tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post6137096313727759577..comments2024-03-13T15:03:59.571-07:00Comments on The Biblical Naturist: The Objectification of Women – Part 1Matthew Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-13921664923340039342017-04-20T04:24:35.999-07:002017-04-20T04:24:35.999-07:00Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of lu...Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of lust in the modern sense. I agree that it is wrong to sexually objectify any woman.Han Championnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-57702304028824747672017-04-19T12:15:55.698-07:002017-04-19T12:15:55.698-07:00Hey, Han. Thanks for writing.
One of the challeng...Hey, Han. Thanks for writing.<br /><br />One of the challenges we face as students of God's word is to make sure we are accurately defining words we read in the bible.<br /><br />I understand what you're trying to day, but your claim that "lust" is always sin is not biblically defensible. You are basing that statement on common usage of the word in English, not from its biblical definition in the New Testament.<br /><br />Careful study reveals that the Greek and Hebrew words translated "lust" and "covet" (which are biblically equivalent) really refer to any sort of strong desire. Jesus actually said that "with great LUST I have LUSTED to have this meal (Passover) with you (His disciples)." That's not a direct quote, but you can look it up and see that the same word he used for looking at a woman with "lust" is the word he used to speak of His great desire to share a final meal with His followers.<br /><br />It is really a matter of context that determines the rightness or wrongness of the desire. In short, I'd say that it has to do with whether or not it is a desire that I can righteously fulfill. To have strong sexual desire to unite with my wife is technically/biblically "lust," but it is not a wrong desire.<br /><br />I think what you are really trying to say is that it is wrong to sexually objectify ANY woman... even your own wife! No one exists simply for some other person's sexual pleasure, and they should never be treated that way. And to that, I wholeheartedly agree.<br /><br />Good points on the Onan story.<br /><br />-- MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-89781269581726733812017-04-17T05:41:52.894-07:002017-04-17T05:41:52.894-07:00John Romero wrote in part "Also, it is worth ...John Romero wrote in part "Also, it is worth noting that Jesus could not have been referring to all women in these verses, for that would forbid a man from even lusting after his own wife. Rather, I think even the most strict interpretation can conclude that 1) the women Jesus is referring to cannot refer to a woman who you may rightfully lust after,".<br /><br />I was surprised that you didn't comment on "lusting after his own wife" or "may rightfully lust after".<br /><br />I am reacting without doing any research about this, but it seems to me that lust is sin in any context as it is about satisfying one's own desires and is not concerned with the well being of anyone else. Surely the expression of our desire for our wives is to be based the covenant relationship we entered into in marriage. Surely it is to be for their fulfilment, not our own.<br /><br />I would appreciate your comments.<br /><br />I am working through the blog sequentially, along with other sources, and appreciate the clarity of the content. <br /><br />I am reminded of the church's misuse of the passage about Onan as a prohibition against masturbation. I haven't heard it recently but it was prominent in the mid 1900's. Onan's sin was greed, resulting in him practicing coitus interuptus in order not to provide heirs for his dead brother. By failing to do so, Onan would inherit his brother's wealth. Regardless of the position you take on masturbation, the passage about Onan has nothing to do with it, yet was used as proof that masturbation was a sin. Many of the objections to social nudity seem to have a similar lack of foundation or to be based on a similar misapplication.Han Championnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-67767849316142209742016-04-15T12:47:49.016-07:002016-04-15T12:47:49.016-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-16991731105533723852016-04-14T10:31:29.413-07:002016-04-14T10:31:29.413-07:00[... continued...]
