For those who have read up to this point and have not already realized this or followed it through to this obvious conclusion, I wanted to dedicate this first post to address the issue directly. For anyone who has not read the last few threads that are pretty well foundational for this topic, feel free to check out the three below before posting a response to this one: [b]"Sex vs Romance & Spirit Led Intimacy"[/b] [url]http://www.mypraize.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=214&func=view&id=474660&catid=2[/url] [b]"What Is & Is Not Porn"[/b] [url]http://www.mypraize.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=214&func=view&id=474266&catid=2[/url] [b]"What Is & Is Not Modest"[/b] [url]http://www.mypraize.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=214&func=view&id=474688&catid=2[/url] So I'll start by asking a similar question again: Is whether it is good for us to be naked (or not) determined by the weather, location, culture, motivations, the level of the onlooker's education/job title (such as an MD or even a TSA employee), fear factors, or is it based on who is looking at us? As we've seen from Scripture in previous threads, it's who is looking at a woman that determines whether she should be modestly dressed or not. In short...a woman's nakedness should only be revealed to her husband, an infant, or other females (such as in the case of midwifery and such). I dedicated the first few threads on this site to proving just that. For her nakedness to be uncovered to any man, other than her husband, is to violate her natural modesty (making public what should stay private). Organizations like Planned Parenthood have done a masterful job of breaking down the natural modesty barriers of young women (introducing "sex" education to little girls as early as grade school). At the same time the medical industry has used fear and false intellectual arguments to convince young women that modesty should be forfeited at the feet of the alter of medical science. Yet, please never forget...anything that we choose to reverence/obey/follow/be a part of (even if out of fear), rather than living by FAITH in God's revealed ways for our good, is an idol/alter in our lives. So women, again, are being tempted (primarily through ungodly fear) to go back on the convictions that came when God entered the Garden (that she should not be naked in public) {[color=#FF0000]Genesis 3[/color]} and they are eating the fruit that was not intended for their good. Young women are taking off the protective "robes" that God gave them to wear and are sharing their nakedness to a public figure- even now often without natural shame or blushing. If a woman can lay there without feeling violated while a male OBGYN doctor (who is not her husband) looks at her nakedness or even touches her private areas, then she is certainly desensitized and is apt to carry that into the rest of her life. And why shouldn't she, if it acceptable for her to allow it in this situation? If we're going to be relative enough to say that education or job position gives a man some special right to see our wives naked (and even touch her private areas), then why not justify everyone else seeing her naked? Is it really that farfetched of a step? There's no real difference between a male "doctor" and any other man (except education and desensitization). One could try to cite motivation/intention as another difference, but that is deceptive argument- because, even if that were a legitimate factor, none of us have the power to read other people's hearts and minds. Actually, in reality, it's quite common for male OBGYN's to be hit with lawsuits for acting "inappropriately" toward their patients- my own mother went through this. Can you honestly say, before the Lord, that you can guarantee the intentions and thoughts in that male doctor's heart never fluctuate toward NATURAL desires for a woman? No, they are still just men and are susceptible to these same natural desires...even though they have managed to suppress and desensitize them to a large degree in their training. All of this is really beside the point, though, because (as established in previous threads) modesty being violated has nothing to do with intentions and everything to do with who is trespassing. The crazy logic of this warped so called "Christian American" culture basically says that before a man enters college, it's not good for him to look at your wife naked (and touch her private areas); yet, 4-10 years later, he graduates from college and then miraculously...now it's good for him to look at your wife's nakedness (as well as touch her private areas). TSA workers merely need basic training as well as a job title at airports and we're beginning to allow them the very same rights to our wives nakedness. Again, worshiping the god of fear rather than walking by faith in the God of Heaven. Our generation is probably the most morally confused of