - all because they spent years and years doing this. Countless girls easily spend $50,000-100,000 on books, magazines, cds, videos, shirts, concert tickets, movie tickets, memorabilia. They've seen each Twilight movie 30 times. Each Lord of the Rings 50 times. If it were not true, there would be no "teen boy magazines" like Bop, Teen Dream, etc. Marketing boys to girls is certainly a multi-billion dollar market. What young girl do you know who has not hung up posters of "cute boys" on her bedroom walls? And in today's younger society, it is not buff guys that are the most attractive - it is thinner guys. Nearly any young girl who has even a "crush" on any boy, will be tempted to fall into the sin of checking his body out. If he is wearing a no shirt (no matter how unattractive he thinks his own body is), she will lust. Along with millions of other girls, I have done it. For years and years and years.
> 
> In response to Charles "In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over." Along with nearly every single American teen girl with a crush on a cute boy celebrity, I bought at $3-25/ea many 100s of magazines to lust at. Not p0rn magazines, but "teen boy" magazines used like p0rn. They have 5-10 to choose from in every Barnes & Noble right now. And along with many girls, I bought many hard drives to store all the 100,000+ pictures and videos I downloaded. I was not alone. Charles, EVERY fangirl is like this. I wasn't even the most obsessed, I was probably middle. Total, I probably could have literally bought a house for all the money I spent on my obsession. My best guess is that every single female "die hard fan" of a celebrity boy/guy is doing nearly same thing I did.
> 
> I consider this issue so serious and I thank Herman again for bringing up this topic. I believe lust for girls is among the top 5 sins we struggle with. It still shocks me that men buy that old claim that women "aren't visual". As far as I've lived, this is a myth. I don't know one woman under 30 who hasn't stuggled with this issue. This was the only major ongoing sin my whole life - stuck in my life for 10+ years, since I was age 7. (Another myth is that girls start as teens. Most girls I've known started much earlier.) No sin has ever clung to me so strongly and put such a barrier between me and God. I easily gave up everything else for God. But I could not give up my "cute boy" for God for all those years.
> 
> I am glad for all the Christian women who have not had to struggle with this issue. However, having first hand experience caught in this sin, I am deeply aware how "insane" these girls go over the bodies of men. And this sin of lust leads right into a deep obsession with p0rnography. My Justin Timberlake pictures were my p0rnography, even if he wore clothes.
> 
> I do not consider a girl asking her Christian brother to please help protect her from sinning "legalistic" at all.
Click to expand...


Blessings to you, Jackie! 

Thank you for your reply, as well as your openness. I gather my emphasis requires a more stringent view of lust than perhaps you are using. Atraction, arousal, stimulation, etc., in my opinion, are typical of the flesh as originally made, and therefore are God-given and honorable. Lust is much different from this, in my opinion. I mentioned some of this in post #25. 

James, above in post #33, does a fabulous job of explaining how there are a myriad of complexities behind a woman's stimulation and arousal compared to that mere singular one of a man. From my understanding, a man mowing the grass with his shirt off just doesn't complete the deal for a woman, if that is the only factor considered. It may be nice and attractive, but, by the time it reaches a lust for that man in a woman's mind, a myriad of other complexties have entered the scene along with it. With a man, this is not so. One factor starts the lust and completes it: a bare, interactionless body. If a man's unedited thoughts were posted in words over his head when he went out in public, I doubt we would get much sympathy from women saying, "Yes, don't feel bad; we think the same way too." 

Blessings to you and fellowship...


----------



## py3ak

kappazei said:


> Thanks Ruben; I do admit that this is a suppostition. In my Christian experience, this was the supposition that I got from various Christian leaders pertaining to marriage...such as Focus on the Family.



I'd heard it as well, but have never seen it defended, only asserted. I've wondered if it came out of a more Victorian view. In any case, such generalizations need to be handled rather carefully, lest we discourage and wound our sisters who do find that they struggle in this way. Ladies, we are not appalled!

Anna, I'm not sure I have the courage to follow through on your suggestion; but from some of what I've heard, I think it really is the FedEx Ground guy's _looks_ that cause some fluttering at my workplace, since he's rather taciturn and we know nothing else at all about him.


----------



## JoannaV

But is it his looks or the thinking-about-his-looks?

It may well be that women are becoming more visual. Photography, film, mass printing, television, internet - these last few decades may well have produced a more visual generation.


