Page 1 of 10
Thoughts
Uncomfortable Topics That Matter
Born Male | Masturbation | Criticism | Nudity | Tension Points
Nudity
Two sides, two kinds | Dignity and privacy | Just the facts, ma'am | Different from pornography?
Right or wrong? Biblical or cultural? | Biblical accounts, against | Biblical accounts, neutral
Cultural differences | Ministry in dark places | Remaining questions | View of nudity between sexes: not the same
Two sides, two kinds
Nudity always involves two sides: the heart and motive(s) of the person (or author if an inanimate image or
representation of human nudity) who is nude, and the heart and motive(s) of the person viewing the nudity. In
addition, there are two forms of nudity: sexual and non-sexual. Given that both occur in Scripture, contexts, and
cultures other than our own, this is one of the most difficult topics to tackle. The western church will likely never
address it, because our culture can't comprehend that non-sexual nudity is even possible. However, your local
doctor, nurses, and even missionaries serving in various third-world cultures overseas will readily challenge that
assumption.
Imagine you are on a missions trip to Haiti; as you drive across the bridge into Haiti from the Dominican
Republic, you glance out the window to the river below and see young girls bathing naked. This would be
incidental/accidental nudity on both your part and the young girls who were bathing publicly. They had no
knowledge or motivation to incite lust in anyone, and at your first glance were not looking at them with a lustful
intent. Now, imagine you are driving in downtown New York, and as you pass a rough-looking part of town, a
woman flashes her breasts at you. This would be intentional nudity on her part to incite lust or a reaction in you.
This is an issue that many missionaries have wrestled with on varying levels (including myself as a young
missionary kid growing up in Swaziland—on more than one occasion in the 1970s, I remember seeing barebreasted Swazi women vying for selection by King Sobhuza II as one of his wives). Those incidents didn't incite
lust in me, though they undoubtedly fueled my existing natural curiosity about female anatomy. So I can
appreciate how nudity/semi-nudity isn't necessarily an issue until it is presented in a sexual context or age when
sexual desire is rife. It is also something that can remain dormant until a later time.
Men (and women who are visual) are like the character Two-Face in Batman: capable of seeing the opposite sex
both sexually and non-sexually. Whichever side wins depends on the culture we were raised in, the context(s) of
the situation(s) at hand, and most importantly, the state of our hearts. And for the sake of argument, it is also
quite possible to lust after someone in overalls (I've been guilty of that myself); i.e. the female form doesn't need
to be bare for lust to enter the picture. As the saying goes:
"There isn't any amount of clothing that will cover up a dirty mind."
Speaking for myself, as God rescued me from pornography, I struggled the most detaching from a website whose
philosophy was presenting beautiful, nude women in non-sexual poses. I honestly wanted to admire women and
enjoy their beauty, and this seemed like the 'perfect' place to do it. However, while the website began in the early
90s with the intent of admiring and lauding the beauty of women, the owner betrayed his original intent around
2008 by accepting and using photos containing more subtly sexual poses (e.g. the woman looking "sexy" into the
camera) rather than 'innocent' glimpses of female beauty (the woman looking away from the viewer) as was the
original philosophy. He also started a 'sister' site (for lack of a better term) that made no apology for being
pornographic. This was part of what God used to wake me up to the truth of what I was viewing (and why).
Page 2 of 10
Ultimately, the best defense against porn is being able to grasp and respect the beauty of the human body in a
non-sexual context through understanding the intent for and design in which God created it. This is the difference
that unmasks porn for exactly what it is: a series of lies and deceit with insidious motives. In short, human
anatomy itself isn't sinful; but the misuse through insidious presentation of it can certainly be.
However, it begs the million-dollar question:
In what practical way(s) can someone who has grown up in a porn-saturated culture safely make the
transition to seeing nudity in a non-sexual context, and how do you ensure that exposure to nonsexual nudity never becomes a temptation to revert to nudity in a sexual context?
My personal belief is that nudity is a fragile scruple—even more so than eating meat offered to idols was for
some believers in the New Testament. Believers who grew up in a culture where nudity existed in a non-sexual
context may have already resolved this in their mind, but because lust stems from our heart, its never a guarantee.
