Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:57 am
Sexual assault uses sex to exert dominance and control over another person. What kind of clothes the victim wears doesn’t really matter, because it’s not about lust or sexual perversion — it’s about control.
The entire point of this exhibit is that modest clothing does not prevent sexual assault.
Can you say your first part about a baby? does a person, male or female really get dominance and control? or is it a sexual perversion?
In my opinion the clothing is not worn to prevent sexual assault but rather as a command of the Lord. Past this, I personally believe there is an intrinsic value in clothing preventing temptation from being put before someone's eyes. Clothing can also create more temptation depending on what and how it is worn. None of this negates the end "user" and their responsibility but there is a reason that we were instructed to wear modest clothing and it wasn't for preventing sexual assault.
As I said before, someone who has chosen to give into their base desires will not be stopped by modest clothing.
Someone who is weak to lust and is attempting to fight it can be aided or hurt by the clothing choices.
There is a reason that an recovering alcoholic does not go to a bar or a liquor store.
Neto wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:24 pm
It is simply a human problem - sin.
Also, there are exceptions to every "generalized rule" that someone creates, and I would imagine that it is probably true that the degree of dress or undress does, at least in some cases (perhaps even a large percentage), factor into the 'likelihood" of sexual violence of this type (rape) taking place. Maybe I wasn't suppose to say that, because people will think I'm terrible, or trying to dismiss the importance of cases where it DOES happen to someone who is even very modestly dressed. Not at all. I just do not agree with the idea that it is not a factor at all. It seems to me that the unspoken reason for this line of argument is that dress (or undress) matters not at all. In a sinless world, that would be true, but we do not live in such a world.
I would suggest that dress, or rather undress, makes a difference only in places where men/perpetrators have been taught that a women with few clothes is ‘not valuing herself.’ So, I think maybe the problem then is not undress, but improper teachings. If people can see humans, rather than the amount of clothing, then the dress will never be the issue.
Both are a problem. To ignore one based on the other is ignorant of humanity. To cover up a woman and not teach is just as bad as having immodesty with teaching. Both woman and man have responsibility and to claim otherwise is naive.
A predator will prey on the innocent regardless of clothing choices. Perhaps a better focus is on how sin is addressed and dealt with following an assault.
Sin is not caused by clothing, but lack of clothing can create temptation and when room is given to temptation, it will become sin. Likewise, clothing might prevent the honest from slipping, it offers no protection for the predator from his sin.
Go ahead and look at any group of people and find statistics dealing with sexual misconduct... I would hazard a guess you would find a high rate there too. The real issue is that Christians are suppose to not be living in sin, not that somehow they have a higher rate of offending or its caused by too much clothing.
This isn't any different then porn addicts. You expect it not to be equal in the plain people to the regular Christians but it is in some area's. Likewise, how many plain people really are following Jesus?
If you are a cancer doc, you see cancer everywhere... Look a little outside of the plain community and look at some stats and actual cases... Then come back and claim try to claim its worse due to modesty.
If I walk past a corner store and they have a display of fruits outside the store on the sidewalk, and I grab an orange and put it in my pocket, even though I’d never do that if the fruit was inside, am I honest? What kinda morals is that? If clothing is what is preventing the ‘honest’ from slipping, then sorry, but they aren’t honest.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:57 am
Sexual assault uses sex to exert dominance and control over another person. What kind of clothes the victim wears doesn’t really matter, because it’s not about lust or sexual perversion — it’s about control.
The entire point of this exhibit is that modest clothing does not prevent sexual assault.
Can you say your first part about a baby? does a person, male or female really get dominance and control? or is it a sexual perversion?
You mean sexual assault against a baby? Yes.
In my opinion the clothing is not worn to prevent sexual assault but rather as a command of the Lord. Past this, I personally believe there is an intrinsic value in clothing preventing temptation from being put before someone's eyes. Clothing can also create more temptation depending on what and how it is worn. None of this negates the end "user" and their responsibility but there is a reason that we were instructed to wear modest clothing and it wasn't for preventing sexual assault.
I’m not going to argue against the conviction that modest clothing is a command of God. I think that’s a legitimate religious belief.
I don’t believe, however, that modest clothing makes any difference in preventing sexual assault and abuse. It may make things worse in conservative and plain communities by creating an illusion of safety. I believe that a culture of secrecy, shame and unhealthy power dynamics has a lot more to do with sexual abuse than immodest clothing.
If the issue is lust and sexual perversion, then perhaps we should admit that our churches are filled with perverts and vulnerable people aren’t safe there.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:26 am
Regarding the shame of nudity, I suspect nature teaches us that, much like long hair on a man is shameful, etc. As was already pointed out, Adam and Eve, being the only folks on earth, didn't need to clothe to prevent lust, and yet were ashamed.
Adam and Eve only became ashamed of their nudity after they disobeyed God and ate from the tree. The shame they felt for their naked bodies was a result of their sin, it was not what God intended.
That is true, but I'm not sure that was the whole story. It does say that their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked, which seems to have been a "fruit" of the knowledge that the fruit of the tree provided. Seems to have been several factors at play.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 6:26 am
Regarding the shame of nudity, I suspect nature teaches us that, much like long hair on a man is shameful, etc. As was already pointed out, Adam and Eve, being the only folks on earth, didn't need to clothe to prevent lust, and yet were ashamed.
Adam and Eve only became ashamed of their nudity after they disobeyed God and ate from the tree. The shame they felt for their naked bodies was a result of their sin, it was not what God intended.
That is true, but I'm not sure that was the whole story. It does say that their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked, which seems to have been a "fruit" of the knowledge that the fruit of the tree provided. Seems to have been several factors at play.
Taking that a step further, it is our propensity to sin and disobedience that "causes" s****l abuses, but expressed sensuality will often aggravate the potential predator.
GaryK wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:17 pm
But raping them based on their dress doesn't seem to be the point you were making. The point you seemed to be making is that men hearing teaching that women should dress modestly is the problem that makes men lust. Is that your view?
Neto made a comment saying that they think dress does factor into sexual assault sometimes.
My comment was in response to that: I don’t think that dress factors into sexual assault unless a person has already been taught to value a person by the degree of modesty.
Then you wondered if I think men don’t lust after scantily clad women if they haven’t been taught that modest dress is important.
My response: yes they lust, they just aren’t inclined to rape them on that basis.
What do you base your view on that dress or undress doesn't factor into sexual assault by people who haven't been taught that women should dress modestly?
I'd be interested in seeing your response to my previous question.
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 7:53 am
If I walk past a corner store and they have a display of fruits outside the store on the sidewalk, and I grab an orange and put it in my pocket, even though I’d never do that if the fruit was inside, am I honest? What kinda morals is that? If clothing is what is preventing the ‘honest’ from slipping, then sorry, but they aren’t honest.
Clearly there is a issue of how we view Scriptures here.
Romans 14:13-16 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
But if thy brother be tempted with thy clothing, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy clothing, for whom Christ died.
You won't find any acceptance of your ideas among the plain people if you cannot see the implications of these verses on how we conduct ourselves.