Should Christian women wear leggings as pants?

Since leggings and yoga pants very clearly reveal a woman’s form are they inappropriate to wear? Is a woman tempting the men who see her in leggings to lust after her or is it not her fault if they do?

The whole “leggings and yoga pants debate” was brought back to into the national spot light last week when two girls were not allowed on a plane because they were wearing leggings.  The Washington Post reported on the event as follows:

“A United Airlines gate agent barred two girls from boarding a flight Sunday morning because the girls were wearing leggings.

Another girl who was wearing gray leggings had to change before she was allowed to board the flight from Denver to Minneapolis, a witness said.

“She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board,” Shannon Watts, who was at a gate at Denver International Airport, said on Twitter. “Since when does @united police women’s clothing?”

United, responding to tweets about the incident tweeted that “United shall have the right to refuse passengers who are not properly clothed via our Contract of Carriage.” And added, “This is left to the discretion of the agents.”

The airline’s passenger contract says for the safety of all passengers and crew members, the airline can refuse to let a passenger board if the passenger is “barefoot or not properly clothed.”

So was it improper for these girls to be wearing leggings on this flight? And a much broader question would be is it improper for Christian women to wear leggings or yoga pants at all in public?

I want to clarify what we are talking about here.  For a long time women have worn leggings under dresses or long blouses and other clothing. But now for several years women have begun wearing leggings by themselves as pants.  That is the subject of this discussion.

Before we get into answering the question of the morality of women wearing leggings or yoga pants in public settings we need to establish a very important fact about men.

God made men with a much higher testosterone level than women. Most men have 10 times the level of testosterone in their system and probably 10 times the sex drive to go along with it.  A man’s sex drive is not only significantly stronger than a woman’s but the entire driving force of it is different.  While normal and healthy women desire sex too – their sex drive is emotionally and relationally driven.  A man’s sex drive is physically and visually driven.

So yes, for us as men when we see a woman in legging pants or yoga pants it is far more sexually arousing to us then if a woman had on baggy pants or a loose-fitting dress that hid the shape of her rear end, pelvic area and legs.

As man we cannot control the fact that the sight of a woman’s figure displayed in this manner brings us pleasure – our brains are wired by the design of God to receive pleasure from the female form.  Let put it this way to you ladies reading this article.

If you were to walk by your coworker’s desk and they had just sat down with hot cheeseburger from your favorite cheeseburger place – would the sight and smell of that cheeseburger not send you pleasure signals through you brain? Would you not be made hungry as a result? Of course you would.  The male physical and visual sex drive works exactly the same way when it comes to seeing women we find attractive.

The debate here is not about how men’s brains work – that is just a biological fact.  The debate is about what is sinful and what is not – what is lust and what is not and ultimately if women are tempting men to lust by wearing leggings and yoga pants in public settings.

Current Cultural Views of Lust

Most people have been taught that causing a man to lust means simply causing him to be sexually aroused by the mere sight of a woman regardless of her actions toward him.  So the thought goes – if a woman is fully covered this will sharply reduce a man’s chances of being sexually aroused by her form which they believe is lust on his part.

Because of this belief about what lust is some conservative Christians have their wives and daughters dress in very baggy dresses with that go to the floor with long sleeves to completely cover their arms.  They may even wear their hair tied up with a head covering of some sort.

This same concept when taken to its logical conclusion is why some Muslims make their wives be covered from head to toe with only a screen to see through on the face.

But true wisdom comes from being able to recognize our presuppositions or preconceived notions of morality.  Only when we are willing to question things that we have believed since before we can remember anything else will we be able to find the truth in many areas of life.

As Christians we believe that the starting point for our all the moral questions of life is the Bible. So if we are to truly understand what the Bible teaches about any subject of life – we must disregard all our presuppositions and let God’s Word to speak to us.  We must do as I have said on this site many times “remove our cultural glasses” and see the truth regardless of our presupposed ideas.

So take off your cultural glasses and put on your seat belt as we show you that the question that is the title of this article gets it all wrong.

What the Bible says about lust and causing your brother to stumble

Let’s first establish some two Biblical truths that are applicable to this discussion.

The Bible says it is sin to lust

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 7:7 (KJV)

As we can see from the passage above, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that to lust is to sin.

We then can see from the Gospel of Matthew that sexual lust is sin:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

The Bible says we should not do things that tempt other to sin

““Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Romans 14:13 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that we as both men and women should never do something to could cause our brother to sin.  We should not put things in front of them that might trip them up spiritually.

So this is an open and closed case right? These Scriptures prove that the question of this article truly is a rhetorical question right? Well not so fast. Keep your seat securely fastened and keep your arms in the vehicle as we continue our quest for the truth in this matter.

Distinguishing the Biblical definition of lust from the cultural definition of lust

This is the huge presupposition that sits right in front of us. We are presupposing what lust is.  In our language when we think of lust we think of sexual arousal.  If a person is turned on sexually by the sight of someone who is not their spouse that is lust according to our culture.

But is that the definition of lust according to the Bible? Let’s find out.

Remember that passage from Romans 7:7 where Paul was saying lust was sin and we were all saying “Amen!”? Well he actually tells us what it is sin – because God said in the 10 commandments “Thou shalt not covet”. So what does that tell us? It tells us that lust is synonymous with covetousness.

So if lust is synonymous with covetousness then what is covetousness?

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

So up to this point we have established with absolute certainty that lust is sin and lust is tied directly to the 10th commandment.

The 10 commandment shows us by the context in which covetousness is used what it means. Is covetousness finding your neighbor’s house desirable? No it is not. Is covetousness dreaming about or fantasizing about what it would be like to live in your neighbor’s house? No it is not. Covetousness is the desire to sinfully possess something that does not belong to you.

We have seen this story play out in many movies. A man desires the land or home of another man.  So he offers him money for it but he won’t sell.  He says he will never sell it. Was the first man finding the second man’s land desirable a sin? No it was not. But if he cannot legally acquire this land and begins to think of how he can illegally acquire that other man’s land he has now gone from righteous desire to sinful covetousness.

