Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Objectification of Women – Part 1

Women are sexually objectified in our world today.

I doubt anyone would contradict that statement… although far too many choose to participate and indulge in the objectification rather than make any effort to refrain from or oppose it.

For the purpose of this post, I will take it for granted that people who wish to respect human dignity do not want to sexually objectify women. With that assumption so stated, I would like to make some observations about the sexual objectification of women in our world today.

Let me first define what I mean by “objectification” or “sexual objectification”…

Objectification is the perspective, or mind-set, that…

  • assigns sexual meaning to the woman or certain elements of her body.
  • focuses sexual attention on the woman or her body parts.
  • considers the assigned sexual meaning to be the primary (or only) meaning found in her body or body parts.
  • assumes that a sexual response is the only response a man can or will have to seeing the objectified woman. Said another way, seeing her body incites impure lust in a man’s heart.

In short, objectification sees the woman as principally a sexual object.

Objectification by Muslimsburka pair walking

To the Muslim mind, it would appear, every last bit of a woman’s natural beauty is a danger to a man’s moral purity. Consequently, for the most extreme expressions of Islam, every inch of her body must be covered in order for her to avoid being a sexual temptation to men.

burka face1Even the face is considered a danger. A woman’s God-given beauty—no matter which portion of it is seen—will cause a man to lust.

So, evidently, the answer is to so completely hide a woman’s beauty that when seen, she appears to be nothing more than a walking pillar of draped cloth.

Would anyone disagree that this is an egregious example of the sexual objectification of women? No part of her is safe to be seen; every part of her is sexualized.

Of course, that is the extreme even in the Muslim world. But among Christians, some are not far removed from this extreme. I’ll demonstrate that in a momet, but first, consider this example from the nation of India.

Objectification in India (a First-hand Account)191644

A few years ago, I had the privilege of traveling to India to do some Christian ministry through music. While there, one of the women on our team was asked to make sure that she kept her ankles covered. The man who asked her was from the Indian Christian Ministry that was hosting us during our ministry tour.

The outfit she was wearing was much like the one you see here… a rather normal looking dress, but with matching pants that cover the legs… and ankles.

Evidently, for the Indian man, he can safely see a woman’s face or arms, but seeing any part of her legs triggers a lustful response.

This sexualized view of a woman’s ankles is an artificially assigned meaning. It is not intrinsic to the nature of a woman’s ankles. While it caught my Indian brother’s attention enough to warrant action to “correct,” I myself was completely unaware that her ankles were exposed. To my American mind, the ankles had no sexual meaning at all. Seeing them was not a sexual event for me at all… but it must have been so for him.

So in India, they do not sexually objectify the face or arms, but the body and legs are a danger to a man’s purity.

An Observation…

Here in America, we look at these examples of sexual objectification and find them silly and overly prudish. We don’t see any reason that a woman must cover her face and we count it demeaning to a woman to demand it of her. We don’t see any reason to hide the ankles, and find that requirement to be senseless because we do not assign sexual meaning to them.

But there’s something very important to realize as we ponder these first two examples: whatever body parts someone insists on being covered, those are the parts that they are sexually objectifying. The logic is simple: if a body part is not considered “sexual,” it need not be covered at all.

Stated more simply… That which we cover, we objectify.

I’m not talking about valid reasons to cover the body for warmth or protection… I’m talking about parts of the body that we insist on covering for “moral” reasons; those parts of the body we believe will cause lust if they are seen by the opposite sex.

Why do the Muslims cover the face? Because they have assigned sexual meaning to it and so concluded that the sight of a woman’s beautiful face will incite lust in men.

Why do the Indians cover the ankles? Because they have assigned sexual meaning to them and so concluded that the sight of a woman’s ankles will incite lust in men.

Objectification in the American Church

The most “fundamentalist” Christians in America are among the worst to sexually objectify women.

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.005swimsuits

So, since they firmly believe that women are called by God to be “modest” (1 Tim 2:9 has nothing to do with how much skin is covered! See Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9), even swimwear cannot leave any skin above the knees or below the neck exposed.

The “swimsuits” seen at right are the result ( I wouldn’t bat an eye at these “dresses” if I saw them worn to church on Sunday morning! I can’t imagine how miserable they would be to actually swim in.

Oddly enough, These Christians count the most beautiful part of a woman’s body (her face) safe to be seen by any man. But the rest of her body—from neck to knees—is considered to be a spiritual danger to men. Because they have assigned sexual meaning to these parts of her body, they believe that they will always cause a sexual response in men at their very sight.