My wife is not a "model.&...[... continued...]<br /><br />My wife is not a "model." She's overweight and over 50. But guess what... I love her... and I love seeing her body. And to me (relationally!) she is VERY attractive and beautiful! Her visage and her form mean to me something that no image or sight of any other woman means. I do not deny the objective aesthetic of other women, but I do not desire that beauty over my wife's!<br /><br />It is the very shallow man who thinks that the only woman he would want to be with is one that matches the culture's ideals... or even objective aesthetic measures. We are built for relationships; that's what really matters in life. So when we see those with whom we have a relationship, we don't perceive them simply culturally or aesthetically... but relationally. this is God's design, God's plan, God's intent. <br /><br />No person's value is based simply upon their aesthetic beauty, but rather on their being created in God's image... loved by Him, and here in this world to share the beauty of their life with others. When that is happening, you cannot hide the attractiveness of that person!<br /><br />And when we fully understand this truth, we can relax and admire the beauty of the rose... and the youthful nude... without it being a threat to ourselves. And, we'll also be able to acknowledge the true visual beauty of the dandelions... and the overweight and elderly... because we've been liberated from the notion that only the most aesthetic beauty is worth acknowledging or appreciating. <br /><br /><br />Thanks for writing and giving me the opportunity to say this.<br /><br />-- MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-91176409625752179052016-04-14T10:30:51.566-07:002016-04-14T10:30:51.566-07:00Anonymous,
Thank you for writing! I hope you don&...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thank you for writing! I hope you don't mind my publishing your comment anyway... I felt that your question/comment is quite valid and worth being heard! (if you want me to delete it anyway, simply "comment" again to let me know and I'll delete it and this response).<br /><br />First of all, I can really appreciate how difficult this topic can be within a marriage, when one spouse is open to transforming how they view the meaning of the exposed human form and the other is not prepared to do so. On that topic, I urge you to pray fervently about the issue; seek truth above all for you both. God is able to change your spouse, and God is able to change you. Which one He changes (or both!) is up to Him alone. It is ours individually to commit to submitting to His leading, whatever it may be. If both spouses do that, they will be drawn together, for God will never draw them apart or lead them to different conclusions!<br /><br />You are quite correct in your observation that it is generally the "beautiful" that are represented in art. In view of that fact, I do really appreciate and applaud those artists/photographers who intentionally make an effort to proclaim the genuine beauty of bodies that do not conform to cultural ideals of "beauty" (http://modelsociety.com is an example of an artistic effort that doesn't focus only on the society's notions of beauty in the human form... most of their work could be legitimately categorized as "the beautiful," but not all of it).<br /><br />That said, however, we also have to acknowledge that there are objective qualities that are more aesthetically pleasing than others. For example, the beauty in the face and form of a young woman is more than that found in the face and form of an older woman. That is undeniable, and is equally evident to both men and women (meaning that it is not a "sexual" assessment). Of course, that does not mean that the older woman is NOT beautiful, but certainly her beauty, while less objectively aesthetic, is actually MORE meaningful... for her visage and her form reflect the marks of a life lived... breasts that have nursed babies beautifully show that history. The tummy that has borne new life will never again be like that of a young non-mother. The face that has loved and cried and laughed for a lifetime will bear the marks of a life lived for others. In short, the beauty of that sort of image is *greater* than the image that simply portrays the aesthetic perfection of the youthful female form.<br /><br />Most visual art, of course, focuses more on the aesthetic (such as the site I referenced above), for it is the aesthetic of the material world that most typically draws our eyes. <br /><br />The rose is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than the dandelion. So, more roses get photographed and painted than dandelions. Yet which one did God choose to color the world with? We have culturally decided that dandelions aren't beautiful, but the innocent child who gathers a fistful of the ubiquitous flower to give to Mom knows the truth... those flowers are beautiful, too! <br /><br />In like manner, our culture has decided that the more "plain" or "overweight" or "old" woman is just a dandelion... past her prime and not much to look at or be attracted to. But that is a falsehood. The beauty that really matters is the beauty that has meaning... the beauty that reflects life and relationship!<br /><br />[to be continued...]Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-49550918672399234672016-04-13T10:05:07.781-07:002016-04-13T10:05:07.781-07:00This has been an unbelievably sore topic for a cou...This has been an unbelievably sore topic for a couple of years now between my spouse and I. I find it interesting that all of your photos here are of beautiful, what the world would consider "perfect" female bodies. Which is exactly one of the reasons the very thought of nudism is so hard for many of us. <br /><br />It's very hard to believe that men really still don't secretly prefer the kind that are pictured here and that the rest of us who don't match this ideal are acceptable and just as valuable.<br /><br />I don't really want you to publish this comment. It's an observation I wanted to point out privately if that is possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-26316503964544737812016-03-22T06:30:15.444-07:002016-03-22T06:30:15.444-07:00Hey, John. Thanks for writing.