The sticking issue is that lust is only a thought away. The argument is that nudity (even non-sexual) always has
the potential to increase the likelihood of lust even though it's not a foregone conclusion. This is difficult to
refute, seeing that love-making, even in the marital setting, happens in the nude.
Dignity and privacy
Two aspects that are critical to the issue of nudity are dignity and privacy. A woman shares about this in her
comments to an article:
If I may jump in, I have thoughts on this as well. I'm sorry for writing a novel—and on my phone, no
less! My thumb will never be the same!
Let me just say, first, that I also feel very blessed to have found this website—it answers a lot of my
questions very well and I hope that some of the new ideas here will bear scrutiny and become a
welcome part of my thinking in the future. However, I have some concerns which I think tie in with
mpetersheim's question, and I think I may also have part of a solution.
As guidance for how to perceive others, I believe your advice has immense value. However, it raises
concerns for me in an area peripheral to your original topic, which I think tie into this discussion.
This website seems to be mostly concerned with the conduct and inner life of the person doing the
seeing, not the person doing the wearing (although we are all both). My comments involve the
person doing the wearing much more than you have discussed, and they may be outside the scope of
the blog.
I married into a family with strict standards of dress (although my husband is the man you describe
in the "renewed" column—praise the Lord!) and I have done a lot of thinking about modesty and
whether my heart is truly in the right place even though I don't feel that their strictness is good or
necessary. I have felt the discomfort that you mention—about the sexualization inherent in a prudish
view of the body. It is very real—you can't have one without the other. I have felt very objectified
whenever my clothes were discussed, and wondered whether lust was a factor. (I must just
emphasize that my husband is not in any way part of the problem. You can't necessarily control your
family, more's the pity!)
I have also wondered about differing cultural standards of modesty—how can an extremely minimal
amount of clothing really be appropriate? What you said about the inherent decency of the body, and
about being the image-bearers of God, was helpful to me, though—if the body really is not an
obscene thing (which of course it is not) then wildly differing standards of dress are possible, as long
as they emphasize and preserve the dignity of the wearer as God's image-bearer, as informed by his
or her conscience.
Page 3 of 10
However, I do have a concern, and it has to do with this dignity. It's easiest to express with examples
from my own life: I have two children, and when I was expecting my first, my midwife required us
to attend a childbirth class. This was a natural birth-oriented curriculum (Bradley), and there was a
lot of candor and openness about the pregnant body and the mechanics of birth. As part of the class,
we were shown videos of birth. As I watched part of the first one, something in me just mutinied. I
could not watch that video. The woman was whimpering with pain, and her husband was telling her
how to breathe. Someone was video-taping her pain as she writhed and gasped—I ran to the
bathroom and shoved my hands in my ears. I could not stop crying and refused to watch any more
videos for the whole course. The instructor was frustrated with me, but I just could not do it. How
can I explain? The woman in that video was vulnerable—she was exposed. Exposed! She wasn't
even naked—she had a nightie and robe on. But her pain was open to the world's view.
That may be a silly example to write here, since we're talking about clothing, but it is the most
articulable instance of something that happened again and again during my pregnancies, and most of
the other times did involve the ladies being naked. For some reason it seems that midwives like to
hang pictures of water births all around their offices, and every single time I saw one it was the
same—I writhed inside. Keep in mind that I was volunteering to have the same kind of birth—and
paying a lot of money for it: I'm not against birth! Nor am I against nakedness! And you can bet I
didn't burden myself with clothing when it came time for labor. But seeing the exposure of such
vulnerability—it cut to my core. I knew I would feel unspeakably violated if a similar image of me
in my private pain were shown to the world, to strangers.
And it was the same with breast feeding—it was a wonderful experience, with the cuddly baby and
the bonding and everything. I had to seek help from my midwife in the beginning and was totally
untroubled by the thought of involving her in the process. I never felt bullied or shamed into feeding
only in private. But I always covered up in public, because to me it was an issue of dignity. I would
have been frankly devastated to have my breasts exposed to the world. They are not dirty or
pornographic or shameful—they are private. It bothered me so much to hear all the natural-birth
advocates saying that women should be able to breast feed in public and that it would be so
empowering—I can't imagine a less empowering experience than to have my private space open to
the public.