This is the sexual objectification of women.

modest 1 piece 7Non-fundamentalist churches are certainly less extreme in the details of their standards for attire, but ultimately we have to conclude that by the same measures we’ve been using for the previous examples, they also objectify women.

Most such churches have no problem with women wearing a “modest” 1-piece bathing suit in mixed company. They may even hold an all-church swimming party at the city pool where everyone in the church is invited. It is not presumed that men will lust after the women in such suits, even though breast cleavage may be visible and the entire length of the thighs can be seen.bikini 8

Some such churches may not break a sweat even if some of the women wear “sensible” bikinis. After all, the belly isn’t really “sexual” is it? Everyone knows that the real issues are the breasts and the pubic region, right? These are the parts that cannot be seen without producing a sexual response in men… or so it is believed.

“As long as the breasts are covered and at least shorts are worn, then the man alone is responsible if he lusts after the woman’s body. But if she exposes any more, she is to blame.” Maybe no one actually says that, but they often act as if it were true.

This is certainly less radical than fundamentalists’ view, but this too objectifies those parts believed to be “sexual” and thus in need of covering.

NOTE: As you continue reading, you will see yet more “revealing” images of women. I provide them here not to titillate but to illustrate. As you look at them, I urge you to really see them rather than just react to them. Please do not continue looking at these images if you cannot do so without lust.

For a PDF version of this article without the images found below please open this link: The_Objectification_of_Women_Part_1_less_images.pdf

Objectification in Culture

In many cases, the objectification of specific body parts of both genders is formally and legally codified.

Laws and ordinances exist in our state and local governments which mandate that a woman may not be seen topless in public places. Provided her nipples are covered, however, she is considered to be within the law. Likewise, both men and women are not permitted to be seen in public without some sort of covering upon their loins and buttocks.

Almost no one seems to disagree with the assessment that these are indeed the body parts which produce the “automatic” sexual response in others when seen. Oddly enough, in this perspective, Christians find themselves in agreement with the rest of our culture… including pornographers! This fact alone should give us cause to reexamine our assumptions!

I’ll state it plainly…

On these points, Christians and the pornography industry agree:

  • Seeing the breasts of a woman is sexually exciting for a man.
  • Seeing the uncovered pubic or buttocks regions of either gender is sexually exciting to the opposite gender (or even to the same gender).

Note here that the difference between the culture and the church is not in how they view these body parts, only in how they encourage people to react to them. The world says “Indulge!” and the church says, “Flee!" but the core belief about the nature of the body is identical!

Most Christians insist that these body parts remained covered at all times except with a doctor or one’s own spouse. They do so from an honest and genuine desire to live a sexually pure and holy life before God. Nonetheless, they still objectify the woman’s body. “Because the body is sexual,” they would say, “cover it!”bikini

Our culture at large, on the other hand, tends to encourage and reward the use of the sexualized body parts to emphasize their sexual nature and invite sexual interest. Looking again at bathing suits, you can see from the images here that the point is not to conceal, but to tantalizingly reveal, while at the same time maintaining minimal “legal” covering on the primary “points of interest.” Without a doubt, they objectify the woman’s body. “Because the body is sexual,” they would say, “flaunt it!”

By covering the breasts (or at least the nipples), we actually end up emphasizing them and assigning artificial (and false) meaning to them… i.e. that they are sexual (breasts are not sexual, they are maternal). The specific covering of the nipples ultimately invites the observer to focus one_pieceattention on the breasts and nipples. The exposure of most of the breast but not the nipple ignites the imagination to ponder that which is still hidden.

When women wear such bathing suits or other clothing for the purpose of calling sexual attention to themselves by highlighting certain body parts with their clothing, they are objectifying themselves, and inviting their own objectification by those that see them.

Providing Fertile Ground for Pornography

Since both Christians and the rest of culture at large have agreed to keep the breasts, pubic region, and buttocks covered, the pornographers can capitalize on that restriction and use it to sell us something we otherwise never have occasion to see: the fabulous beauty found in the unclothed feminine form.

Make no mistake… it is the prudery of our culture that facilitates and empowers pornography.

God never intended for feminine beauty to be always hidden. In fact, when we read the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, we discover instead that God’s original design was for mankind to live completely un-clothed! While the man and woman stood before Him fully naked, God looked on all of creation and pronounced it “very good” (Gen 1:31). If sin had not entered the world, men would have been exposed to naked female beauty throughout the day—every day—within human society.

But we’re fallen now and can no longer look upon a woman’s body without lust!”

The pornographers are delighted for you to continue believing that, but it’s a lie.