----------



## lynnie

Jackie, wow, thanks for the education and your openness. I am so glad you shared that and it makes me feel old and out of touch. I thought the Twilight craze was just emotional. Your contribution is very helpful to me as my girl is just turning 16 and is yet to hit this temptation, but I will be more aware now, and for her friends. God bless you sister!!!


----------



## kappazei

py3ak said:


> a monkey suit or a frock-coat are not an infallible guarantee that some boundary of modesty will not be crossed.



Love that line!


----------



## hermanchauw

Jackie, thanks for your input. I never know such things are also done by Christian women. I'll be more careful next time about my dressing.


----------



## reformedminister

Until the 1930's a man could be arrested for public indecency for going without a shirt in public. Now, it's the standard not only at the public pool but for your neighbor when mowing the lawn. Personally, I don't feel right about it. I do enjoy going to the public pool with my family on a hot summer day, but when I do I wear a shirt, or more preferably a "rashguard", which is a swim shirt. As for mowing the lawn, I will have to admit that I usually wear one of my sleeveless shirts which probably exposes too much of my "guns" for the not too frequent passerby. My wife and I have a nine year old daughter, who never see's me without a shirt. Whenever she see's a man in public without proper "covering", like the occasional jogger without a shirt, she comments "yuck, that man is NAKED!" Every man, husband, and father should pray and consider seeking the Lord concerning the proper observance of Christian modesty.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

py3ak said:


> Originally Posted by kappazei
> So I submit that women are inherently not as erotically stimulated by visual media as men but a warped world view, coupled with market greed is creating social pressure to conform today's woman into taking on this male characteristic of taking part in activities that stimulate visual lust.
> 
> I don't understand the strength of attachment to this idea. Why must we believe that "women are not wired that way"? Why is this supposition, for which no Scriptural support has been offered, so certain that we must account for testimony that undercuts it? I'm not saying your thesis is wrong - more evidence would be needed to confirm or refute; but I don't understand the provenance of this idea or the certainty with which it is held. Ruben



Ruben:

You know from my earlier comments that I do not subscribe to the views of those who over-react to feminism or who treat the Bible as a handbook that seeks primarily to address men as men and women as women, as opposed to its primary purpose, which is to address men and women as those made in God's image, fallen, and needing the redemption that is found in Christ alone.

Having said that, I do think that a clear area of sexual differentiation, suggested in the Bible in several ways, and even more so in human anatomy and physiology, is the sexual response of males and females. Because of the nature of the male response (in contrast to the female), men are clearly more visual. Is it accidental that our Lord speaks of looking lustfully upon a woman? Do women, in the same way, need to make a covenant with their eyes, as did Job? Is it simply a euphemism that Paul says that it is good for a man not to touch a woman (or does this reflect a particular tactile response--a woman needs personal contact, and for longer, to be aroused, whereas a man is sooner by the merely visual). I hope that I am being sufficiently delicate here. I could say more but I hope that this is enough to communicate what I am seeking to say.

My point here is not to suggest in any measure that a man should not be properly clothed. It is to answer, however, the question asked about whether there is any real basis, including a biblical one, for establishing these sexual differences and I think that there is. This does not mean that women care nothing for how a man looks but there is a clear physiological difference between men and women with respect to this.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak

Thanks, Dr. Strange: those are some intriguing suggestions (and no indelicacy was detected). I certainly didn't mean to imply that there is no difference, but didn't want to accept a sweeping generalization contradicted by some testimony without having heard a rational basis for it.


----------



## he beholds

Perhaps it's different for different women? Or perhaps eventually women can become lustful visually but it starts out with them liking the person's person? Or their idea of the person's person. Or maybe some women do see an attractive guy and initially have a physical desire similar to a man's upon seeing an attractive woman.

For some women, I really think that the scenario and the way that person makes you feel, or the way you imagine the person would make you feel, is more of a lust-causing factor than their looks, at least typically. I think Teen Beat and all that is selling a dreamworld, not just a physical fantasy. Can you imagine if Johnny Depp chose YOU? If Johnny Depp would love you, then you KNOW you are OK. You are desirable, you are worthy, pretty. You fit in. Or whoever it is that you think is really cool. If he liked you, you'd be right in the world. 

I mean, of course women are attracted to guys. So yes, the women may find the taciturn Fed Ex guy physically appealing. That you know about it makes me think that it might be part of a group diversion joke-like thing that does happen with women even when there are truly no actual lust issues. Whatever the case, finding someone attractive doesn't have to result in lust. At least for women and I hope with men. It is so hard to talk about this in the public boards, and I am being hypothetical, but say I wasn't married and I saw an attractive guy. I'd not go home and physically lust after him. I might plan a wedding with him even before I know his name, but I'm not going to be affected in the way a guy would. And this has nothing to do with whether I do lust and is not saying that women don't lust and don't struggle with images or that if they do they are weird. I just think that perhaps there are several issues at hand and all women aren't the same (are all men? I honestly don't know.) and I'm not even really answering Ruben's question about whether what we've all heard--women aren't visual--is true.