This exact same principle applies to a man’s wife, his daughter or any other woman.  It is NOT lust (covetousness) when a man simply finds a woman sexually desirable no matter her marital status. It is no more a sin for this man to imagine her naked or even imagine having sex with her than it is for a man to imagine what another man’s house looks like on the inside and what it would be like to live there.

Lust is born when a man’s natural God given sexual desires are turned into sinful sexual covetousness and he desires to unlawfully possess a woman.

I know your head is probably spinning.  Your presuppositions about lust have been completely blown out of the water.

But we are now coming to end our journey so just hold tight just a little longer.

Now let’s take the original question of this article and look at the presupposition right in the middle of the question:

“Is a woman tempting the men who see her in leggings to lust after her or is it not her fault if they do?”

So what is the presupposition? This question presupposes that if a woman dresses in any way which might cause a man to be sexually aroused by her or find her sexually desirable or fantasize about having sex with her that this is her causing him to lust.

But what we know from our journey in the Scriptures is lust does not refer to sexual arousal or sexual imagination.  It refers to covetousness which in the context of sexual lust means that a man has the desire to unlawfully possess a woman in a sexual manner.

I would argue that once we understand what lust actually is then we understand better what enticing someone to lust looks like. I would argue that for 99 percent of cases a woman causes a man to lust after her first by her actions and then secondarily by her appearance.

A woman has to draw a man with actions in the form of words or body motions before true lust develops in most cases. The vast majority of men will not desire to unlawfully possess a woman unless that woman motions in some way either verbally or through body movement toward him that she might be available to him.  In other words she flirts with him in some manner.  This is when the seed of lust in 90 percent of cases with men.

Now are there men who lust after women who have not flirted or motioned or talked in any sexual manner toward them? Yes! But if a man lusts after a woman simply because of her beautiful appearance and not any sexual flirting or actions on her part that would draw him to lust after her then his sin of lust lays 100% at his feet and she is innocent.

So now let’s change our original question to what Christian women should really being asking themselves in regard to causing men to lust after them:

Instead of asking:

“Isn’t it wrong for me to wear this because it might sexually arouse a man or make him have pleasurable thoughts about me?”

Women should ask themselves:

“Did I just flirt with him? Did I lead him on in some manner?”

So are you saying women can just walk around half naked or completely naked wherever they go?

No In am not saying that at all. But as the Scriptures say “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). That means we should wear clothing that is appropriate to the occasion.  It may not be appropriate for a woman to wear a tight tee shirt and shorts to her job unless she works at Hooters and it may not be appropriate for a woman to wear a bikini unless she is going to beach, swimming pool or sun bathing.

But what about I Timothy 2:9’s admonition for women to dress modestly?

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”

I Timothy 2:9 (KJV)

I am glad you asked that. I have written an entire post on that verse going in-depth into what modesty actually means and the context in which this verse is talking about women’s dress. You can read it here.

The very short answer is that like the word lust, our culture has made up its own definition of modesty.  Modesty in I Timothy 2:9 refers to women dressing in attire that is appropriate to the occasion. It then tell us that for the occasion of gathering in the church assembly for worship women should wear “modest apparel” or literally “be appropriate clothed in full covering garments”.

Paul gave a similar warning about food in worship.  He told the Corinthians not to abuse the communion table by turning worship into a feast when he wrote:

And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Corinthians 11:34 (KJV)

Paul was not saying it was wrong for us to think about food or sex or be aroused to hunger for food or sex. He was saying that when we come together as a churches for worship and communion we need to put these natural God given hungers aside and fully focus on God.  He was not condemning sexual thought or women dressing sexually outside the Church in the same way that he was not condemning being aroused to hunger for food outside the Church.

It was all about time and place.

Combating Negative Views of Masculine Sexuality

This debate over women wearing leggings or yoga pants is actually a great opportunity to help both men and women have a better understanding and respect for male sexuality.  As Christians we must measure everything action, everything thought and every desire we have by the Bible.  The Bible has been called the “Canon” which means “measure” or “rule”.  It means the Bible should be the standard or rule by which we measure our lives.

Thousands of years ago back in the Garden of Eden God designed man and woman with distinct masculine and feminine natures. Contrary to many false doctrines promoted over centuries of Christianity – the distinct male and female sexual natures were not a result of sin and the fall.  They were made by the design of God from day one.

That means when Adam saw Eve for the first time he had the same dopamine rush that men get today when they see women they find beautiful and yes he probably got an erection.  This is not something dirty – it is by the design of God.

But as Christians we recognize that the fall corrupted the original masculine and feminine natures God designed.  That means man’s sexual nature and woman’s sexual nature was corrupted in some ways from the fall.  Our task is to discover what parts of our distinct male and female sexual natures are still by the original design of God and which parts are a corruption of that design.

In the context of the male sexual nature, we must measure male sexual behaviors by the Bible.  If a certain male sexual behavior conflicts with God’s moral law than we condemn it but if that behavior is not condemned by God’s moral law or is honored by God’s moral law than we honor it as God’s design.

How much honor does male sexuality get in our day and time? I would argue that most Christians have a very negative view of male sexuality and that is something we need to change.

I have chosen some excerpts from an article entitled A Man’s Perspective on Yoga Pants by Al Blanton at to illustrate how male sexuality is commonly dishonored in Christian circles.

“Do I like yoga pants? Of course I do. I think they may be the greatest thing ever invented. But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man

To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.

When the gorgeous behinds pass by, we (men) always have a choice. Either a) look away and think nothing else of it, b) appreciate the female form while you sip your half-caf, or c) visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut.

I believe the first glance is not the problem. It’s the second and third that begin to get us in trouble. But remember, we are always presented with a choice…

I do not write this to bash men; no, indeed I write this to help men, to liberate men…

So the Christian male is faced with a very difficult scenario: pursue purity or feed the beast. We justify the latter by saying it is “natural” or “just the way we were made.”

So in summary, the real problem is not yoga pants. The problem is our mind. The problem is our heart.”


I truly believe that Mr. Blanton did not write this article “to bash men” but instead to help “liberate men” from what he believes is sinful behavior. His intentions are noble.