all before us in this area. I, personally, believe this is a tactic of the enemy to further erode the modesty of women (which is inwardly eating away at the very fabric of a healthy marriage relationship in our nations) and one ingredient in how he's corrupting the churches- in preparation for what Paul called the great apostasy (Greek: "Apostasia" ) or falling away that was to precede Christ's Second Coming. {[color=#FF0000]2 Thessalonians 2:3[/color]} There are many other such fronts the Devil has used to cause Americanized churches to walk blindly after this so called "new world order" and relativistic mentaility, but I only hope to address those having to do with personal purity and holiness within the threads I post. Getting back to the topic at hand...if a woman can expose herself to a male doctor (and he can touch her most private areas), why should she be motivated not to just live loosely in other public places. After all, she "can't help that other men have a lust problem." Right? Young women (so called "teenagers" ) have every ground then to justify letting guys look at and even touch their private areas because, after all, she wasn't married to that OBGYN when he touched her there and that was ok. Why not let another guy do it for pleasure- she might say "just as long as we don't 'have sex' it will be alright with God." Could you really argue with her? Not without admitting that what I'm sharing here has to be true. If a person is dating a doctor, that must mean it's ok to walk around nude in front of him...right? There is a good reason that only woman were allowed to give intimate medical attention to women pretty well since the dawn of human existence. Male OBGYN's are a new phenomenon that found its real start in America during the early 1900's. This was around the same time that America began its moral plummet to what we know as American culture today. It was at this time (late 1800's-early 1900's) that we passed from the Church period of Philadelphia (who were faithful to God's Word and who He allowed not to pass though the tribulation to come) over into the Church period of the Laodiceans (who think we are rich and have need of nothing, such as clothing, but (in reality) we are truly "poor" and "naked" and "blind" and "lukewarm" ) . {[color=#FF0000]Revelation 3:7-22[/color]} Let's take heed to his warnings here to our last Church generation, because judgment will start FIRST at the house of the Lord: [color=#FF0000][Revelation 3:18-19, 22] "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see...As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent...He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." [/color] The world is still serving the god of human accomplishment (especially medical science). Let's not go with the flow and worship (in a sense) the same god by compromising our walk with the Lord. So what about all of the fear tactics that pressure women to sacrifice their modesty? We should not live in a spirit of fear. We should live in a spirit of love, power, and a sound mind. {[color=#FF0000]2 Timothy 1:7[/color]} Do you not really believe that God should be trusted to provide for your every need? {[color=#FF0000]Philippians 4:19; Luke 12:28-31[/color]} We should live by faith and not compromise ourselves out of fear. {[color=#FF0000]Luke 12:32[/color]} With every temptation, God will provide a way of escape {[color=#FF0000]1 Corinthians 10:13[/color]}...but even if a woman were to ignore that way of escape (or even, for arguments sake, if God did allow her to be put in a life and death situation with no other help accept through exposing herself to a male doctor), the loss or violation of her modesty (marriage gift) should still be mourned- not just passively and callously disregarded for the "greater good." What I mean is that if a woman has a healthy conscience, but her modesty gets violated by some male doctor (even if he meant well)- then her natural reaction would be shame, embarrassment, and mourning for the loss. I know it doesn't compare in magnitude, but this is how I would make a comparison: a woman, in a life threatening situation, losing her modesty (her nakedness being revealed) to a male doctor should naturally produce a feeling of loss...such as a woman, in a life threatening situation, losing her baby (miscarriage) in a hospital. Now you wouldn't expect a woman, who lost her baby, to think nothing of it and just simply celebrate that her own life was saved. No! She mourns the loss of her child (modesty) even though her life was saved. Her efforts to offer a healthy gift to her husband have suffered a loss. The same would go for her husband (if he is not desensitized and seared in his conscience)- he would mourn the violation of her private areas (loss of their child). But, in reality, I truly believe God should be trusted not to put a person into that position who is genuinely and actively seeking His way of escape.