A survey of the entire Bible will show that God never tells a man that he may not observe the naked beauty of any woman except his own wife. Never are women commanded to keep “this” or “that” body part covered for the sake of sexual purity or to prevent lust in men.

Why is it that in the church today, we are so convinced that keeping body parts covered is God’s will for us… when He never told us to do so?

These rules are entirely man-made… and they sexually objectify women!

We, in our own dubious “wisdom,” have assigned sexual meaning to a woman’s body parts. Then, we’ve created rules for righteousness based on the assigned meaning. The result is a false standard of righteousness based on man’s wisdom rather than God’s Word. And—for the record—the rules don’t work (see Col. 2:30-32 for God’s definitive statement on the utter uselessness of man-made rules of righteousness).

We Experience What We Expect

I suppose that many a man would testify that his own experience (and the experience of every man he knows) has demonstrated conclusively that men really are “automatically” aroused at the sight of a woman’s body. And, as everyone “knows,” the breasts and buttocks are the only real triggers.

“What about the ankles?”

Those don’t produce the sexual response, right? Perhaps that’s what most men would say… but what about the Indian man? “Yes, the ankles incite lust, too.” he might say. “They also need to be covered. I know… because I’ve experienced it.”

“What about the face?”

Of course, the face doesn’t incite lust… or does it? Ask the Muslim man. “Yes! Absolutely! The face of my wife must be covered or other men will lust after her!” And if he were honest enough to admit it, he would claim to know this for sure, because he himself is tempted to lust after other women when he sees their faces!

Think about it…

  • If in a Muslim culture, every woman is covered head to toe to counter lust, then if any one woman appeared with face uncovered, every man’s eyes would be drawn to gaze at her beauty! And because his beliefs so dictate, every man would expect and experience lust at the sight.
  • In an Indian culture, if every woman’s legs are covered to her feet, then the one woman whose pants reveal her ankles will be noticeable to every man who sees her. Because the sight is so rare, it produces a visceral response in him that he interprets as sexual.
  • In a Fundamentalist Christian context, if every woman wears a high neck blouse and a skirt that reaches mid-calf, then the woman who wears a V-neck blouse (showing some cleavage perhaps) and a knee-length skirt will be a scandal in the church and every man will have to work very hard to avert his eyes from the “lustful sight.”
  • In Society-at-Large, if every woman dutifully wears pants and a top of at least some sort, then the woman who goes topless or nude will attract the attention of every man within sight. Because it’s expected, each man will either indulge the sight for lust or turn away to avoid lust.

In each case, the lustful response is expected—and experienced—whenever a man sees some portion of feminine beauty that is always otherwise hidden from his view. That which he expects to lust after, he does lust after. This is why the Muslim, the Indian, the Christian, and the average Joe all find their beliefs about what feminine body parts incite lust to be confirmed in their own experiences. Their expectations are self-fulfilling.

Their standards for lust do not align with each other, so they can’t all be right. Yet, in each case, he thinks his perspective is vindicated because whatever the man believes will incite lust in his own heart… does. Conversely, whatever he has concluded will not incite lust, doesn’t! No, they can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong!

Here is the truth:

  • To believe that something will incite lust is to sexually objectify it.
  • That which we believe will incite lust, we require to be covered.
  • Consequently, whatever we insist on being covered, we sexually objectify.

And, that which we sexually objectify will incite lust in us when we see it.

Naturists do NOT Objectify Women!

Since to require the covering of a body part is to objectify it, it follows logically that the only way to ensure that no part of a woman’s body is sexually objectified is to completely reject the claim that any part of a woman’s body must be covered. This, in fact, is the belief and practice of naturists.

Think about it…

  • At a Naturist Resort, if every woman is fully nude, then… well… then what? There’s nothing hidden. Nothing more to reveal. Nothing more to imagine. No body part is emphasized by its “need” for covering. There’s no one enticingly showing “just a little more” and men are not expected to lust (it’s pretty rude). There’s no expectation in a man’s heart and mind that he will lust at what he sees, so he does not “automatically” do so.

We do not objectify that which we do not cover!

This is not to say at all that Naturists have become blind to the magnificent beauty God built into the woman’s body! Of course they notice it! Of course they appreciate it! The fact is, only those that do not objectify the body can truly appreciate its beauty for what it really is… God’s handiwork. And the Christian Naturist—above all—can see the reflection of God’s image there (Gen. 1:26-27) and turn his or her admiration into praise to God.

(Fine artists and medical professionals also know and experience the non-objectifying exposure to full female nudity. See the links at the end of this post for more information.)