But Mr. Blanton like many Christian men today has a “zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). Specifically his knowledge of what lust actually is according the Scriptures is lacking and because of this he believes when men take that “second and third” look at a woman or when we “visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut” (undress a woman in our minds and imagine sexual scenarios with her) that this is the very definition of lust and therefore sin.

He shows some feminist tendencies in his words as well. When he talks about why he as a man likes yoga pants and says “But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man…” that is a nod to modern feminism.  The masculine physical and visual sex drive is seen as “uncivilized”, “piggish”, “dirty” and “base”.

Now I am not saying that some men do not act “uncivilized”, “piggish” and “dirty” sometimes.  Picture the construction workers whistling at women walking by yelling out comments about their bodies or men gawking at women and making them feel uncomfortable.  Men grabbing women or slapping women’s behinds.  That we would agree is barbaric behavior on the part of men.

But for Mr. Blanton to say that simply because he likes woman in yoga pants and it gives his brain pleasure that this is somehow barbaric or uncivilized is wrong.  His statement was dishonorable to himself, men in general and the God who designed male sexuality. This statement is textbook misandry.

Later Mr. Blanton compares masculine sexuality to the beast. This is again is a nod to false views of that equate male sexuality to animal sexuality while lifting up female sexuality as a more civilized and human sexuality that men should try to model in their lives.  Again comparing masculine sexuality to a “beast” dishonors men and dishonors the God who made men.

And I yes Mr. Blanton this is in fact “just the way we were made” by God himself. It is as natural for a man to be sexually aroused by women in yoga pants and even to get an erection as it is for a pregnant or nursing mother to lactate when she hears a baby cry, or when she even thinks of her baby. We don’t call women barbaric and uncivilized for their natural reactions to babies and infants yet we condemn men for their natural reactions to women. It is completely and utterly inconsistent.

Let’s take his statement again and translate this to the natural reactions of women to babies:

“To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.”

This is like saying this toward women:

“To say that crying babies or thoughts of babies “cause” women to lactate might be a stretch. Women cause women to lactate, not babies.”

This just puts the absurdity of the condemnation of the male sexual nature on full display.

I do agree with Mr. Blanton that “the real problem is not yoga pants.”, but I disagree with him that “The problem is our mind” as in the problem is the male sexual nature which he calls barbaric and animalistic.

The problem is not women wearing leggings or yoga pants or men being sexually aroused by or taking pleasure from seeing women in these pants.

The problem is the condemnation of the male sexual nature by both men and women. Men need to be at peace with their nature and as long as they are not being rude and gawking at these women if they take tasteful glances and enjoy the view there is no sin in this.

Women need to stop viewing men as barbaric and sexual beasts and appreciate them for the way God designed them.  If a man is gawking at a woman or making lewd gestures and remarks she has a right to say something because that is rude. If he is only taking passing glances at her she has no more right to shame him or that then she would her girlfriend for lactating because she heard a baby cry.

A final word for women on this subject of what you wear

Whether it is yoga pants, leggings, tight fitting dresses or blouses as a woman you must be aware of the fact that that the sight of your form brings sexual pleasure to men even if they hide it very well.  Normal men see you as God designed you – as a both a person and an object of sexual beauty and pleasure.

So in essence when a man sees you as a woman it is the same as when you see your favorite foods on TV or in restaurants and you imagine what it would be like to taste that food.  But you don’t just go and steal food that you like right? No you legally purchase it before enjoy eating it.

In the same way, because a good man sees a woman as a person as well as object of sexual beauty and pleasure he does not go up and just grab her and take her. He does not call out lewd remarks to her or gawk at her.

In God’s design he marries her.  Then as part of his marriage relationship to her he can “come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits” (Song of Solomon 4:16). I hope that this journey through the Scriptures has helped to change your perspective of what lust actually is. If you are woman – you don’t have to be ashamed to dress in beautiful clothing, or even clothing that might be sexually arousing to men provide that you follow these Biblical principles:

  1. If you are married or still under your father’s authority are they are ok with you dressing in this manner? If they are not then you need to submit to male headship that God has placed in your life.
  2. If you are able to wear clothing that some would consider more form fitting or sexually arousing are you doing so at the proper place and time? Maybe it is ok to wear tight fitting leggings for a night out with your girlfriends but it may be inappropriate for school(or on an airplane) It certainly would be for wrong for worship services in your church.
  3. Whether you are wearing more sexually appealing clothing or not – are you flirtatious with men to the point that you make them think they could have sex with you outside of marriage? If that is the case this needs to stop. That is the very definition of a woman causing a man to lust.

On the subject of United Airlines barring these two girls for wearing improper attire.  They have every right to do so.  It is their airline. They can determine what clothing must be worn to fly on their planes.

50 thoughts on “Should Christian women wear leggings as pants?

  1. What I told my son was to think of the term, “my heart is set on it”. It means I have every intention of doing/having/seeing. When you set your heart on taking what is not yours you are now coveting. You have every intention, regardless of what it takes or who it hurts or what the outcome is. It’s a dangerous thought, when you consider what it actually means.

  2. What I find sad is that we’re even discussing this in the first place 😓
    How did Satan manage to convince literally millions of Christian men that being aroused by the shape and form of attractive and sexy women
    I’m 100% behind you on this one BGR, and if you want my own personal views on leggings and yoga pants then all I can say is WOW!! they do look stunning…..unfortunately most Christians believe that lust= sexual arousal when it’s not, it’s actually coveting
    I always get a chuckle when some Christian moral prude tells me I’m sinning by my “lusting”(and I’m defining lust how THEY define it) after a gorgeous woman with shapely legs, and then tell them that Jesus lusted in Luke 22:15. …😂 yup, the exact same word for lust that occurs in Matthew 5 :28 is said of Jesus when he lusted to eat the passover. …there’s no hint of sexual desire/arousal in those passages but they both talk about lust/desire
    Most Christians will never accept this truth though as they are too busy condemning everyone else for experiencing healthy God given sexual desire/arousal arousal red making them feel ashamed for it
    It’s just more of the demonizing of male sexuality if you ask me

  3. I ha an incorrect sentence, it should read: How did Satan manage to convince literally millions of Christian men that being aroused by the shape and form of attractive and sexy women IS A WRONG THING?