And I think that's the issue here: dignity. We do not only cover things that are disgraceful—we also
cover things that are private. We do not install public toilets on the sidewalk, although a good
digestion is a great gift and certainly not shameful. We do not discuss our finances with our husband
while sitting at our friend's dinner table, even though we probably have nothing illegal to hide. Our
feelings, birthday surprises, our periods, the poetry we have written but never shown anyone, our
prayer diary, the little songs we sing to ourselves while doing the laundry alone—these can be kept
private without being regarded as bad or unhealthy. Not everything good has to be public.
Do you remember when Prince William and Kate Middleton were on their honeymoon and there was
a big flutter about a French tabloid being about to publish topless photos of Kate sunbathing on a
private beach, and the royal family paid them not to publish, or something, and there was a big todo? I read a news article about that and one commenter said "What's the big deal? Why cover up
beauty?" That bothered me so much. She thought she was in private. Just because our bodies are not
dirty or obscene (and of course it's not!) doesn't mean they're public property, or that there's any
other acceptable response than quickly averted eyes and "Excuse me, ma'am!" while retreating, if
one walks in on a woman uncovered and trying to be private.
What concerns me is that it seems possible that your line of reasoning about the inherent decency of
the body could lead to the extreme of trivializing a woman's conscience or desire for her privacy. It
seems like you could be saying that it's sinful not to want to be naked in public. I hope that's not
what you're saying.
Page 4 of 10
And really, it would seem that the person you describe as having a renewed view of the body is not
going to go be a nudist—they will wear clothes that they feel are appropriate in any given situation.
It is every person's privilege and responsibility to choose to keep private what they feel is private.
Whether it's our innermost thoughts or our body parts, privacy is something we seem to need.
Also, what we do in private reveals who we are. In the Jeremiah passage, it seems that Israel's sins
against God are being shown for what they are—their normal privacy has become secrecy in which
they act against God, and their evil deeds are becoming known. "Ervah" does seem to mean
shameful exposure, not just regular nakedness. And it seems that a garment that is usually worn is
being uncharacteristically stripped away. I think it could be interpreted as Israel's attempts to dignify
their wrongdoing being foiled, and their wrong behavior towards God exposed.
Thank you for all your work to help people be free—I really appreciated reading all that you've
written on the site and anticipate that it will help me be free in my own thinking as well. I would be
very interested in your thoughts about what I've said, which are my only concerns about your
excellent and God-honoring work. I apologize again for the novel. Thank you again.
Just the facts, ma'am
• God always looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
• Scripture doesn't condemn nudity in all contexts.
• Nudity doesn't automatically equate to, or instigate, lust. However, it certainly has an increased potential to
incite it, especially in some cultures and contexts where it is intentionally sexualized.
Different from pornography?
Yes, but how? Pornography is anything created or intended to incite or evoke lustful desire. However, nudity, on
its own, does not inherently equate to pornography. While nudity is mentioned in Scripture many times, it does
not always implicate—or result in—lust or sexual desire. Granted, not all pornography depicts a sexual act
between one or more people (e.g. "artistic" images of naked women), but the end result is increased potential for
someone to lust. The sometimes subtle gray lines between the two lie in the context, culture, and intentions of the
people involved. Again, God looks at the heart.
However, the catch is, that as Dr. James McKeever notes in chapter 7, "Nudity and Lust" of his book It's in the
Bible:
"If we conclude that it is a sin to be nude in front of a member of the opposite sex [to whom we are
not married], we run into difficulty in trying to devise our own law."
The Rev. Martin Wadestone, author of Nudism and Christianity, adds to this truth:
"Actually, in the light of the Bible, there is no sin in nudity itself: but if a person uses the nudity for
lustful or immoral purposes he has misused it, and this constitutes a sin. The Bible does not speak
against nudity nor does it teach that the body is shameful. There is reference to shame in nudity, but
this shame was produced in the mind of man, not by divine ordination."
Right or wrong? Biblical or cultural?
Like masturbation, there seems to be no Scripture that directly condemns nudity as sin in and of itself. In fact, it
takes a rather ambiguous stance on it. It then becomes easier to argue that what matters to God about nakedness
are the attitudes of the heart in both context and the culture in which it occurs. When doing a simple keyword
search for "naked" in the Bible, with few exceptions, the vast majority of references seem to point towards it
Page 5 of 10
being a state of destitution, extreme poverty, assault, slavery, or shame due to loss of wealth or capture by one's
enemies.