Not to be picky about your post, I actually quite agree that male doctors for females are quite uncomfortable and women should at all times be given an option for a female physician. I know many people who have been hurt, and many people who are just plain uncomfortable, and are made to feel shame when their insurance insists on a specific male doctor-or-die attitude. However here's what bothered me. I feel the need to state it because you might get backlash saying such a thing anywhere else... the loss of a loved one and the shame of losing your modesty are two vastly different things. There is more than one kind of pain, especially when you're dealing with death, and your post is trying to make them one and the same. To make the judgement that they are even comparable is, in my opinion, rather ignorant and hurtful to those people who have experienced such a close loss. It is the difference in shame, remorse, violation, degradation, and distrust vs the feelings of separation, mass depression, anger at nothing in particular, and the feeling of your heart being ripped out of your chest, and then crushed with a brick. For a mother to lose her child, those feelings are magnified and added to. Do you see the difference? Again, not trying to nit-pick... just trying to make sure that you don't give off the wrong impression that would lead to a young mother at loss to bite your nose clean off your face. :P

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you, at least your conclusion if not necessarily how you reached it. Given what you've said before this certainly follows logically. Like everything else though, you take it too far and damage a potentially compelling argument by making unfounded leaps. [quote]Getting back to the topic at hand...if a woman can expose herself to a male doctor (and he can touch her most private areas), why should she be motivated not to just live loosely in other public places. After all, she "can't help that other men have a lust problem." Right? Young women (so called "teenagers" ) have every ground then to justify letting guys look at and even touch their private areas because, after all, she wasn't married to that OBGYN when he touched her there and that was ok. Why not let another guy do it for pleasure- she might say "just as long as we don't 'have sex' it will be alright with God." Could you really argue with her? Not without admitting that what I'm sharing here has to be true. If a person is dating a doctor, that must mean it's ok to walk around nude in front of him...right? There is a good reason that only woman were allowed to give intimate medical attention to women pretty well since the dawn of human existence. Male OBGYN's are a new phenomenon that found its real start in America during the early 1900's. This was around the same time that America began its moral plummet to what we know as American culture today.[/quote] This is extremely faulty reasoning. It does not follow that because a woman has submitted to something out of health concerns that she is therefore "loose" and will just allow any man to see or touch her intimately. You said yourself she may do this out of "ungodly fear." There's a big difference between fear and "let(ting) another guy do it for pleasure." If you can't imagine the difference between an often uncomfortable gynecological exam and a sexual encounter, I don't know what to say. I mean, I don't feel good about my wife or girlfriend having some dude poke around in her nether regions. I don't like the idea that he knows that as well or better than I might. It's my opinion a woman should definitely have her choice of a female obgyn.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]However here's what bothered me. I feel the need to state it because you might get backlash saying such a thing anywhere else... the loss of a loved one and the shame of losing your modesty are two vastly different things. [/quote][/color] Oh yeah. I would definitely agree. That's why I made sure to state "I know it doesn't compare in magnitude, but this is how I would make a comparison" prior to using this as a symbol of the same concept (losing something precious to us). It was not meant to say these are exactly the same in the overall experience, but just gives an example of how we truly should be reacting (being saddened by the loss, rather than callously pretending it never happened) if we saw this as precious as God made it out to be in the Bible. If it (modesty) really is precious to you, then you will also mourn its loss and will do what you can to avoid having it violated. So I was using a radical example (which most Christians are not desensitized to (yet)...such as a baby that is killed during a lifesaving surgery for the mother) to help us see what it looks like when a person truly cares about and is sensitive to what has been lost (something precious to them). The point is that you would not expect such a mother to just shrug it off when she loses her baby, because it was precious to her. In the same way (not in every single way, but just in this context)...if a woman truly cares for and is sensitive to her modesty being violated by a doctor, then she will not shrug that off as no big deal or pretend nothing significant occurred either. That's all that is meant to be conveyed...no need to take the comparison to any extremes. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings there.

This is slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that most of the threads you've posted have to do with female modesty or sex in some way. May I ask why?

[color=#0000FF][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote]This is extremely faulty reasoning. It does not follow that because a woman has submitted to something out of health concerns that she is therefore "loose" and will just allow any man to see or touch her intimately. You said yourself she may do this out of "ungodly fear." There's a big difference between fear and "let(ting) another guy do it for pleasure."[/quote][/color] The reasoning is not faulty if you recognize what I was reasoning out. The point is, if we are willing to say it is acceptable and modest for a woman to be naked or have her private areas touched by a male doctor...what grounds do we really have to persuade such a woman that she cannot have other men do so as well? You are again trapping yourself when you don't think things like this through to their logical conclusion. By your statement, are you saying that fear is somehow good and pleasure is somehow inherently bad? I'm playing Devil's advocate here to make a point. Whether she is sharing her nakedness with a man she's not married to for reasons of pleasure or fear...what is your moral or Scriptural grounds for telling her one is any worse than the other? If she can share her nakedness out of fear (or because it's the expected of her as normal in her culture) and still be considered modest, why not share her nakedness for pleasure all the more? What would be your moral grounds to convince her that pleasure is wrong? Pleasure is a feeling and she is obviously going to be much more apt to desire to share her nakedness with another man for pleasure rather than some other more negative feeling. How can we persuade her this is not good for her if we don't have a standard such as what I'm presenting from Scripture in these threads? To insinuate that pleasure itself is wrong simply will not due and is not in line with the Word of God. We all know that is not even reasonable and so will she.