----------



## John Bunyan

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Millions of young girls are creating explicit X-rated stories, drawings and graphic sexual video stories about their favorite celebrities - this is rampant. Most people here would seriously die if I showed you the things millions of 8-30 years old girls/women are spending 4+ hours every single day doing online for 10+ years of their lives. These girls are computer experts, photoshop experts, can create videos like movie directors and webpages like professionals - all because they spent years and years doing this. Countless girls easily spend $50,000-100,000 on books, magazines, cds, videos, shirts, concert tickets, movie tickets, memorabilia. They've seen each Twilight movie 30 times. Each Lord of the Rings 50 times. If it were not true, there would be no "teen boy magazines" like Bop, Teen Dream, etc. Marketing boys to girls is certainly a multi-billion dollar market. What young girl do you know who has not hung up posters of "cute boys" on her bedroom walls? And in today's younger society, it is not buff guys that are the most attractive - it is thinner guys.


Even though I'm no lady, I can say this is true. It is absurd how depraved young ladies are becoming (some of them are even worst than men), and it's all even worse because there's always some "modern", sexual emancipator feminist to tell them that this is all nice and pretty. When man do it, it's easier to tell them this kind of behaviour is not acceptable, for there's no one saying that they should do it to be "free from their opressors".



> Nearly any young girl who has even a "crush" on any boy, will be tempted to fall into the sin of checking his body out. If he is wearing a no shirt (no matter how unattractive he thinks his own body is), she will lust. Along with millions of other girls, I have done it. For years and years and years.


I don't think that part is true if the guy is really unattractive, though - the majority of man being unattractive.


----------



## jwright82

John Bunyan said:


> Even though I'm no lady, I can say this is true. It is absurd how depraved young ladies are becoming (some of them are even worst than men), and it's all even worse because there's always some "modern", sexual emancipator feminist to tell them that this is all nice and pretty. When man do it, it's easier to tell them this kind of behaviour is not acceptable, for there's no one saying that they should do it to be "free from their opressors".



It is true that the amount of women addicted to p0rnography is on the rise but the difference in numbers between men and women is very different. I also believe, and I am not entirely sure about this because I have never read any studies on it, myself that men and women initially watch p0rnography for different reasons but, I am sure about this, once they are hooked the addiction is the same for both sexes (except women in general feel more guilty about it). I have read of women who said that they initially watched p0rnography in their teen years with fellow girls as a sexual education to learn “what men like”. Boys start watching for different reasons. 

You are correct that in general our culture is pushing women to be sexual it has side affects. I read in my college text book in Psychology that they did a study on the affects of alcohol on women and sexual promiscuity back in the 50’s. The study concluded that women when they were drunk back then were less likely to have sex. They did the same study today and came to opposite conclusions. This reflects what you pointed out about the culture we live in. 

All this to say that the difference between men and women when it comes to what “turns them on”, and hence becomes a temptation, is different enough to warrant a difference of emphasis when it comes to modesty. My personal opinion is this, women should primarily focus on the visual appearance when it comes to modesty and secondarily focus on how they relate socially and emotionally towards the opposite sex. Men should primarily focus on how they relate to the opposite sex socially and emotionally and secondarily focus on their visual appearance. 

A smooth talking man can be a fully dressed and still be a temptation to women. Or I personally will never allow a female friend who is married to use me as “shoulder to cry on” when it comes to her marriage because I know that I will be a greater temptation doing that than if I took my shirt off. This is not because I do not have the physique of a male stripper . But a girl with her shirt off can say nothing and be a temptation to every straight man in the room. That is just my .


----------



## Miss Marple

"A smooth talking man can be a fully dressed and still be a temptation to women. Or I personally will never allow a female friend who is married to use me as “shoulder to cry on” when it comes to her marriage because I know that I will be a greater temptation doing that than if I took my shirt off. This is not because I do not have the physique of a male stripper ."

I think you have hit the nail on the head, here. A man's voice on the radio or a man who writes a column or a book can be a great temptation to women. Whether their shirt is on or not is usually entirely beside the point.