Naturally, in addition to abiding by local laws, and protecting our bodies from the elements, Jesus' words in
Matthew 5:28 apply. Yet where, and in what does the church base their view(s) of nudity, and in what contexts is
nudity considered innocent and acceptable, or sinful? Are our views biblical or cultural?
We know that private nudity between a husband and wife is honorable and blessed—even encouraged—by God
(see the Song of Solomon). Public nudity however, because of its potential ramifications, is where the question
lies: is nakedness sin against God and man, or just shameful in the context that most Scripture references it (i.e.
those who are destitute or poverty-stricken)? Is its discovery or display intentional or incidental/accidental?
Biblical accounts, against
Noah and his sons
Genesis 9:18-27 (NASB) "Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and
Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the
whole earth was populated. Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine
and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the
nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and
laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father;
and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah
awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be
Canaan; a servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the Lord, the
God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the
tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.""
Questions:
1. Why wasn't Noah held accountable for getting drunk—and subsequently naked—in the first place?
2. It is clearly implied that Ham was already inside the tent when Noah got naked. So why is Ham being
blamed for Noah's nakedness? Was it just because Ham told his brothers about it? If he just stumbled upon
his father's nakedness, Noah's curse was completely unwarranted, and he should have cursed his own
stupidity. Fact is, if it wasn't for Ham, Noah would have been left exposed to embarrass himself further.
3. Why did Shem and Japheth feel compelled to cover up their father's nakedness when it was his own tent?
Couldn't they have just waited until Noah was sober and dressed himself?
Comments: There are two wrongs in this passage: 1) Noah getting drunk in the first place and lying around naked
in his tent (which may not have been "private" property—no way of knowing?). 2) Ham should at least have
covered up his father the second he saw he was naked—instead, he leaves him there naked and gossips about it to
his brothers.
Increased potential for lust and sin
Matthew 5:28 (NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has
already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Comments: Though not directed at nudity, this verse does address the potential for sin that it may cause, though
lust is certainly not limited to nakedness.
Biblical accounts, neutral
Adam & Eve
Page 6 of 10
Genesis 2:15-17 (NASB) "Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to
cultivate it and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden
you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the
day that you eat from it you will surely die.""
Genesis 3:7 (NASB) "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were
naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings."
Genesis 3:9-11 (NASB) Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" He
said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid
myself." And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I
commanded you not to eat?"
Genesis 3:21 (NASB) "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed
them."
Comments: Herein lie several 'million dollar questions' that have implied, but no clear, Scriptural answers.
1. Why were Adam and Eve's eyes 'closed' (implied by Scripture) to their nakedness before they sinned? And
if, in God's eyes, their sin had absolutely no effect on their nakedness, then why did anything change when
they left the garden of Eden, and why didn't God put a stop to it?
2. Why was Adam & Eve's knowledge of their nudity an immediate consequence of their sin of disobedience?
3. Why didn't God directly condemn Adam & Eve's nakedness when He metered out the curses to Eve
(Genesis 3:16) and then Adam (Genesis 3:17-19)?
4. Why did God make clothing for them? Was it because He detested nakedness and supported their desire to
clothe themselves, or was He acting out of compassion for them in the midst of their sin by providing more
durable clothing?
5. If nudity is inherently sinful, then why did God command his Prophet Isaiah to go naked for three years?
My best guess is that while their bodies didn't become evil, their disobedience of eating the forbidden fruit cost
them their freedom to openly enjoy their nakedness.
The author of biblicalsexuality.com makes an excellent point in that Adam & Eve were naked when God
declared all that He had made "very good" (Genesis 1:31). He goes on to say that:
"...remember, that to believe God created man in a shameful and lacking state which needed to be
obscured and covered, or to believe that man fell into that lowly state by disobedience is quite
different."
Commands against altar desecration
Exodus 20:23-26 (NASB) "You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold,
you shall not make for yourselves. You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice
on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where
I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you. If you make an altar of stone
for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it. And
you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.'"
Comments: It is not clear from the context of this passage whether or not nakedness itself is condemned; rather,
its context in the location of the altar of God.