I think you need t...Hey, John. Thanks for writing.<br /><br />I think you need to reexamine your interpretation on this passage.<br /><br />While you are right that Jesus certainly laid NO blame on the woman, I'm not so sure that it is valid to connect the "eye" problem to the "lust=adultery" problem. <br /><br />I know that many do make the connection, but if you do, it begs the question... "How does gouging out one eye prevent the other from sinning the same way?" Or "Since when do I sin with only one eye?" The very same questions come of up you look at the parallel treatment of the "right hand."<br /><br />I believe in both cases, Jesus is speaking metaphorically... saying that no matter how "important" something in your life is to you or how much you like it, if it is leading you to sin, you have to cut it out of your life. It's about taking sin seriously... not about disfiguring yourself.Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-3046171136529996852016-03-21T22:36:03.694-07:002016-03-21T22:36:03.694-07:00>>They have a sincere desire to live in righ...>>They have a sincere desire to live in righteousness and purity before God. But they have determined that seeing the body of a woman will inevitably lead men to lust. The more of her body that is seen, the more likely the lustful response.<<<br /><br />I wanted to add a Biblical insight that I noticed yesterday. In Matthew 5:27-30, Jesus says his (in)famous "adultery of the heart" verse, which personally I believe is the most abused verse in the Bible. But notice what Jesus says is the solution to undue lust: <br /><br />"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.<br />Matthew 5:29-30 NET<br />http://bible.com/107/mat.5.29-30.NET"<br /><br />If YOUR eye causes YOU to sin, take care of the issue. Not if THAT WOMAN'S DRESS causes YOU to sin. Jesus said unequivocally that the fault for falling to lust lies squarely in the eye of the beholder, literally speaking! I think there would be far less shaming of (primarily) women's dress if we truly understood this. I've actually seen a pastor say "see! Jesus forbade women from dressing lustfully in front of men in this verse!" It makes me so angry to see such wild and egregious interpretations at large in the community.<br /><br />Also, it is worth noting that Jesus could not have been referring to all women in these verses, for that would forbid a man from even lusting after his own wife. Rather, I think even the most strict interpretation can conclude that 1) the women Jesus is referring to cannot refer to a woman who you may rightfully lust after, and 2) that the women Jesus is primarily talking about are people with whom you might actually be able to have an adulterous affair with! IE married women that aren't your own wife. <br /><br />I concluded this from looking at the parallel passage in 5:21-26, where Jesus seemingly equates anger with murder. Clearly, as Jesus said "be angry and sin not," he is not banning all anger, as that would be quite impossible and that would mean even He was a sinner. Rather, he is merely suggesting that one should avoid the primary TEMPTATION to murder, which is undue anger. If you avoid anger, you'll avoid murder. Similarly, Jesus wasn't banning all lust or sexual desire. For one, if you have never felt sexually attracted to your fiance before your wedding night, something is wrong with you! Rather, it makes MUCH more sense that Jesus, like the anger passage, is speaking more about avoiding the primary temptation of adultery, which is lusting after another man's wife! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10632510154642828894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-33857451663454305682014-10-24T09:56:41.212-07:002014-10-24T09:56:41.212-07:00Matt,
Thank you for the response.