  4. Great article again. Thank you for writing it!
    May God bless you.

    I would like to raise 2 points:
    1. lots of talk about proper and improper lust and clothing is based on the plan for depopulation.
    2. Biblical standards show different view on male and female sexuality from what is pressed on young generation in the name of so called education.
    For example, Ruth was taught by her mother in law how to win the love of an older man:
    “And Naomi said to Ruth her daughter in law, It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens, that they meet you not in any other field” Ruth 2:22
    “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 to the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:24
    In other words whoever had sex, (where was the written consent authorized by a lawyer and a prenuptial from other side lawyer? ), got married, had children and created a family. In result the prettiest girls were likely to spread their genes.
    Nowadays instead the prettiest girls are likely to die childless, (for example Marilyn Monroe), or be close to failure to reproduce, Lindsay Lohan style, because of being taught to fear men, fear rape, fear becoming pregnant, avoid true love and faith, and be lured by the riches of this world. End result is lower population growth, and less pretty genes left. This my 2 cents.

  5. Yoga pants are a two edged sword. On the right female – WOW! On the wrong female – HOW? I swear that material has to be one of the strongest known to mankind for it to hold up under the stress some ladies put it through. Have some common sense, people. Don’t wear what doesn’t fit you!

  6. Alex2,

    I’m not quite sure where you’re going with that. For one thing, I think that the Bible makes it pretty clear that you are supposed to be afraid of rape. Even in the passage from Ruth that you’re quoting, Naomi seems to be pretty set on it being a good thing that Ruth has female companions to glean with so that she can’t be surprised by a man in a place (i.e. a field in the country) where she’s too far away from others to get help. It’s not saying to be afraid of every man that you meet, but it also seem to give cautionary tales that contain safety tips for women of the day.

    It’s also not true that everyone who got married had sex. That passage that you quote from Deuteronomy is often compared with another passage dealing with an unbetrothed virgin being seduced by a man. In that case, the man has to pay the bride price for her, but her father can refuse to give her to her lover in marriage. The case is also often made that those two passages should be read together and that a father can also refuse to give his daughter to her rapist. And it makes sense logically. If in biblical terms, a woman can’t force her father to marry her to a man that he doesn’t want her to marry by taking that man as a lover, then it should be even more certain that a man can’t force a woman and her father into accepting a union that neither she nor her father find acceptable by forcing himself on, er, the woman of his dreams.

    I’m also not sure if there’s any data on the prettiest women being the most likely to die childless. Marilyn Monroe is a particularly cruel example to use as well given that she did want children, got pregnant multiple times, and kept suffering miscarriage after miscarriage. That wasn’t a fear of men–that was a serious problem with her reproductive system! As for Lindsay Lohan, her deal seems to be more related to substance abuse.

  7. I started to wonder if my traditional definition of lust was correct when I was thinking about Matt 5:28 in context of the times he lived in. The average women back then wore a tunic covered by a robe with a sash around her waist. She was covered down to her ankles: not to be sexually arouse a man. Given that, my traditional of lust didn’t make much sense.

  8. Russel,

    Well technically the tunic only went knee length in most cases with women and men and often was sleeveless. This made it easier to do daily work in. Only the wealthy wore Togas(men) and Stolas(women) all the time marking their upper class status. Even then women’s Stolas while being a long flowing garment that went to the ground were sometimes sleeveless on women and could have revealed the neckline and cleavage as well. So when Paul wrote in I Timothy 2:9 that women should “women adorn themselves in modest apparel” he was literally saying that “women should wear on themselves appropriate[modest] katastoles(Kata meaning “full” and stoles for “stolas”)[apparel]”. So women should wear clothing that fully covers them for church.

    But those who try and say Paul meant for women to wear full stolas (be fully covered from head to toe) all week long do not understand the culture or context in which he made that statement. That would be like telling women they have to wear church clothes all week long or even when they are cleaning the house or working around the house. He was saying for worship – women should wear katastoles which were Kosmos(full ordered and appropriate) for the occasion. He was trying to say that during worship we should not be thinking about food or sex(he also warned against turning church into a feast) but only worshiping God. He was not saying outside of worship we should never think about food or sex or that it was wrong to be hungry/aroused(either for food or for sex).

    But still it does not change the fact that the traditional cultural definition of lust we have does not match the Biblical definition. It has nothing to do with men being arousal but covetousness which is the a desire to possess something or someone unlawfully.

  9. Good work again BGR!

    Matt 5:28 has been referenced many times here and on previously on this blog. Our translations of this key verse are incorrect in my opinion and have been misused to create much mischief against men and advance divorce. The KJV reads:
    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

    BGR has already addressed the use of the word lust which is the same word used by Christ latter in Matthew 13:17 “For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.” Clearly this use has no sexual connotation, in fact, of the 16 times this word is used in the NT not one of them is explicitly sexual. A very interesting use occurs in Romans 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Here the word is not used in conjunction with adultery, but is translated “covet”. Score one for BGR!

    Another mistranslated work is the word “woman” or “gunae” as transliterated into English. The NT does not have a specific word for wife, so “gunae” is used for wife and woman and the specific use is understood from the context of the passage. Here in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is speaking of adultery or “mochieo”. The OT and NT have a consistent definition for adultery and that is sex involving someone else’s wife or in the case of the woman with someone not your husband. The Bible is not egalitarian, for it to be mochieo it must involve a woman who belongs to another husband, the marrital status of the man is inconsequential. Thus “gune” must be understood in Matt 5:28 to be another man’s wife. If the woman is not wed then it was no sin to desire her for that was the prelude to marriage. If the translation stands as is referring to every woman, it would be adultery for a husband to look at his own wife and want her; that is preposterous and conflicts with the rest of scripture. (As an aside and risking opening a can of worms, if a man was married and desired another woman and if she was not married there is no prohibition on him marrying her as long as he still his first wife and provided for her as before including sexually.)