Bathsheba and King David
2 Samuel 11:2-5 (NASB) "Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on
the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very
Page 7 of 10
beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, "Is this not
Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" David sent messengers and took
her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her
uncleanness, she returned to her house. The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and
said, "I am pregnant.""
Comments: In this example of King David, there appears to be no condemnation from God of his lust in watching
Bathsheba bathe naked, though his committing adultery with her and intentionally having Uriah killed in battle
are clearly condemned in 2 Samuel 12:9-10.
Questions:
1. Why didn't King David immediately leave the roof of his 'kingly house' when he saw that she was bathing?
His failure to do so immediately implies lust—confirmed from his actions in two separate instances to
enquire about her, and then to have her brought to him. His actions amounted to King-powered rape.
2. Was Bathsheba knowingly take a bath in plain view, or did King David just "get lucky" because of his
elevated view from the palace roof? Why didn't Bathsheba carefully consider whether or not someone
could see her bathing?
3. Was her bathing a common occurrence that King David was aware of?
Prophet Isaiah
Isaiah 20:2-4 (NASB) "...at that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go
and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet." And he did so, going
naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, "Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot
three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away the
captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks
uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.""
Comments: God commands Isaiah to be naked, so he obviously had no means of arguing against that, but while
there was plenty of shame and embarrassment on Isaiah's part for being naked, there seems to be no specific sin
involved in his nakedness.
Micah
Micah 1:8 (NASB) "Because of this I must lament and wail, I must go barefoot and naked; I must
make a lament like the jackals and a mourning like the ostriches."
Women of Israel (partial nudity)
Isaiah 32:11 (NASB) "Tremble, you women who are at ease; be troubled, you complacent
daughters; strip, undress and put sackcloth on your waist..."
Peter
John 21:7 (NASB) "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when
Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work),
and threw himself into the sea."
Cultural differences
Nudity and modesty are inherently cultural, with the quantity and type of clothing meaning different things in
different countries. What's important is the meaning or intent, not necessarily how much or how little exposure
there is. Non-sexual nudity however, appears to be rapidly disappearing as westernized culture and mind sets
Page 8 of 10
erode original, national cultures. I've always wondered how—in the past—missionaries have reconciled nudity
among those they were ministering to with what they were culturally taught. Some examples of cultural
differences:
• Excerpt from The Definitive Book of Body Language (though I have my doubts that the non-Westernized
women mentioned below would really have such a limited response in covering their bodies):
"Imagine this scene—you are inspecting a house with the possibility of purchasing it, and you
open a bathroom door to see a woman sitting naked in a bathtub. How would you expect the
surprised woman to react? A British or American woman would cover her breasts with one
hand and her genitals with the other, while a Swedish woman would cover only her genitals. A
Muslim woman would cover her face; a Sumatran woman would cover her knees; and a
Samoan, only her navel."
• Rural West Africa: Women normally went around topless, but then suddenly lots of previously-topless
women started wearing bras. They weren't trying to be more modest; it turns out bras were considered
fashionable—it was a trend.
• Rural East Africa (circa 2000): It was no big deal for a nursing mom to let her breasts hang out all over
the place (even on the front row in church) and it is not considered sexual. It just didn't register with
anyone. But if a woman wanted to identify herself as a prostitute, she'd wear jeans. No modest woman
would wear jeans, because only prostitutes would ever show the shape of their legs—especially thighs—in
public, so that was literally advertising yourself as a prostitute.
• Southern Africa (Swaziland): It was not uncommon for a woman to breast-feed her baby in a public
setting.
• India: Some missionaries in India noticed that women thought nothing of exposing their entire breast
while feeding children—nothing even remotely discreet—they let it all hang out and were in no hurry at all
to get covered. Yet as an American, you could not wear jeans, because to them the outline of the hips and
abdominal area is very erotic, and jeans were considered immodest. Breasts being totally exposed was not.
In addition, showing your midriff is perfectly acceptable and completely nonsexual.
• Papua New Guinea (classic bush tribe): Bare-breasted women, and the men wear a string around their
waists connecting to another string tied to the end of their penis. Apparently if their penis "falls out" in
public they get embarrassed because then they're "naked." Another tribe apparently wears gourds on their
penises, etc.