----------



## jwright82

Miss Marple said:


> "A smooth talking man can be a fully dressed and still be a temptation to women. Or I personally will never allow a female friend who is married to use me as “shoulder to cry on” when it comes to her marriage because I know that I will be a greater temptation doing that than if I took my shirt off. This is not because I do not have the physique of a male stripper ."
> 
> I think you have hit the nail on the head, here. A man's voice on the radio or a man who writes a column or a book can be a great temptation to women. Whether their shirt is on or not is usually entirely beside the point.



Thanks. I don't want to undermine women who do struggle with this. My prayers go out to anyone who does. I just want to point out that the reasons why will be much different from men than from women. And that is why two men will agree that a pretty girl is pretty but two women can look at the one guy and one finds him attractive and the other is repulsed by him.


----------



## a mere housewife

Is there not some truth that in the past women have been conditioned to be less responsive, just as they are conditioned now to be more so? I have heard a couple times in my life from a feminine perspective, that sex is for men. This seems pretty much the view of a lot of married women from an older generation. Many Christian girls even of our generation were raised in an environment where the whole thing was seen as rather shameful. 

Female hormones vary widely not only from woman to woman, and in the same woman over a lifetime, but in the same woman in the course of a month. Some women do have more trouble visually at some phases of their cycle. Biological factors do assert themselves in women too, perhaps more generally in puberty -- perhaps even before a girl is fully aware of everything involved in her physical responses. I think some people, regardless of gender, tend to respond more strongly to sensory stimuli across a wide range of experiences, than to more mental or imaginative ones. (And I think the quality of a voice over a radio is still largely on the range of the sensory. Some men are also attracted to voices.) 

It seems that emotional response and sexual response are conceived of as being necessarily related in women. I think they ought to be conjoined in marriage, and often are in adultery -- but I think it is without basis in Scripture, history, or literature to believe them inseparable: women are just as capable of a loving attachment to fathers and brothers as to husbands (and at least some women are equally capable of sex without emotional attachment). It is difficult for me to believe that women were attached to Paul or the Apostle John or Samuel Rutherford, in a culpable manner. And it is equally difficult for me to believe that a sincere attachment didn't enter into the regard they had.

There are a wide variety of qualities that attract women; and sadly many of us have poor taste in the sort of things we are attracted to -- women are just as likely to be attracted by someone who ignores and seems to judge them, or someone who seems mysterious, as by kindness. The first boy I ever had a crush on, in second grade, didn't know I existed: I thought he was the bees knees because he walked home (every one else got picked up from school by their parents) and carried his own house keys. I could hear them jangling when he walked. (Jessi, I don't remember planning the wedding but I did long to play Lincoln logs with him.) Happily, and obviously, I did come to value some more solid qualities before getting married . I still think the best policy is the one Scripture outlines -- to give each other in our dress and behaviour the consideration and comfort and kindness of family members. Even if a woman forgets herself, a man who treats her like a sister/daughter/mother is reminding her of her true identity in Christ, her true destiny and hope, and her true relation to those around her. Wisdom is always called for in our relations, regardless of gender or sexual elements. But suspicion is not a virtue to be cultivated as modesty: we never get beyond sex if we do that, any more than the world does in its relations. The challenge seems to be in apprehending, and acting up to, who we are and what we have been given in our Lord; and helping one another to do so.

Jackie, welcome to the board


----------



## kappazei

a mere housewife said:


> Is there not some truth that in the past women have been conditioned to be less responsive, just as they are conditioned now to be more so?


 A point well taken. Thank you very much. I do apologise for resorting to generalizations to press my point.


----------



## jwright82

a mere housewife said:


> Is there not some truth that in the past women have been conditioned to be less responsive, just as they are conditioned now to be more so? I have heard a couple times in my life from a feminine perspective, that sex is for men. This seems pretty much the view of a lot of married women from an older generation. Many Christian girls even of our generation were raised in an environment where the whole thing was seen as rather shameful.
> 
> Female hormones vary widely not only from woman to woman, and in the same woman over a lifetime, but in the same woman in the course of a month. Some women do have more trouble visually at some phases of their cycle. Biological factors do assert themselves in women too, perhaps more generally in puberty -- perhaps even before a girl is fully aware of everything involved in her physical responses. I think some people, regardless of gender, tend to respond more strongly to sensory stimuli across a wide range of experiences, than to more mental or imaginative ones. (And I think the quality of a voice over a radio is still largely on the range of the sensory. Some men are also attracted to voices.)
> 
> It seems that emotional response and sexual response are conceived of as being necessarily related in women. I think they ought to be conjoined in marriage, and often are in adultery -- but I think it is without basis in Scripture, history, or literature to believe them inseparable: women are just as capable of a loving attachment to fathers and brothers as to husbands (and at least some women are equally capable of sex without emotional attachment). It is difficult for me to believe that women were attached to Paul or the Apostle John or Samuel Rutherford, in a culpable manner. And it is equally difficult for me to believe that a sincere attachment didn't enter into the regard they had.



