The deteriorating perception of nudity

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

'dressing provocatively' suggests bad intent and foreknowledge she's doing that.... ....

Yes and no. I know many girls who "dress for attention" - which is in the form of short short shorts, short short skirts, tight pants, tight top, very low cut top, exposed midriff, and the like.

They may not think they are trying to "provoke" guys, but they know/believe such attire will draw attention from guys, and so they dress this way.

But there are also those who dress this way because "everyone" dresses this way, and anyone who doesn't is a nerd.

 

Tsukino, Those are good points. I don't know why it's always about women's clothing.

OK, let's talk about the boys and young men who wear their pants as if they are falling of and exposing their drawers!

 

It bothers me that the interest isn't primarily in ourselves and our own hearts, and rather about obsessing about how horrid those ladies are and how much it offends us.

My concern actually is not about being "better than you", but rather about a culture that teaches women their value is in their looks, their sexuality, outdoing the next girl in "attractiveness", and so forth.

 

Alright, some women do it purposefully, but we don't know who just by seeing her do we? That's my point.I don't think it's cool to assume the worst about someone just because we don't approve of their clothing. I don't care about Miley Cyrus (as an issue), she's a product and she's doing what will get attention.

 

 

All right, I can appreciate the not judging part.

 

But my heart still feels angry and grieved at the brainwashing of our society to make products out of women. (The choice of words you gave to Miley is fitting.)

 

Here is my model, to take or leave lol... I don't think society has to do that, it's a part of our nature to do that. Men want to see women as potential sexual partners, and that has manifested itself in commodifying women in varying ways throughout history. I suppose i don't think it is any better where women are expected to cover up all over, because that is an expression of the same sort of thing, men wanting to control *their* women. Now women have lots more legal rights and standings, so they both feel compelled to, but also purposefully (at times) use their power to manipulate men. Now don't get me wrong, I think for the large majority of both men in women in most social situations this isn't a live issue (hence my worry about judging others about their intentions) but it only takes a handful to cause a a huge change across the board in fashions and whatnot.

 

But I find it ridiculous and meanspirited for people, particularly in the christian community, to judge women harshly for merely putting on what their peers put on, and that is the main point I want to make in these threads.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Can you imagine if the Lord commanded someone to do this today?  Also, this is a post-Eden time period wherin a prophet is commanded to minister naked.  Not even a loin cloth.  Therefore, nakedness in itself is not always a sin and is not always immodest.

 

Saul got his kit off too.

 

 

 

He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:24)

 

And David,

 

 

 

2 Samuel 6:14: "And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." 

 

An ephod, by the way, is pretty much a loin cloth.  

 

And here we have another naked prophet.

 

 

 

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked"

 

 

The Bible does not seem to imply that all these were sinning in their immodesty.  Perhaps the deterioration in the perception of nudity is in that we perceive the nudity itself to be sinful rather than our reaction to it?

Actually, the Hebrew word for "naked" as it is used here, does not refer to "nudity."   Nakedness in the Bible often carries a different connotation than it does in our modern western culture that views naked and nude as interchangable terms.  The Bible often refers to people as "naked" who were at least partially clothed, it refers to "nakedness" of the poor and so on.

 

The difference is that these prophets were not exhibitionists and most likely were still wearing the tunics that men wore under their garments, as would have been the case with David, Saul and Isaiah and Micah.

 

 

 Here I thought that the vast majority of people here take the Bible 'literally'.  So 7 days means 7 days, the earth has to be 6000 yrs old, but we draw the line at naked meaning naked?    Okay then, let's say I bite that logic apple. If people back then covered those underpants, or under tunics as the case may apparently be, why did they bother ever covering them if them being uncovered was considered modest?  And why do some of those verses go to the trouble of describing loin cloths if the loin cloths were all covered up?  And why would it matter that Isaiah had loosed the loin cloth from his loins if he were wearing other clothing on top of it?  The passage gives the impression that the boy was flapping free.  Also, didn't the Old Testament time frame span ALOT of centuries?  Did ALL of those Bible people wear the same fashions, including under clothes styles, ALL of that time?  I think probably not.

[kwikphilly]

My My....this topic is interesting to say the least!

    I have not read all the posts but most of them ,someone commented that the ephod was basically a loincloth?Where do they read these things?The ephod can appropriately be compared to an apron,which was worn OUTSIDE the robes and on it hung the breast piece that contained the Urim and the Thurrim(my spelling is probably wrong,sorry)....then another went on to defend art quoting Michaelangelo and onto modesty changing from era to era.....?

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if the Bible says that women should even cover their heads do you really think exposing any other parts would really be acceptable?I can only share what was written on my own heart and hope that someone can appreciate where God has taken me ....