So, I invite you now to see the following images differently than perhaps you normally would. Notice that by the full exposure of the body, there is nothing emphasized. The breasts are simply a part of the woman’s entire person. The pubic region turns out to be a rather insignificant part of the whole. The overwhelming total impact is of exquisite beauty. This beauty reflects the glory of God! It is not for anyone’s selfish indulgence!

chaste nude 1

 found at
chaste nude 2found at

chaste nude painting

“A Pompeian Bath” by John William Godward. Found at

What is true of the woman is also true of the man. This magnificent work by Michelangelo frankly includes the male genitals without apology, without emphasis, and without fear. They are simply a part of the man… every man, in fact. We need not fear nor despise their exposure. At Creation, our Father hand sculpted each and every part of the man’s body from the clay. And His work was… and is still…  “very good.” (Genesis 1:31)


“David” by Michelangelo

Closing Comments

As odd as it may seem to our culture today, and especially within Christendom, we should counter the sexual objectification of the human body not by covering it judiciously, but by its frank and honorable exposure.

Every boy among us who grows up seeing the beauty of women’s faces on a daily basis, learns to observe that beauty without objectifying it. If every boy grew up seeing the loveliness of female nudity on a daily basis, he would learn to observe that even the female body’s beauty without objectifying it.

Is there any other strategy in our culture today that offers any real hope for such a God-honoring perspective of humanity? Is there any other way to combat the objectification of women?  I don’t believe there is. We will never defeat the objectification of women in our culture until we first expel it from our own hearts.

Oh, Creator God, in Whose image we are all made, please make it so… Amen.

— Matthew Neal

Recommended Links:

  • ART: Gordon College, a Christian college in Wenham, MA, offers (or offered) an art major that included the study of the nude. They posted a very powerful statement explaining their reasons for doing so. That statement can be found here.
  • Another good article: A Christian Perspective on Nudity in Art
  • Pastor David L. Hatton is an active pastor and an obstetric nurse. He came face to face with full female nudity in his medical profession and discovered that the “automatic” sexual response to seeing a woman’s body was a false expectation. Read his story here: “My View on Nakedness”
  • is a website written by women and for women to promote breastfeeding, the natural God-intended design for breasts. In the process it clearly exposes the falseness of breast-obsession/breast-taboo that pervades our culture.

See also related posts:

The Objectification of Women – Part 2

Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 1]

Just What DOES God Think About My Body?


Tony said...

Amen Matthew!
Your thoughts are biblically based. Romans 7:8 says, “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.” Romans 4:15 says, “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

stringsinger said...

Great treatment of this subject, Matthew. Can't wait to read part 2!

There's another group that Christians find themselves unwittingly in agreement with when they assume that certain parts of the female anatomy "automatically" incite lust by merely being viewed by any "normal male", as it is often phrased. That group are the evolutionary psychologists who's materialist outlook forces them to characterize all human sexuality in terms of deterministic "stimulus and response" driven by an evolutionary imperative to "perpetuate the species". Because this topic is so culturally ingrained, and thus rarely questioned, I suspect that there are, even among Christian proponents of "Intelligent Design Theory", many who are yet in agreement with the evolutionists on this point, without seeing its inconsistency with their view.

Looking at the problem from an Intelligent Design perspective I have argued that, in addition to the "expectation" factor that you have outlined here, there is a certain amount of body conditioning (or training) that occurs. It is my contention that our bodies are indeed designed to "learn" through repetition, not only physical tasks like riding a bicycle or playing a musical instrument, but in much the same way, our bodily sexual responses are conditioned by the repetition of sexual experiences. Thus the use of pornographic imagery during self stimulation, literally "trains" the body to respond to visual cues. Conversely, those who experience other naked human beings is in the context of social nudism where rules of behavior apply, are repeatedly "practicing" civil, non-sexual behavior toward others who are in their created state (naked).

Unfortunately, my original Internet forum post on the subject seems now to have been deleted. (In any event I can no longer find it). However,though the context of the original thread is missing, the post itself has been quoted in its entirety here:

jochanaan said...

Well done!

Anonymous said...

I've struggled to understand why the sexualization and objectification of women in our society is so widespread. This article has given me great new insights into why this "issue" has such a stronghold over many - men and women alike.

Your statement "whatever we insist on being covered, we sexually objectify," especially spoke to me. It's amazing how the laws we make for ourselves are the ones that tempt us most. As Christians, we are free from the law and when we do away with such laws and rules, we find ourselves free from the hold of sin.