    So according to a better exegesis of Matt 5:28, the verse should be rendered “But I say to you that whoever looks at another man’s wife to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Now here are the hard words for pastors who use Matt 5:28 to shame men for their sexuality, many of them are the very ones violating Matt 5:28. Pastors like these desire the adulation and honor from women in their midst. A sure way to get that honor is to dishonor their husbands and stir up discontent toward her husband. The pastor often then receives that honor as the defender of women and the slayer of bad husbands. These pastors covet honor from women that is to be exclusively for their own husband. This is the same sin many marriage counselors engage in, they usurp the husband’s role to please the woman who thinks the counselor is swell and her husband a reject. Is it a surprise that church services are attended by more women than men, what man wants to be verbally and spiritually cuckolded.

    If one takes Matt 5:28 more broadly than just sexual coveting and instead as a more general coveting then questions like “yoga pants” come into clearer focus. If a husband enjoys seeing his wife in public displaying her feminine beauty he is free to do so, if another man enjoys her beauty and yet honors the marriage covenant between that man and his wife he is no more guilty of sin than if he looked at the Grand Canyon and enjoyed it beauty. If one finds himself enjoying the beauty of a married Christian sister, the man of God will rejoice with her husband for God’s beautiful provision toward a brother and God’s grace for all things beautiful women.

  10. You lost all credibility when you compared women, who are human beings by the way, to cheeseburgers. And no. Lust is not covetousness. You have do do some great mental gymnastics to reach that point. So if you know a woman and you want to marry her, THEN you’re guilty of lust? Because after all, you’re desiring her…

  11. Mayflowergirl33,

    Your Statement:

    “Lust is not covetousness. You have do do some great mental gymnastics to reach that point.”

    I get a lot of comments like yours on a daily basis that prove a person has not even read my post, let alone the Bible. I usually delete them but occasionally I like to show comments like yours as an example for my readers of the bubbles people like to live in:

    I said this in the post since you apparently did not read it:

    “Let’s first establish some two Biblical truths that are applicable to this discussion.

    The Bible says it is sin to lust

    “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

    Romans 7:7 (KJV)

    But is that the definition of lust according to the Bible? Let’s find out.

    Remember that passage from Romans 7:7 where Paul was saying lust was sin and we were all saying “Amen!”? Well he actually tells us what it is sin – because God said in the 10 commandments “Thou shalt not covet”. So what does that tell us? It tells us that lust is synonymous with covetousness.”

    I don’t know how much more clearer it the Apostle could be “for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.””

    Also if you actually wanted to know the truth instead of living in your little bubble of how you want the world to be you would know that the english words for “desire”, “lust” and “covet” are all used interchangeably for the same two Greek words that are synonyms for lust.

    If you want to actually understand how the words lust and covet are actually used you can read this post I wrote:

    So it is not I who have to use “mental gymnastics” to hold my position – but rather it is you and a lot of other Christians who have allowed culture and the traditions of the Church to teach them what they believe instead of the Bible.

    Your Statement:

    “You lost all credibility when you compared women, who are human beings by the way, to cheeseburgers.”

    Again if you don’t like facts then it can be bothersome to you as a woman to know that from a biological and specifically sexual perspective men do see women much the way we see cheeseburgers. They both stimulate our senses and make us hungry. The only difference is the type of hunger. But again as I said in the post which you did not read – the vast majority of men see women as objects of sexual beauty and pleasure AND as people. That is why 99 percent of men do not come up and just grab attractive women and start trying to having sex with them because unlike a cheeseburger a woman is a human being and we cannot treat our fellow human beings that way.

    But whether you like it or not – it is a biological fact. You as a woman stimulate the EXACT same part of a man’s brain as food. If you smell good and look good he knows you would feel good and taste good sexually the same as the cheeseburger would be to him.

    One day when you accept this fact of human life and the way the world works life will be much clearer to you.

  12. Alex2,

    Your Statement:

    “In other words whoever had sex, (where was the written consent authorized by a lawyer and a prenuptial from other side lawyer? ), got married, had children and created a family. In result the prettiest girls were likely to spread their genes.”

    Like the original “Alex” I too am a bit confused by you comment. Rape was never considered a good thing in the Scriptures. Even when men captured women in war they were required to wait for sex and give her time to grieve for her family.

    And contrary to some Christian websites that teach otherwise – sex did not automatically make two people married. I agree that marriage does not require the state to approve with a license nor the Church clergy to bless it approve it. Marriage was and shall always be a matter God left to the realm of family. If a father consents then a man can marry a woman and consummates that marriage in the sexual act. Marriage is more than sex it is a covenant lawfully entered into by two people.

    If a young woman living in her fathers home entered in a marriage covenant with a man and then had sex without her father’s permission the covenant is void as it was not entered into lawfully. If a woman was not released from marriage to her husband and entered into a marriage covenant with another man again that marriage is null and void as it was entered into unlawfully.

    The point is – a properly entered into marriage covenant + sex = marriage. Nothing more, nothing less.

  13. Hey Jonadab and BGR can you see it when I “star” your posts?
    Sometimes both of you guys posts are so perfect and so spot on there’s literally nothing I can add to them so I just click the star on the right side of your comments
    Keep up the good work guys, I love it!

  14. Hi BGR

    Is it lustful to stare at a woman’s assets even if it is obvious that she is aware of the staring?

    I was brought up to always look away and not make the woman uncomfortable. But if the random woman on the street is proud of her assets and puts them on display, can we stare at them even if it makes her uncomfortable?

  15. I don’t believe it is lustful to stare at a woman’s assets if it makes her “uncomfortable”…..the question that should be asked is it it rude to continue to stare if she is uncomfortable
    But then again if she’s putting out there her “assets” for all to see then she has only herself to blame if men start looking

    Forgive me for answering on behalf of BGR….this is my own answer to your question

  16. @Rohan,

    Staring wouldn’t be lustful either unless it leads to covetous thoughts. But with regards to your question about whether or not it’s okay to make women uncomfortable by deliberately staring at them, I’d ask if you’d want women to keep dressing like that or to cover up more. If you like it when women dress like that because you enjoy the way that they look when glancing at them, why would you do something that makes them uncomfortable and discourage women from dressing that way?