[color=#0000FF][b]KattyKit wrote:[/b] [quote]This is slightly off-topic, but I've noticed that most of the threads you've posted have to do with female modesty or sex in some way. May I ask why?[/quote][/color] Because it's important. I have many more things to share, but this is a subject the Lord has placed heavy upon my heart for the churches of our culture. Let's be careful not to judge another servant of the Lord based on the mere focus of their ministry. The Lord calls some to focus here and some to focus there...to each is given his place to work. We are different members of His Body and one part should not resent the role of the others. [color=#FF0000][Romans 14:4] "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand."[/color]

Here are some scriptures to help the women see that you can trust God by going against the flow of this morally blind culture: [color=#FF0000][1 Corinthians 10:13] "For no temptation has overtaken you which is not common to mankind. But God is faithful and He (can be trusted) not to let you be tempted beyond your ability to endure, but with every temptation He will also provide the way out, that you may be capable to bear up under it patiently." [/color] It may be difficult, it may take time, it may get you ridiculed, and it may require you to completely trust God for your well being...yet, He can be relied upon to give you a way to stay modest (in accordance with His Word)- provided you trust Him, seek for, and choose His way of escape. If, for whatever reason, He did allow you to be violated (such as rape)...then blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. [color=#FF0000][Matthew 5:4][/color] If you don't go through the mourning stage (because of desensitization), then you would not be able to get to the healing stage either. [color=#FF0000][Psalm 91] "...A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, but it shall not come near you..." Don't believe the fear mongering and skewed health statistics of the world for your life, believe in your God. [Exodus 23:25-26] "You shall serve the Lord your God; He shall bless your bread and water, and I will take sickness from your midst. None shall lose her young by miscarriage or be barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days." Again, are you going to choose to live in fear by believing the world or are you going to live by faith by believing God? [Psalm 118:8] "It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man." [Psalm 34:7] "The Angel of the Lord encamps about those who fear Him and each of them he delivers." [Proverbs 29:25] "The fear of man brings a snare, but whoever trust in the Lord is safe." He will keep you safe- just trust Him to. [Joshua 1:9] "Be strong, vigorous, and very courageous. Be not afraid, neither be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go." Don't be afraid to stand up for your modesty, it's worth fighting for. [Isaiah 54:17] "...every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong..." You don't have to be afraid of what others will say about you when you take a stand. God will vindicate you and prove you right in the end.[/color] In conclusion, we shouldn't judge the world (those who don't at least claim to be followers of Christ)- they really do have a reason to fear and do whatever they scientifically can to keep everything safe (they are slaves to sin anyway). Yet, we as believers, have the love and power of God- so that we will not fear and will be of a sound mind. [color=#FF0000][2 Timothy 1:7][/color] You don't need to cower in fear and compromise your standards of personal holiness (including modesty in dress).