I think it wou...Matt,<br /><br />Thank you for the response.<br /><br />I think it would be very valuable to have this blog in a place which isn't associated with a naturist/nudist site. So yes, I hope you put that higher in your priority of things to post. I have seen the site "mychainsaregone" and while I appreciate it and the work of the brothers who put it together, I find it too wordy. Something concise would be helpful. In the meantime I suggest your link and the MCAG link to a few friends.<br /><br />- DaveAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08209244937927293734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-71691511414331514202014-10-24T08:01:16.265-07:002014-10-24T08:01:16.265-07:00Thanks, David. I'm so grateful to hear that yo...Thanks, David. I'm so grateful to hear that your perspective has changed and brought freedom to your life with reference to lust. <br /><br />I am amazed and thankful that in my own life, it was literally this change of understanding about the body that released me from a life-long struggle with porn. <br /><br />In answer to your question, I have a couple of suggestions...<br /><br />1. If it's the images your concerned about, there's a link in the article above (in red) to a pdf of the article without the nude or skimpy bathing suit photos included.<br /><br />2. I've pondered creating a version of this article that is NOT aligned with <i>The Biblical Naturist</i> that could be shared with people without the "naturist" angle included. If you like that option, let me know and I'll move it up the priority list...<br /><br />3. You might also want to explore the site: <a href="http://mychainsaregone.org" rel="nofollow">http://mychainsaregone.org</a> -- that site exists to promote a correct view of the human form in order to help people overcome porn and lust, but it is not from a naturist perspective. That's a site that you can share freely with others without them being freaked out by the "n-words" before they even get a chance to comprehend the message.<br /><br />I hope this helps.<br /><br />MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-70639554444325252652014-10-24T07:53:37.028-07:002014-10-24T07:53:37.028-07:00Matthew, Thank you for your blog. My walk with God...Matthew, Thank you for your blog. My walk with God has benefitted greatly by changing my view on the body, specifically woman's body. I have found I can easily walk away from lust and choose to follow the Lord. I don't know if I am on board yet with being a naturist yet. <br /><br />I have a question. I would like to suggest to my Christian brothers an article which says the things you have said in your blog "The Objectification of Women" but not from a strictly naturist viewpoint. Do you have any suggestions? If not, I will just post your well written blog.<br /><br />- DaveAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08209244937927293734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-42072931671782240982014-10-24T07:41:03.484-07:002014-10-24T07:41:03.484-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08209244937927293734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-30825610764176079002014-01-10T09:04:40.991-08:002014-01-10T09:04:40.991-08:00Hey, Anonymous. Thanks for writing.
I'm struc...Hey, Anonymous. Thanks for writing.<br /><br />I'm struck by several assumptions that it seems you have made... assumptions that are not biblically defensible.<br /><br />1. You assume that lust "is innate." By that, it seems that you are claiming that it is "automatic" and "unavoidable." Yes, we are sinners now, and we cannot be free of sin on our own, but does that mean that there is any particular sin which no living man may choose NOT to do? Is it simply the automatic response to the sight of a woman's form for a man to be overcome by illicit sexual desire? The Bible doesn't teach that, nor does it assume that.<br /><br />2. You seem to assume that wearing clothing is powerful enough to permit a man to NOT lust. But the reality is that if a man chooses to lust, the presence or absence of clothing is utterly inconsequential. In our world today, we give men a pass on lust if they see a scantily clad woman, but hold him to account for his thoughts if she's "modestly" covered. No... a man is ALWAYS responsible for his thoughts... no matter how much of a woman's skin he sees! Clothing doesn't change that, nor does it help!<br /><br />3. You seem to assume that the simple gift of some durable garments constitutes a divine command that people wear clothing. But does that mean that a husband and wife must wear clothing around each other? If God's actions constitute a command, then surely it must apply to the specific context where God acted... when it was only the man and his wife!<br /><br />It is a very dangerous thing to read into the Scriptures our own bias or cultural perspectives and decide that the Bible teaches something as God's command when it is really only man's faulty "wisdom."