  17. I think many completely misunderstand what 1 Tim 2:9 is saying. Many interpret it to mean “dress in a modest way to keep men from lusting after you”, but this is an extension of false teaching. If you look at how it is laid out, men are being told what to do (pray, lift hands) and to avoid the sin or pitfalls of anger or disputes. Then women are also being told what to do! The instruction to women is NOT to do something so the men can avoid sin!, they are being told what to do so THEY can also avoid the sin and pitfalls of envy and selfishness. They are told to adorn themselves in good deeds instead of expensive clothes, gold, pearls, hairstyles, I think dressing modestly is more about not competing for status.

    The article is spot on; and I fully agree with many of these posts that one of the best lies the enemy has ever told is to convince men that their God created sexual nature is sinful. God invented men, women, and sex, and He said it was good. Convincing men and women that this is not good has been very damaging. Yes, sex can be made sinful, like eating can be turned into gluttony, but sex within the confines of what God has says is good is without question, indeed good. The bible is very specific about what sexual sin is, evening giving a list of items in Lev 18. Notice the things that are mentioned. Notice the things are not mentioned. The real problem with this issue is that it is an attack on men for their God designed nature, and confuses men into thinking that God has a problem with their God designed sexual nature, when the opposite is true.

    About the yoga pants. Yes, they are nice to look at when a women is beautiful, and equally horrible to see when a woman has not taken care of herself and is in poor shape. I don’t think there is a biblical prohibition for them, and I certainly don’t think they are anywhere near causing others to sin. With that said, I do think they are not classy as they put your entire physique on display, meaning the entire curve of a woman’s backside, and even more, her entire crotch region. I wouldn’t allow my wife or daughter (if I had one) to wear them without a cover garment to cover at least those regions.

  18. Rohan,

    I don’t think it is sin to stare but it can quickly become that way. You could make the woman feel uncomfortable. If she is not uncomfortable your staring could lead to flirting between the two of you which could then lead to covetousness. Remember if a woman gives a man any glimmer of hope that that he might be able to get some lust can quickly be formed in mind.

    I think there is a difference between accidentally staring(as we men sometimes do) and purposefully staring to see what a woman will do.

    I agree with what Alex said – it is “those guys”, the ones who have to make it weird that ruin it for husbands and men everywhere. A husband convinces his wife to dress sexy for a night on the town and some weird dude stares at her and scares her from ever doing it again. Those are guys all of us normal guys would like to punch.

  19. Hi Alex/BGR

    Growing up we were thought that Matthew 5:28 was not just about protecting your hearts from lust but also protecting the modesty of a woman i.e. the woman should not be visually treated like a piece of meat when she goes out to simply fetch milk from the supermarket (as opposed to dressing up for a night out).

    We would look away from the modestly dressed and older women especially mums but we would stare at the younger girls around.

    But these days I would say that all manner of woman dress in ways that invite staring. The summers in my city see hordes of women dress skimpy every where you look.

    As a young man I cannot help but be choked by visual messages of ‘oh you wish you could have this’, ‘oh you don’t know what you are missing out on’, ‘oh poor you for not having a girl like this at home’, etc. Many husbands also show off their wives in the same way they show off their watches. As a man it is very deflating to come home every night and remind yourself that one needs to wait for marriage and the right personality.

    Many nights often end up with many of us watching porn to release the frustration. It is an emasculating to keep looking away downwards on the streets and to be satisfied by porn.

    I have found that staring at women and being confident is a way to fight back. To tip the balance back to a man.

  20. Rohan,

    Your Statement:

    “As a young man I cannot help but be choked by visual messages of ‘oh you wish you could have this’, ‘oh you don’t know what you are missing out on’, ‘oh poor you for not having a girl like this at home’, etc. Many husbands also show off their wives in the same way they show off their watches. As a man it is very deflating to come home every night and remind yourself that one needs to wait for marriage and the right personality.

    I have found that staring at women and being confident is a way to fight back. To tip the balance back to a man.”

    What you are showing in your statements is that you would be more comfortable walking down the street in a Muslim neighborhood with women covered from head to toe. When you say “fighting back” it implies you are at war with the women are you who dress “skimpy” and are allowed to dress this way by their husbands. So your staring is not an accident – it is to purposefully make them feel uncomfortable.

    I recognize in you a similar attitude toward a friend of mine I have known for years and recently had dinner with. He was divorced from his wife the same time I was from my first wife. I met another woman right away and married a year later. He has dated but no relationship has lasted. He has grown bitter. He gets upset when women are dressed skimpy because he is bitter he does not have a woman. In fact he made comments about women wearing yoga pants and how it drove him crazy and made him mad and that was part of the inspiration for this article.

    You need to recognize this. This can lead to dark places for a man.

  21. What are you even talking about? I’m pretty sure women have been afraid of rape from the beginning of time, this is not a new thing. The world is overpopulated so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there either. If you feel there is a lack of “pretty girls” stop acting so creepy and they’ll magically appear.

  22. cordeliajane,

    While I am in agreement with you and the original Alex that rape is a concern for women all though I am also not a fan of all the “rape culture” pushers either that see every man as being just one step away from being a rapist either. I am still not sure what Alex2 was saying.

    Although I will vehemently disagree with you that the world is overpopulated. The overpopulation myth is part of series of ideologies including egalitarianism, multi-racialism, feminism, socialism, environmentalism and multiculturalism that sets up man against the knowledge of God and his designs for this world.

    The world has more than enough room for us all and many billions and billions of more people. When God gave his first command to mankind to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”(Genesis 1:28) he made sure the world he created would have enough room and resources for every person that would ever be born until he finally ends this earth and ushers in the final eternal state.

    Instead the truth is that in western countries we because of feminism, egalitarianism and materialism and the selfish ambition women are not even having enough children to keep current populations let alone have modest growth as populations need and so do economies:

    Canada 1.6 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    Finland 1.75 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    Germany 1.44 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    Norway 1.86 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    Spain 1.49 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    Sweden 1.88 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    United Kingdom 1.89 children born/woman (2016 est.)
    United States 1.87 children born/woman (2016 est.)