   I once was one of those barely clad women who wore very provocative clothing(for all to see what I ate for breakfast-lol),I was a young artist who was very caught up in fashion design,painting nudes and designing alluring clothing....I was not trying to attract anyone but I was very vain and thought the body was very beautiful and therefore should be flaunted,my mother was my role model as she was known to have an hourglass figure,my dad was as fit as Charles Atlas.....even after I was saved I would go to church in mini skirts and stiletto heels....the church mothers would very lovingly give me an oversized handkerchief to drape over my lap....I don't know when it happened but slowly but surely as I began to decrease and the Lord began to increase in my life my skirts got longer,my neckline got higher,my clothes got looser fitting and my heels got lower......I did not desire to be looked upon or to cause a man to lust,my blind eyes were opened......I was no longer interested in painting nudes,there was more beauty in what was unseen.....vanity ceased,modesty predominated....Jesus did it,not I.....

    My friends and I laugh at how we once walked into church and see young girls doing exactly what we did and in a loving way we teach them and guide them because we were once exactly where they are.....it is true as someone here said(I think it was bopeep),modesty has always been modesty and the Lord writes these things on our hearts,just because the world tolerates such things we are not of this world and should be mindful of the One we represent and teach our children accordingly...

    I hope my little journey has touched someones heart,c'mon y'all....we know better!

                                                                                                                                            To God be the Glory-Kwik

Oh ,I almost forgot what truly prompted me to write(praise Jesus!)I was always fascinated by Solomons Song Of Songs and thought it to be very risque and quite racey until I was taken through it by a Rabbi....and He said imagine Jesus walking down the road when he appeared to the men talking about Him and saying,"haven't you heard?"And Jesus took them through the scriptures,explaining to them how it all pointed to Him as the One,the Messiah......I began to understand that as the Bible is truly God speaking through man and by no interpretation of man that it is Jesus speaking to us,His beloved bride ,His church....His intimate,passionate ,agape,personal love that is beyond compare.....it is by no means sexual,it has brought me ever so deeply IN LOVE with my Lord Who is IN LOVE with me...........................................Be blessed,In Christ Jesus

Edited September 5, 2013 by kwikphilly

[TsukinoRei]

My My....this topic is interesting to say the least!

    I have not read all the posts but most of them ,someone commented that the ephod was basically a loincloth?Where do they read these things?The ephod can appropriately be compared to an apron,which was worn OUTSIDE the robes and on it hung the breast piece that contained the Urim and the Thurrim(my spelling is probably wrong,sorry)....then another went on to defend art quoting Michaelangelo and onto modesty changing from era to era.....?

 

 

 

 

(ee' fahd) A priestly garment connected with seeking a word from God and used in a wrong way as an idol. The exact meaning and derivation of the term “ephod” are not clear.

 

In early Old Testament history, there are references to the ephod as a rather simple, linen garment, possibly a short skirt, apron, or loin cloth.

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1890

 

 

 

The Kings wife was certainly scandalized!

 

Samuel 6:20 "my, how revered this day is the King of Israel, uncovering himself today in front of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the lowlifes unabashedly uncovers himself!"

 

 

 

http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/e/ephod.html

For the form of the earlier ephod the classic passage is 2 Sam. vi. 14, where David girt in (or with) a linen ephod dances before the ark at its entry into Jerusalem and incurs the unqualified contempt of his wife Michal, the daughter of Saul. Relying upon the known custom of performing certain observances in a practically, or even entirely, nude condition, it seems plausible to infer that the ephod was a scanty wrapping, perhaps a loincloth, and this view has found weighty support. 

 

 

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Next are you guys going to try to convince me that loins doesn't really mean loins?

[nebula]

......I was no longer interested in painting nudes,there was more beauty in what was unseen.....vanity ceased,modesty predominated....

 

This is a very good points, kwik. Thank-you!

[nebula]

Concerning David -

 

The passage never states David ripped off his clothes. All it says is: "Then David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod." (2 Sam. 6:14)

 

Linen ephods are what the priests wore. References

 

 

As for Michal's rebuke, in her eyes the king dressing and acting un-kingly would very much be an "uncovering".

 

 

The concept that the Lord would be pleased with someone dancing before Him naked goes against Torah.

 

 

 

As for Isaiah, it is clear from the passage that walking around in his uncovered state was a shame and a disgrace. It was meant to be a prophetic warning against the people. There was nothing celebratory about it.

[Guest shiloh357]

Here I thought that the vast majority of people here take the Bible 'literally'.  So 7 days means 7 days, the earth has to be 6000 yrs old, but we draw the line at naked meaning naked?