<br /><br />-- Matt<br /><br />P.S. I'm sorry for the delay in publishing your comments... I didn't see it for a while.Matthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-53482365631832668092013-12-10T22:40:53.016-08:002013-12-10T22:40:53.016-08:00Genesis 3:21 "And the Lord God made for Adam ...Genesis 3:21 "And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin and clothed them" - yes, we were originally made to be naked. But that is because we were originally made without sin, and therefore without lust. But when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, sin entered the world. Man is no longer free of lust. He can do that which is in his power to avoid it, but it is innate. Therefore God clothed them. He would not have made them clothes if He did not intend for them to wear them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-92172211217763145152013-07-19T20:15:34.383-07:002013-07-19T20:15:34.383-07:00(I realize I'm late to the party. I'm work...(I realize I'm late to the party. I'm working my way through your blog chronologically. Good stuff.)<br /><br />I went on a short-term mission trip to Africa. It was a part of Africa where children up to puberty go nude - in part because they have no money for clothes, the wealthy could afford to clothe their children. The women do their strenuous field work topfree. <br /><br />While there we had the privilege of performing the local church's first baptismal service in a local irrigation channel. Awesome! Myself and another man on our team baptized the first two men and then the local pastor took over. The women were all baptized topfree. And there were women lined up on the bank attending the service also topfree - and naked children running around.<br /><br />As a naturist, it was great to see people worshipping and celebrating God while wearing what would be utterly scandalous in the USA.Jasenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17612368694261383142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-19056679197741196882012-07-10T21:43:35.304-07:002012-07-10T21:43:35.304-07:00Anonymous,
Thanks for writing and your encouragin...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for writing and your encouraging words. <br /><br />I actually do believe that all human bodies are beautiful. I don't think that clothing enhances the beauty of ANY body. Sadly, our culture has deemed certain body shapes to be "ugly" or "disgusting. <br /><br />Even in the overweight human form, God's glory is to be seen. The excess weight is, by God's special design, evenly distributed around the entire body, including the face. If we really recognize the marvel of that balance, we'll see both beauty and wonder in God's creativity.<br /><br />My own wife certainly does not match the social "ideal"... but she's still most beautiful while unclothed, even with her middle-age and extra weight. And I tell her so regularly!<br /><br />I hope you also read "Part 2." Feel free to post here again or contact me directly if you want to communicate further.<br /><br />MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-15119882104946281212012-07-10T16:15:31.002-07:002012-07-10T16:15:31.002-07:00You hold some valid points. Coming out of an ultr...You hold some valid points. Coming out of an ultra-conservative, Christian upbringing, I appreciate your views. But you posted pictures of thin women, women who's bodies are acceptable in American culture today. What about ladies who are more curvy, and not as visually attractive? Do you all genuinely believe the human body is beautiful - no matter what her size?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-57274179549260766962012-07-08T20:33:40.949-07:002012-07-08T20:33:40.949-07:00Chrissie, I'm happy that you commented and I d...Chrissie, I'm happy that you commented and I don't mind you expressing your perspective at all.<br /><br />I do hope, however, that you'll be willing to explain why you believe as you do. Feel free to comment again to tell me (and other readers) how you believe my perspective is in error.<br /><br />I welcome honest dialogue.<br /><br />MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-27213974283669482602012-07-08T20:06:34.069-07:002012-07-08T20:06:34.069-07:00This is the most ludicrous thing I've ever rea...This is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read before and does nothing to further the cause of women, but, in fact, hinders such. Ugh, what garbage.Chrissiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16156869217185097937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-64094787518211855442012-06-09T08:53:28.381-07:002012-06-09T08:53:28.381-07:00Matthew,