    These are the FACTS– the native populations of all these western nations are dying out because of the evil ideologies that teach women to have less children(feminism, materialism, environmentalism and socialism). Instead they are being replaced with populations from third world nations from Africa, the Middle East and Central and South America.

    The sad reality is that Western civilization will fall in the next century due to all these false ideologies. Perhaps the new Western civilization that rises from the ashes will learn from its past weaknesses(the greatest of which were feminism and multiculturalism).

    By the way the fertility replacement rate is 2.1 per woman. We need 2.5 to have a modest population growth and stable economy.

  23. I don’t think the world is over populated so much as over dictated with too much of a gap between first world and third. What we throw away in food and clean water could easily sustain much of the starving world.

  24. cordeliajane,

    Your Statement:

    “Well I’m sure the people dying of famine and lack of water will be happy to hear that.”

    Famine and lack of potable water has nothing to do with God’s design of this world or his order to mankind to be fruitful and multiply. It has everything to do with man’s sin. Whether it is corrupt governments that take all the resources of the people they are supposed to serve or ignorance, laziness or corruptness on the part of individuals.

    For instance during the height of the Soviet Union they had massive problems with lack of food(especially wheat products) because of their corrupt system. They basically had the same environment we in the US do but they had to get wheat from us because of their corrupt communist system.

    I am all for western nations sending people to Africa or Central and South America to teach them basic life skills but at the end of the day they must end the corruption in their own nations.

    Point is – It is not God’s fault or some mythical overpopulation that we have famine and lack of water in some parts of the world. It is man’s misuse or under-use of God’s creation.

  25. LivinginBlurredLines,

    While I think helping sending free food to poor nations is a good thing – in the end they must be taught to be self sufficient and trade with the world for what they need. It is absolutely true that certain parts of the world are more hostile to farming and food production than others. However you will often find that in these same countries that lack the environment for traditional agriculture they are often plentiful in precious metals, oil and other natural resources. The problem is corrupt and inept governments that do not know how to leverage these resources for the benefit of their people.

    Also with modern green house technologies it is actually possible to grow great amounts of food in environments were previously it would have been impossible.

  26. @BGR,

    I believe that it has been shown that the most effective form of charitable intervention is the kind that helps provide stability and infrastructure to the region. So, instead of just regularly sending water or food, your money and effort would better spent donated to projects that help build an infrastructure that will allow nations that currently have less technology widely available to their general population to keep their water clean and better transport their food, presence their food, and transport their food and other natural resources through the country. Plus, once the infrastructure is there, it means that there are more jobs available to those who have to maintain it. This doesn’t mean that there’s never any place for the type of charity that provides short term relief–this is vital after natural disasters, in helping individuals close to you who’ve fallen on hard times due to misfortune, and in offering relief to those struggling because their country is still in development.

  27. *preserve their food, not presence their food

    So, examples like Akon’s charity, which is sponsoring the building of solar panels to bring electricity to the general populations of nations like his home country, Senegal. In addition with pricing people with a safe way to hear and light their homes and refrigerate their food, it also provides jobs to local works who will install the panels and eventually get involved in building them. Again, it’s not that temporary relief is bad or even unnecessary. But we do need more charitable projects that provide long term solutions and give people in underdeveloped countries access to technology that will help them all vastly improve their lives.

  28. Alex,

    I agree with everything you said. Temporary help is good – but it must be just that – temporary. When individuals or nations live long term on the charity of other nations instead of learning to fend for themselves it takes away their own individual and national dignity and degrades their personal and national character.

    For the giver – charity should be a way of life, for the receiver charity should always be temporary until they can once again carry their own load.

  29. @Rohan,

    I’ve been thinking about a possible response to you on and off all day. BGR responded to the bulk of what you said, so to that I just want to that part of realizing that it’s not wrong or sinful for you to notice that women are beautiful is also to realize that it’s not wrong or sinful for women to want to show their own beauty.

    Additionally, I’d like to specifically address this thought:

    “As a young man I cannot help but be choked by visual messages of ‘oh you wish you could have this’, ‘oh you don’t know what you are missing out on’, ‘oh poor you for not having a girl like this at home’, etc. Many husbands also show off their wives in the same way they show off their watches. As a man it is very deflating to come home every night and remind yourself that one needs to wait for marriage and the right personality.”

    I can’t speak for what every man or woman is thinking in these circumstances, but I can say that there are many reasons that women have for wanting to wear leggings or yoga pants in public that have nothing to do with wanting to taunt you and your commitment to avoid fornication.

    Some of these reasons have nothing at all to do with showing off their looks or their figures. These reasons include:

    1) Comfort: Many men may find that yoga pants and leggings show off women’s figures very well, but many women find that they’re far more comfortable to wear than other pants like jeans or women’s trousers and dress pants. The fabric is stretchier, and they conform to and move with a woman’s curvier shape better than other pants do.

    2) Utility: Sometimes, yoga pants and other fitted exercise pants really are just for yoga or other forms of exercise. When I first started going to the gym and doing other activities regularly, I wore loser fitting cotton stuff. But as time wore on and I started wearing more and more clothes made from other materials like spandex and made specifically for exercise, I realized that it was much more comfortable. Cotton is a perfectly fine fabric, but it feels pretty gross and uncomfortable once you’ve been sweating in it.

    3) Fashion: Since leggings have become such a huge trend, many clothing manufacturers have become more inventive in their designs and created fun patterns for their pants. Thus, leggings allow women to be more creative in their fashions choices.

    Then there are women who enjoy looking good, not specifically to attract male attention but simply because they’re happy with the bodies that God gave them and they take good care of them.

    Then there are women who do dress in sexier ways because of men–but not to taunt men. These are usually women who:

    1) Have a husband, fiancé, or boyfriend for whom they want to look nice or,

    2) Are single and want to look attractive to men who are also single because they’re interested in finding a potential mate or, if they’re less marriage-minded, a date. (Not saying that there’s no in-between here. But either way, you’re not going to get married in this day and age if you never attract, meet, or interact with a man.)