Alright look I have done really well so far not getting angry about all the crap you post on this board but I'm about to get mad so I will do it fast and then I will go. [quote]The reasoning is not faulty if you recognize what I was reasoning out. The point is, if we are willing to say it is acceptable and modest for a woman to be naked or have her private areas touched by a male doctor...[/quote] STOP. I never said it was acceptable or modest. You have to stop putting words in people's mouths. You cannot just hear what you want to hear and go on with the conversation like everyone is on the same page. It's infuriating and useless because as soon as you do you've lost whoever you where conversing with. [quote]what grounds do we really have to persuade such a woman that she cannot have other men do so as well? You are again trapping yourself when you don't think things like this through to their logical conclusion.[/quote] Oh... [b]I'm[/b] the one not thinking things through now??? Do you even hear yourself when you talk? Listen to this. "Such a woman"? As if every woman who has ever had a gynecological exam from a male physician is somehow the type of person who doesn't value herself, doesn't have standards or decency? That is what you are implying by this statement! It's an offense to women everywhere. I defy you to find any statistical link between women who have had an exam like this and women who are promiscuous. I bet you can't do it, but that's what you would have to do in order to not be [i]making things up[/i]. This isn't how people are, it's not how they think or how they act. If you are really confused by the difference between someone sacrificing a certain degree of modesty because they feel it is necessary to maintain their physical health (and physical health is our most basic need, not to mention I would argue it is a private place, though you're going to say if a man is involved then it's "public" on which I call bull) and having an illicit sexual encounter you should stop talking about people. You clearly don't have the kind of understanding of your fellow man that you claim you have of Scripture (which is already dubious at best). [quote]By your statement, are you saying that fear is somehow good and pleasure is somehow inherently bad?[/quote] No, I am not saying that. I'm saying they are different, and you can't treat them like they are the same. The outcome is not the only thing that's important. People's motives are also important. Remember how God looks on the heart? It seems like you're more concerned about man looking at the outward appearance. [quote] I'm playing Devil's advocate here to make a point. Whether she is sharing her nakedness with a man she's not married to for reasons of pleasure or fear...what is your moral or Scriptural grounds for telling her one is any worse than the other?[/quote] I already said I'm against making women receive these exams from men. However I don't think we can blame the woman who maybe didn't realize she had a choice. [quote]If she can share her nakedness out of fear (or because it's the expected of her as normal in her culture) and still be considered modest, why not share her nakedness for pleasure all the more? What would be your moral grounds to convince her that pleasure is wrong? Pleasure is a feeling and she is obviously going to be much more apt to desire to share her nakedness with another man for pleasure rather than some other more negative feeling.[/quote] Again, I never said it was modest. [quote]How can we persuade her this is not good for her if we don't have a standard such as what I'm presenting from Scripture in these threads? To insinuate that pleasure itself is wrong simply will not due and is not in line with the Word of God. We all know that is not even reasonable and so will she.[/quote] You're right which is why I [i]never insinuated any such thing.[/i] Have a standard. Convince her it isn't good. But don't go impugning the character of women everywhere just because you can't separate nudity from sex or a clinical situation from a sensual one, and therefore assume that everyone who has submitted to certain medical procedures has a poor grasp on Biblical morality. THAT will not do.

[color=#0000FF][b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]However here's what bothered me. I feel the need to state it because you might get backlash saying such a thing anywhere else... the loss of a loved one and the shame of losing your modesty are two vastly different things. [/quote][/color] Here is an example from Scripture of how serious God portrays the violation of or uncovering of a woman's nakedness by a man who is not her husband...directly compared to murder. This verse is moreso referring to the forced uncovering of a woman's nakedness, but does show the seriousness of the concept of what is lost when a woman is violated in this way. [color=#FF0000][Deuteronomy 22:25-27] "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her,"[/color] Now before anyone get's on their high horse and insists that the seriousness of this verse only has to do with the fact that the man forced himself on this woman...that does not line up with the context. For the very next verse states that if a woman is not betrothed (is a virgin) and a man forces himself upon her...that man will be forced to marry her and pay the father for taking his daughter without him arranging the marriage first. [color=#FF0000][Deuteronomy 22:28-29] "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."[/color] Now, being that this is in the context of a culture in which arranged marriage was the norm and so women were accustomed to being married off to a practical stranger (and vise versa)...this man taking her to be his wife without her so called "consensual agreement" was not as radical or violent as what it seems today in our culture. Women were used to not necessarily making the consensual decision of who they will or will not lie with (marry)...as their parents arranged this for them, they trusted/obeyed their parent's wisdom, and chose to build a loving relationship with whomever they were given to in marriage (often a stranger). So for a man to take her without her or or father's consent was not like the violent image of rape we imagine in today's context...but was more so just an experience of a woman accepting that she is being married to a man without her father's blessing. Such laws were actually meant to protect women in these situations, so that the men would not be able to use them by not marrying them and then also had to pay for their disrespect of the family (father) financially. Now days, it's quite common for a guy to go from girl to girl to girl...without having to face the responsibility of marrying them. I'm not sure if our system is much better when it comes to protecting women from being used like this. At any rate, the point is (considering the context)...the seriousness in the 1st set of verses above has more to do with a betrothed woman having her nakedness violated by a man who is not her husband...and not so much because he force himself upon her sexually. The next few verses made that clear. This is not exactly the same as what is happening between a male doctor and a female patient when he looks upon or touches her private areas....but it does give us a glimpse into how serious we should consider her nakedness being violated in this way.