The long and short of it (pun intended) is that the opinions and assertions about modesty are all across the board this time of year as we approach warm days and consider hot vacation spots. But, in truth , surely we must all admit the un-get-around-able truth that, when we wear skimpy, tight and/or revealing clothing, we put godly men in the awkward position of having to “bounce” their eyes to keep their vigil of personal purity of thought. Thus, unless we’d like to have the temptation of lust placed conspicuously before us, we violate the golden rule. At the very least, surely we could agree on that. This violation is occurring…
—whether the passage in I Timothy 2:9,10 is primarily referring to gaudy clothing or skimpy clothing, or both.
—whether or not the exact proper standards of modest dress change from era to era and from culture to culture.
—whether or not God’s definition, for all time, of modesty is prescribed in Old Testament passages about the priesthood.
—whether or not the men involved have seen a lot of nakedness in their lives.
It’s that last whether or not about which I’d like to make one observation in today’s post. The fact that God made men to be aroused by women who wear very short, very tight, very low-cut or very revealing clothing is simply truth. That’s the reason that, while many women struggle with a temptation to view pornography, the problem will never even approach being as prevalent among women as it is among men. We are wired differently and visual stimuli will always be more exciting to men than to women.
But is it true that, after men have seen so much near-nakedness or nudity, that they are no longer affected by immodesty?—that it is no longer a temptation for them? (Just get on board this train of thought with me for a moment…)
Isn’t it true that, IF a man could see so many provocatively dressed women that he was no longer tempted to lust, THEN a man who is looking at pornography would lose interest after seeing his quota? Wouldn’t men just cycle out of pornography use if they could see so much and no longer be affected (tempted to lust) by it? If not, why not?
It’s the if-not-why not question of the day. I believe considering this mammoth problem in our society and the relevance of pornography’s ever-tighter grasp on the porn user is helpful in recognizing fallacious reasoning about immodest apparel. The truth is, men do not normally become less interested or aroused by viewing more and more of the “undressed” women that are in public arenas of our country in 2019. As they view more and more they want to view more and more.The data pointing to that conclusion is irrefutable.
One more relevant point: God placed the response (the sexual desire upon looking) in men for marriage. He’s made the place for that desire’s fulfillment very clear in the Word. The reason (at least one of the important ones) for the desire is that it is glue for a healthy marriage. How long did God intend for men to keep on having this desires–the first five years?…ten?…of marriage. We all know healthy Christian marriages in which the sexual relationship is very strong after fifty-plus years of marriage. The fact is, married Christian men will tell you that they never tire of seeing their unclothed wives’ bodies, even though they have seen them so frequently for so long that they have memorized those bodies. Men do not see so much nudity that it begins to be boring or lose the drawing power God made.
Another relevant question: Why does a woman’s unclothed hand not produce the same result in a man’s mind as her unclothed breast or bottom? There is a Master-mind behind the design of our sexual attraction. And the Mastermind has commanded our modesty and respect in the use and display of our temples. They are for His glory.