I agree with you here. Female objectifica...Matthew,<br />I agree with you here. Female objectification is culturally based and biased. In 40 years of medical work, I have seen many naked female bodies, and learned quickly that a bare body is just that and not meant to automatically be an object for sexual thought or gratification. I went to nude beaches when I was in my 20's and found it exciting for about 5 minutes. I even had an erection due to my previous cultural training and the way women are objectified in this culture. Well the erection a couple of minutes, and the excitement faded. Then I got it, there is nothing wrong with the nude human body or social nudity. This is how God meant it to be. Human being naked together without lust. Personally, I think bikinis are ok, but they still conceal too much and can incite lust. It is better for a woman to be totally nude in a non-sexual context.<br />It is just natural and nothing more.BrotherBrendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326428666419010821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-10849586094052653922012-02-21T21:40:22.470-08:002012-02-21T21:40:22.470-08:00Kwame,
Thanks for writing and thanks for doing it...Kwame,<br /><br />Thanks for writing and thanks for doing it so respectfully.<br /><br />You've asked fair and reasonable questions that deserve a fair treatment. There are good answers to your questions, but they are more involved than I can effectively present in the Comments of this blog.<br /><br />So, instead, I'll use your questions as the foundation of another blog post and carefully address your questions fully.<br /><br />Soon... I hope!<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />— Matthew NealMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-28381449144301930342012-02-21T09:02:18.230-08:002012-02-21T09:02:18.230-08:00Hi,
My name is Kwame and I read over your blog po...Hi,<br /><br />My name is Kwame and I read over your blog posts on Biblical naturalists and nudity. I had a few questions. Firstly, I didn't do a thorough in-depth review of your site and beliefs so forgive me if I misquote, misrepresent or don't accurately capture where you stand:<br /><br />1. Since we are in a fallen world, do you advocate that women should not pursue dressing modestly and covering the areas that cultures, churches and certain ethnicities, religiongs objectify?<br /><br />2. Yes, God created us naked and we were to live in paradise as such but when Christ came and rose the early church still had clothes and they still warned women to adorn themselves in modesty. So how does that factor in to your call of men to lead the way in explaining this naturist path?<br /><br />3. I agree with you, men ought to clean up their minds more and succumb their passions and desires to the greater good who is God. However, we know not all are in the same place in this Christian race and should we not care and be on best behavior towards our brothers who are weakest in Christ?<br /><br />4. When Paul says that our body's are not our own and to flee from sexual immorality. Aren't these safe practices (dress code) the church has taken to make this possible?<br /><br />In Christ,<br />KwameJesus iZ mY JoYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06076731763130000140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-37542019131937988732011-06-10T09:03:03.286-07:002011-06-10T09:03:03.286-07:00FO4...
Thanks for writing. Thanks for your commen...FO4...<br /><br />Thanks for writing. Thanks for your comments. It appears that if you actually included the address, they took it out, since I did not see it there.<br /><br />You could also think about downloading the "less images" PDF version that's linked to within the blog post... it might give you a more "acceptable" version to pass along to people who would object to the nude pictures at the end of the article.<br /><br />If you would like to interact personally, please feel free. You can reach me at {contact AT thebiblicalnaturist DOT com}<br /><br />I read some of what you wrote on the other site... well said! As you know, I *AM* one of the others that would argue that the hiding of "skin" does more to promote lust than to prevent it. If I can be of any assistance to you in your discussion with Kate and Brad, let me know.<br /><br />MattMatthew Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13422612844080337155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3694749190352504306.post-21370910507381745082011-06-09T15:20:36.162-07:002011-06-09T15:20:36.162-07:00I've found your research fascinating. I start...I've found your research fascinating. I started looking into Biblical modesty after my eldest daughter had some confusion with the differing rules in her friend's church versus her own church.<br />I hope you don't mine, but I've referenced this page in another blog/forum. http://www.onefleshmarriage.com/2011/06/libido-fairy.html#comment-220300298FatherOf4noreply@blogger.com