 

Taking the Bible literally doesn't mean employing a wooden face-value approach to the text.   It means reading the text with the intent of the author in view.  The "literal" meaning is supplied by the author, not by the interpreter.  Interpretation is an objective excersize wherein we employ the objective rules of literary analysis to arrive at what the author intends for us to understand. It means employing rules that apply to grammar/syntax, literary, historical and cultural context, as well as recognizing various literary devices employed by the author to further communicate the intended message.   People often confuse interpretation with application which is the subjective side of the study of Scripture.

 

 

Okay then, let's say I bite that logic apple. If people back then covered those underpants, or under tunics as the case may apparently be, why did they bother ever covering them if them being uncovered was considered modest?

 

You are confusing issues, here.   Your original point, which was what I was responding to, was that nudity can't be immodest because there are references to God commanding people to walk around in the nude.   My point was that God was not commanding them to walk around in the nude at all.  "Nakedness" and "nudity" are not the same thing in the Bible.  The ONLY place in the Bible where nudity is not condemned is the context of intimacy between a husband (male) and wife (female).

 

In the case of Isaiah, he was making a prophetic point by walking around in nothing but a tunic.  Judah was under God's judgment and the time was coming when they would be taken prisoner and would serve as slaves in Babylon.  Slaves were taken and stripped down to just the tunic or something similar and left barefoot.  This was meant to be demoralizing and humiliating.   Isaiah was walking about in nothing but tunic and barefoot, dressed as a slave/prisoner as part of a prophetic ministry designed to foretell to Judah what their future looked like if they did not return to the Lord.   The issue related to what Isaiah was doing wasn't nudity; the issue was poverty and humiliation

 

 

And why do some of those verses go to the trouble of describing loin cloths if the loin cloths were all covered up?  And why would it matter that Isaiah had loosed the loin cloth from his loins if he were wearing other clothing on top of it?  The passage gives the impression that the boy was flapping free.

No, it doesn't give that impression; at least not to those who are competent to interpret what is being said.  The sack cloth was worn over the undergarment as a sign of mourning.  He took the sack cloth off and would have still had the tunic on underneath it.

 

 

 

 Also, didn't the Old Testament time frame span ALOT of centuries?  Did ALL of those Bible people wear the same fashions, including under clothes styles, ALL of that time?  I think probably not.

 

 

Actually they did.  That style of dress was common all over the ancient near east for centuries even up to the time of Christ.

[Guest man]

[JustinM]

 

 

 

"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?"

-Michelangelo

 

 

 

The nakedness of woman is the work of God. (William Blake)

 

 

 

It matters not what kind of figure-pictures he [the artist] wishes to paint, he will never be able to draw the figure properly, whether draped or otherwise, unless he has gone through a preliminary course of study from the nude. (John Collier)

 

(I'll attest to the above.  Getting the proportions right, and understanding how and why fabric hangs as it does is freaking impossible without first getting a working understanding of the naked form.)

 

 

 

Every artist undresses his subject, whether human or still life. It is his business to find essences in surfaces, and what more attractive and challenging surface than the skin around a soul? (Richard Corliss)

 

 

 

 

Our bodies, apart from their brilliant role as drawing exercises, are the temples of our being. Like the bodies of all fauna, they deserve both our study and our appreciation. (Robert Genn)

 

 

 

 

 

 

He who does not master the nude cannot understand the principles of architecture. (Michelangelo)

 

The above is in defence of art.

 

This is worldly "wisdom" not scriptural or spiritually discerning.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?"

-Michelangelo

 

 

 

The nakedness of woman is the work of God. (William Blake)

 

 

 

It matters not what kind of figure-pictures he [the artist] wishes to paint, he will never be able to draw the figure properly, whether draped or otherwise, unless he has gone through a preliminary course of study from the nude. (John Collier)

 

(I'll attest to the above.  Getting the proportions right, and understanding how and why fabric hangs as it does is freaking impossible without first getting a working understanding of the naked form.)

 

 

 

Every artist undresses his subject, whether human or still life. It is his business to find essences in surfaces, and what more attractive and challenging surface than the skin around a soul? (Richard Corliss)

 

 

 

 

Our bodies, apart from their brilliant role as drawing exercises, are the temples of our being. Like the bodies of all fauna, they deserve both our study and our appreciation. (Robert Genn)

 

 

 

 

 

 

He who does not master the nude cannot understand the principles of architecture. (Michelangelo)

 

The above is in defence of art.

 

This is worldly "wisdom" not scriptural or spiritually discerning.

 

 

That's an interesting statement.  Do you feel that any wisdom that doesn't come directly from scripture is not spiritually discerning, or just the above?  Do you disagree with all of the above statements or just some of them?