It was refreshing to read a Christian perspective, which is quite controversial in both secular and Christian culture, yet makes so much sense biblically. Sadly, the objectification of both sexes is so ingrained in our society, but if many more Christians questioned what we are all made to belief and feel, they may be set free from the hold of lust/pornography.


Steve Howatt said...

Wow - I have been busy for awhile, I guess! Good to see your blog repeated in the Fig Leaf Forum this morning, Matthew, and your treatment of the subject is excellent as usual. Thanks!

Skywalker said...

Greetings to you Mathew. i have been going through your website on this issue but i also came across another site that i consider disturbing, please i will like to know what you think about it. God bless you.

Matthew Neal said...


Thanks for writing.

I was not aware of that particular article. It's very much worth responding to, but it really needs a point-by-point rebuttal.

In short, the article hops from one biblical assumption to another, referencing a verse here or there without diving into each one to affirm that what we have always *thought* they meant, they actually DO mean.

Before I became a naturist, I had, of course, heard every last one of those arguments. However, I had to be sure that they really meant what everyone always said they did. So I stepped through each and every one of those verses. I studied them not just in English (translated during a time when nudity was presumed to be a "problem") and I discovered that in *every case,* I could not validate the anti-nudity understanding of those passages.

It will take me a few days to find time to write a full response to that article, so until I do, I would suggest that you follow up on each and every reference mentioned in that article. See for yourself if they really mean what the article assumes that they mean.

Then, when I post my responses, we can compare notes.

Thanks for writing!


FatherOf4 said...

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.
I hope you don't mine, but I've referenced this page in another blog/forum.

Matthew Neal said...


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.

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.

If you would like to interact personally, please feel free. You can reach me at {contact AT thebiblicalnaturist DOT com}

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.


Jesus iZ mY JoY said...


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:

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?

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?

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?

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?

In Christ,

Matthew Neal said...


Thanks for writing and thanks for doing it so respectfully.

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.

So, instead, I'll use your questions as the foundation of another blog post and carefully address your questions fully.

Soon... I hope!

Thanks again.

— Matthew Neal

BrotherBrendan said...

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.
It is just natural and nothing more.

Chrissie said...

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.

Matthew Neal said...

Chrissie, I'm happy that you commented and I don't mind you expressing your perspective at all.

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.

I welcome honest dialogue.


Anonymous said...

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?

Matthew Neal said...


Thanks for writing and your encouraging words.

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.

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.

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!

I hope you also read "Part 2." Feel free to post here again or contact me directly if you want to communicate further.


Jasen said...

(I realize I'm late to the party. I'm working my way through your blog chronologically. Good stuff.)

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.

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.

As a naturist, it was great to see people worshipping and celebrating God while wearing what would be utterly scandalous in the USA.

Anonymous said...

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.

Matthew Neal said...

Hey, Anonymous. Thanks for writing.

I'm struck by several assumptions that it seems you have made... assumptions that are not biblically defensible.

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.

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!

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!

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."

-- Matt

P.S. I'm sorry for the delay in publishing your comments... I didn't see it for a while.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

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.

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.

- Dave

Matthew Neal said...

Thanks, David. I'm so grateful to hear that your perspective has changed and brought freedom to your life with reference to lust.

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.

In answer to your question, I have a couple of suggestions...

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.

2. I've pondered creating a version of this article that is NOT aligned with The Biblical Naturist 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...

3. You might also want to explore the site: -- 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.

I hope this helps.


Unknown said...


Thank you for the response.

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.

- Dave

Unknown said...

>>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.<<

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:

"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.
Matthew 5:29-30 NET"

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.

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.

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!

Matthew Neal said...

Hey, John. Thanks for writing.

I think you need to reexamine your interpretation on this passage.

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.

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."

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

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.

I don't really want you to publish this comment. It's an observation I wanted to point out privately if that is possible.

Matthew Neal said...


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).

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!

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" ( 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).

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.

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.

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!

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!

[to be continued...]

Matthew Neal said...

[... continued...]

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!

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.

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!

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.

Thanks for writing and giving me the opportunity to say this.

-- Matt

Matthew Neal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Han Champion said...

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,".

I was surprised that you didn't comment on "lusting after his own wife" or "may rightfully lust after".

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.

I would appreciate your comments.

I am working through the blog sequentially, along with other sources, and appreciate the clarity of the content.

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.

Matthew Neal said...

Hey, Han. Thanks for writing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good points on the Onan story.

-- Matt

Han Champion said...

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of lust in the modern sense. I agree that it is wrong to sexually objectify any woman.