tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post4701206242794686218..comments2023-07-26T04:54:13.903-07:00Comments on Robin's Readings and Reflections: Nudity and the Christian WorldviewTerrell Clemmonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17367926808246409525noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-89090218556407685892013-05-10T11:19:02.090-07:002013-05-10T11:19:02.090-07:00An objection to this argument comes from those of ...An objection to this argument comes from those of us who work in the medical field and who observe human beings in their fragile, beautiful bodies, without sexual connotation.<br /><br />It is not "demystification" so much as it is an enlarging of perspective. The human body is sexual, yes, but it is not *only* sexual, or even primarily sexual. We can and should strive to see each other without the onerous load of sexual responsibility: massage, chiropractic, physical therapy, acupuncture are all therapies that involving touching as well as seeing, but not sexual touching, and they are the better for this enlargement of perspective. The converse example is the humiliation of modern OB/GYN practices, where women's bodies are only seen in their sexual light.<br /><br />I am of the opinion that modesty is an aspect of one's own character that has little to do with actual dress. I've seen immodest women in head-to-toe formless army BDUs, and modest women in swimsuits. Putting the responsibility for modesty on women's dress will eventually lead to burkas--- because culture dictates the appropriate levels of dress, and the local Mennonite farm boys are scandalized by the sight of an ankle, or a white bonnet instead of a black one.<br /><br />I disagree that nudity leads to a general demystification and loss of eroticism. Adam and Eve were arguable the most perfectly erotic humans ever, and totally naked until the fall.<br /><br />We are stewards of our own eyes. I would be careful of confusing your ideal of eroticism with simple, old fashioned lust.L Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342363184831114234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19364700.post-42326144706010603472013-05-10T11:18:26.830-07:002013-05-10T11:18:26.830-07:00An objection to this argument comes from those of ...An objection to this argument comes from those of us who work in the medical field and who observe human beings in their fragile, beautiful bodies, without sexual connotation.<br /><br />It is not "demystification" so much as it is an enlarging of perspective. The human body is sexual, yes, but it is not *only* sexual, or even primarily sexual. We can and should strive to see each other without the onerous load of sexual responsibility: massage, chiropractic, physical therapy, acupuncture are all therapies that involving touching as well as seeing, but not sexual touching, and they are the better for this enlargement of perspective. The converse example is the humiliation of modern OB/GYN practices, where women's bodies are only seen in their sexual light.<br /><br />I am of the opinion that modesty is an aspect of one's own character that has little to do with actual dress. I've seen immodest women in head-to-toe formless army BDUs, and modest women in swimsuits. Putting the responsibility for modesty on women's dress will eventually lead to burkas--- because culture dictates the appropriate levels of dress, and the local Mennonite farm boys are scandalized by the sight of an ankle, or a white bonnet instead of a black one.<br /><br />I disagree that nudity leads to a general demystification and loss of eroticism. Adam and Eve were arguable the most perfectly erotic humans ever, and totally naked until the fall.<br /><br />We are stewards of our own eyes. I would be careful of confusing your ideal of eroticism with simple, old fashioned lust.L Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342363184831114234noreply@blogger.com