What they wore

[RZehr]

The Bible usually associates nudity with shame rather than lust or coveting.

As in it is shameful for women to be nude? Or that they feel shame when choosing nudity over modesty?

It is shameful to be nude.
Consider the Garden of Eden. “Married” man and woman. Literally the only people on earth. And God clothed them.
Think about that.
Today we have no shame, and are told completely upside down things to believe.

[Ken]

As in it is shameful for women to be nude? Or that they feel shame when choosing nudity over modesty?

It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.

What do you believe is the reason it is shameful?

Why does Paul say that women should be dressed in modest apparel?

Modesty has two different meanings:

Modest as opposed to "indecent" or sexual
Modest as opposed to "extravagant" or rich.

Paul actually uses the Greek word "Kosmios" which is probably closer to the latter meaning. Especially given that he contrasts Kosmios against "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" so he is probably talking more about dressing humbly.

You can take a deep dive into this topic if you want. There is a lot written on it.

[Neto]

It seems you are suggesting that men in general do not lust after scantily dressed women unless they've been taught that women should dress modestly. Is that your view?

No, although some others have suggested something similar to that (in my understanding of what was said), I do not agree. I am only suggesting that the degree of modesty does affect the lust response to some degree. That is, although modest dress will not PREVENT being the object of a lustful gaze, it is my impression that it HELPS diminish that likelihood. Or, another way of expressing it, is that clothing does matter. But I also think that the way a person "carries themselves" also affects it IN SOME CASES.

If there were studies that showed that very modestly dressed women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than the average woman, would you change your mind?

If these studies could be shown to be reputable, w/o any ulterior motives (such as Free the N... advocates), then yes, I would change my mind about it. But studies are often produced with a predetermined "outcome". (It even happens in Bible studies, where a person has already determined which view they favor, so why wouldn't it also be the case in secular studies?)

But the way a person projects themselves does play an out-sized role. One example: Once, while we still lived in Brazil, as I was walking down to our mission office, I came face to face with a tribal woman who was wearing absolutely nothing other than a cord around her waist. (And Indians have very little body hair.) I should say that she was there with missionaries from another mission, whose mission center abutted ours. And they did manage to get her to wear some clothing when they took her to town with them. What I was going to say, however, is that she was not walking or 'posing' in any sort of provocative manner, and I think that affects the reaction she would get, at least from people who understand her culture. But the rape of Indian women has also been a big issue any time isolated tribal peoples come into contact with outsiders. There is also a reason that 'modern' women dress less modestly, and in some cases it is to attract male attention. (Men do the same thing, although I suppose it does not gain as much in terms of the desired response. People like attention, but sometimes they get more than they want, or of the wrong kind.)

[GaryK]

Oh I’m guessing they also lust. They just aren’t more likely to rape them based on their dress.

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?

[GaryK]

It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.

What do you believe is the reason it is shameful?

Why does Paul say that women should be dressed in modest apparel?

Modesty has two different meanings:

Modest as opposed to "indecent" or sexual
Modest as opposed to "extravagant" or rich.

Paul actually uses the Greek word "Kosmios" which is probably closer to the latter meaning. Especially given that he contrasts Kosmios against "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" so he is probably talking more about dressing humbly.

You can take a deep dive into this topic if you want. There is a lot written on it.

My questions focus on "why" the Bible teaches that nudity is shameful?

[Soloist]

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.

[steve-in-kville]

Link to the documentary trailer, just released today

This showed up on my FB feed this morning. Comes out in two weeks, IIRC.

[joshuabgood]

As in it is shameful for women to be nude? Or that they feel shame when choosing nudity over modesty?

It is shameful for people (men and women) to be nude.

What do you believe is the reason it is shameful?

Why does Paul say that women should be dressed in modest apparel?

The modesty to which Paul refers seems to me have to do with modesty as opposed to extravagance...it isn't clear to me that this is a "coverage" conversation.

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. Further, we probably all know people (folks who are infirm, very old, diseased, etc - or little babies/children) whom we could/do see fully nude (depending on context) and it would not in the slightest cause us to go toward a sexualized response (or if so, only for the most profane/unhealthy people). Yet, we still know they should be clothed as well.

But it seems clear to me, both biblically, and as nature teaches us, and logically, nudity is a distinct issue of itself, apart from lust/sexualized thinking/perversions.

[Szdfan]

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.

[Szdfan]

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.