Very good post Heidi! I hope I didn’t come off as suggesting that visual stimulus is not an issue for women. It is but for different reasons. A women’s nervous system is more acute than a males. Apart from noticing reddish colors better (a trait that comes in handy when looking for rashes in children) women are also far more attuned to body language of an emotional sort. They can detect in the large picture slight changes in body language that equal differing emotional response in people. 

This could be argued as being a visual response to women but the problem is the study I mentioned in my first post. Without getting into detail the test was basically this. They hooked sensors to detect when a man or women was physically aroused. They had them fill out a questionnaire specific to different types of sexual things. What they found was this, if a man answered that he was straight than heterosexual p0rnography would physically arouse him. And homosexual p0rnography of two men would not. The reverse was true for gay men. They threw in chimpanzees reproducing just as a control and no male in the test physically responded to it. It was basic and straightforward. 

I hope not to offend you or any other godly sister on here but I must at this point post how the women faired. For women in the test they were physically aroused by every single video they saw, including the chimpanzees. This contradicted their questionnaire. So either they were all seriously lying or the female sexual response is far more complex than a males. Women do reach their sexual prime like 15 years later than a males, like 30ish, so they may be more visually stimulated as they get older. But it is a combination of body language and good looks that will get a girl going. This is why women have differing types based around different emotional types of guys. Where as men tend to divide up women, unfortunately, along more anatomical lines. 

This is not the only factors involved for either sex but the primacy of one element over the other is pronounced in the differing sexes.




a mere housewife said:


> There are a wide variety of qualities that attract women; and sadly many of us have poor taste in the sort of things we are attracted to -- women are just as likely to be attracted by someone who ignores and seems to judge them, or someone who seems mysterious, as by kindness. The first boy I ever had a crush on, in second grade, didn't know I existed: I thought he was the bees knees because he walked home (every one else got picked up from school by their parents) and carried his own house keys. I could hear them jangling when he walked. (Jessi, I don't remember planning the wedding but I did long to play Lincoln logs with him.) Happily, and obviously, I did come to value some more solid qualities before getting married . I still think the best policy is the one Scripture outlines -- to give each other in our dress and behaviour the consideration and comfort and kindness of family members. Even if a woman forgets herself, a man who treats her like a sister/daughter/mother is reminding her of her true identity in Christ, her true destiny and hope, and her true relation to those around her. Wisdom is always called for in our relations, regardless of gender or sexual elements. But suspicion is not a virtue to be cultivated as modesty: we never get beyond sex if we do that, any more than the world does in its relations. The challenge seems to be in apprehending, and acting up to, who we are and what we have been given in our Lord; and helping one another to do so.
> 
> Jackie, welcome to the board



No one can argue with this.


----------



## a mere housewife

James and Bob, I wasn't meaning to contradict any particular point either of you made, simply to state some things within my own realm of understanding (which I am sure is very limited). With sometimes wildly fluctuating hormones, and generally (though certainly not always) a higher awareness of the emotional aspects of interaction, feminine responses are bound to be puzzling even to themselves: I wouldn't trust a group of scientists to be able to figure it out  I simply don't think biological factors can be written off as universally less significant than emotional or mental ones, for women. Paul speaks of the possibility of young widows being unable to remain unmarried for what seem like biological reasons. I have no doubt that some generalisations can be made about differences even in biological response. But considering that one of the differences may be that women are generally more sensitive to 'conditioning' than men in this area, I think it's important to be careful not to suggest that some struggles are essentially less feminine than others, or that feminine sexuality ought to look identical in every Christian lady. This can exacerbate some women's struggles and simply fail to address others, and perhaps shut down some women's responsiveness. The same sinful, selfish, worldly propensity of heart and the mind are always at the root of our troubles in relating properly to each other (and I say this as someone very aware of my own sinful, selfish, worldly heart) and we all need grace to love each other as we are commanded to do, though we may struggle to do so in different ways.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Pergamum said:


> Benjamin,
> Does the phrase "wanton looks" refer to the looker or the lookee?


yes


----------



## JoannaV

I always appreciate your posts Heidi!


----------