• Indonesia and South America: There are tribes where people wear nothing at all, and promiscuity isn't
consuming them.
• Numerous third-world countries: Full infant nudity.
• Various European countries (e.g. Germany, Sweden): Instances of partial and/or full nudity in certain
scenarios have been (and still tend to be) common, and it may still not be unheard of for family members
of various ages to shower or bathe together.
Ministry in dark places
What should you do if sharing the Gospel in a particular location means you will be faced with unsolicited
exposure to nudity in a sexual context? Some examples:
• Thailand: Prostitution and sex trafficking are rife in public places with explicit or near-explicit nudity.
• Papua New Guinea: Prostitution and sex trafficking.
• Las Vegas: Similar to Thailand, though perhaps not quite as overt. There is a pastor and his family who
are ministering right in the heart of Las Vegas. He has been heavily criticised as being very foolish and for
exposing his family to the pornography and sin surrounding them. Only God knows his heart and motives.
But name one instance where God says: "Minister only in safe, sin-free areas."
• Netherlands: Red light district.
• Germany/Europe in general: Advertisements openly depicting nudity.
Page 9 of 10
• ...and many others I'm sure I've missed...
We have to be able to minister in the midst of this. It's not going to get any better; in fact, judging by the accounts
in Revelation, sinfulness is only going to get exponentially worse. Do we say at the Bema seat of Christ: "Lord,
please forgive me for not going there to share your Gospel, but I just couldn't risk seeing sinfulness there."
There are people ministering in each of the above locations. And yes, it is challenging and difficult. The integrity
of each person who ministers, and their family members are at risk of succumbing to the lies, deceit, and sinful
temptations around them. But as we're reminded in Scripture:
Luke 5:32 (NASB) "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."
I can only believe that God grants special grace and strength to resist and endure wherever He has called you to
minister, but it is no guarantee. We simply must obey if God is calling us to minister, regardless of the risk.
Witnessing the devastating, domino-effect of consequences of sin should prove to be a reminder and motivating
factor of that resistance and calling.
Remaining questions
These examples expose an insidious double-standard and hypocrisy: if, in our western culture, nudity is
considered inherently wrong, then why and how is it suddenly excusable for us to treat it as a special exception
and "okay" to be exposed to it if you're involved in ministry to a different culture? There are other unanswered
questions as well:
1. In typically primitive cultures where nudity of both sexes is commonplace, what specific impetus then
results in sexual arousal? Children are born, so there has to be something that stirs at least the men.
2. James McKeever's questions:
◾ Should we have only women gynecologists? Certainly a male gynecologist not only sees a woman
nude, but also touches her in a very intimate way. What about doctors, nurses, and other medical
specialists?
◾ At what age should a mother stop bathing her son? Should a father be forbidden from bathing his
daughter? What if his wife is sick?
◾ Let's say a man's aged mother is sick and totally bedridden, and needs a bath. Would he be sinning to
give her a bath?
◾ What about the women whom the Nazis rounded up to take to concentration camps, who were forced
to strip in front of their male guards? Were all of these women sinning?
Views of nudity between sexes: not the same
While there are some exceptions to this rule, there is a primary difference—and big problem—between men and
women when it comes to perspective and appreciation of nakedness, sensuality, and having a deep sense of awe
for each other's anatomy. Deep down, both men and women long for their anatomy to be found beautiful and
desirable. But based on existing evidence, the fact remains that the majority of women are either not visual or are
only minimally so at best, which means among most, mutual admiration of physicality simply does not exist. As
an example: a wife wants her husband to tell her she's beautiful, and to desire her. The husband does—and he
longs for her to also find him equally sensually handsome and sexually desirable...but if she is not visual (and
most are not), she simply cannot reciprocate that awe and desire for his physicality; which results in numerous
relational problems; not the least of which is sexual intimacy.
Related links and files: Nudity and Lust (Dr. James McKeever) | My View on Nakedness (Pastor David Hatton,
RN) | Nudity in Ancient to Modern Cultures (PDF) | What About "Christian" Nudity? (Jessica Harris) | Christians
and Nudity: Can a Christian Be a Nudist?
Page 10 of 10
Note: some opinions expressed in the links above may not necessarily reflect my own.
Comments?