  30. And of course men who want their wives to put on something sexy before they got out together mainly want to do this because they like looking at their wives in sexy clothing. They’re likely not trying to taunt you either.

  31. I agree that it is better to teach a man to fish than to only just give him fish.

    Also, yes, yoga pants and leggings are extremely comfortable. When I wear them I feel more active and limber, and can more easily get my chores done, more easily play with my kids, and feel more challenged to stay in good physical condition.

    My husband prefers I dress up, but I can’t get my chores done in ruffles, heels, and pearls. I can’t scrub a floor at the risk of snagging my pantyhose. I can’t wash dishes or knead bread dough with flouncy sleeves or ruffled cuffs. I can’t shovel manure and haul 50 pound feed bags and 60 pound bales of hay in floral print skirts. I can’t mow the lawn or reattach the aerial to the roof of the house in mini skirts. I can’t bathe the children or bleach the tub in a silk blouse.

    It is just soooo much easier to bend and stretch and work in yoga pants or leggings and while hubby thinks they are frumpy, they are certainly a far cry from the frumpiness of baggy sweatpants and those fleece pajama pants.

    And I do dress up on days I don’t have a lot of heavy chores.

  32. Marriage is a commitment; a covenant. I would dare to say it separates the men from the boys. If a man desires the blessings of a wife (which are many), he needs to step up to the plate of his responsibilities towards her which are not always easy and will take effort and work.

    Rohan: “As a man it is very deflating to come home every night and remind yourself that one needs to wait for marriage and the right personality.”

    You are being “pressured” by God’s design! He made you this way on purpose, so your would work hard and seek out a wife. If the “right personality” means a wife who will do right, loves the Lord, and will take seriously her commitment to obeying Him and you, then I agree that may take some work to find. What is the wait in your case? I have often found that when you move your feet in faith to God and His plan, he will move and provision for you. With that in mind, move your feet to prepare yourself to be a Godly husband. Learn what husbands need to do, what they need to provide, and move to get yourself in a position to do these things. Pray, pray, pray, and pray.

  33. @livingblurredlines,

    You also raise a good point about yoga pants and other fitted workout pants being good for housework. They’re more comfortable, and it’s not a big deal of they get messy. Even my jeans look nice enough that I don’t like to clean in them. I don’t want them getting covered in dust or accidentally getting bleach or some other cleaner on them.

    There are leggings that are definitely more style-oriented and that I wouldn’t exercise or clean in because even though they’re still stretchy, the fabric isn’t good for sweating, and they’re too nice to be worth getting messed up. But ultimately, I do also prefer wearing dresses if I want to look dressy.

    And I also agree with your earlier comment that we definitely use and distribute our own resources badly, both as a country and as a world.

  34. But people have to live in the real world. It is cruel to be fruitful and multiply if you can’t feed them.

  35. @ cordeliajane

    That is why there are missionaries, not just to give the hope of the gospel unto eternal live, but also the blessings the gospel in this life. Yes it is good news when men take dominion and serve their fellow man be it through agriculture, industry or technology. Life is a valuable gift even when it is not comfortable and the command to fill the earth was joined with taking dominion.

  36. Jonadab,

    Your statement:

    “Life is a valuable gift even when it is not comfortable and the command to fill the earth was joined with taking dominion.”

    That is an excellent point you have made. The command to fill the earth was given in parallel with the command to subdue it and have dominion over it:

    “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

    While we should be good stewards of God’s creation the whole environmentalist agenda flies in the face of God’s command in the same way the overpopulation myth agenda does. Feminism, Overpopulation teachings and environmentalism attack the very first command God gave to mankind. They are attacking the foundations of God’s moral law.

    We are to farm the land, mine the earth for precious metals, drill for oil, find better ways to get more food out of the same land and use our God given intelligence to explore the heavens. Man was not made for this world, but God made this world for man and he made man for his glory and honor.

  37. @BGR,

    Realistically, environmentalism isn’t concerned with what we do and don’t have the right to do with the earth. It’s about how what we do will affect us long term. Granted, there are environmentalists who are mainly in it solely because of a love of nature, but their existence doesn’t negate the practicality of ensuring that we’re not polluting our air and water sources to the point where it harms our health.

  38. Alex,

    I must respectfully disagree with your analysis of the modern environmentalist moment. It is one thing to oppose factories dumping toxic sludge in our water ways or not taking reasonable measures to cut down on smog in their air. It is reasonable to stop hunting on a certain species if it is on the verge of extinction. Those are all logical things we can all agree with.

    But like the theory of evolution, there are many theories taught in environmentalism today about future impacts by various actions and also about running out resources that are just that – theories. In a way environmentalism today is very much like a religion in that it takes a lot of faith to believe in certain aspects of it.

    A common theme in environmentalism is that humans are draining the earths natural resources and eventually the expansion of humans will destroy the planet. That is why if you research online the overwhelming majority of environmentalists also favor strict population controls through abortion(some even advocate for forced abortions), birth control(some advocate for forced birth control) and other means by which to discourage human population growth on earth.

    But our Christian faith and their Environmental faith in this regard to population control are directly at odds. Our faith tells us God will provide, their faith in the theories of environmentalism tells them we will run out of resources and die if we continue to follow God’s mandate to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and continue to subdue it and take use of its resources.

    My faith is in God, not in the theories of environmentalism.

  39. I posit there are two distinctly different worldviews concerning economics; There is the worldview of Malthus that contends that earth’s resources are fixed and scarce and that we will run out. And there is the worldview of the Bible that says that when man is faithful and adds the labor of dominon to the resources present in the earth wealth and goods will not be exhausted until Christ returns.

    It was only a couple of hundred years ago when early America was in a real energy crisis, whale blubber was harder and hared to get, we were running out. But men took some more dominion over the earth and a process was invented to refine oil which was a polluting watering holes for cattle into fuel. As a result the available resource of energy grew exponentially and whales are no longer hunted in the Atlantic for their blubber.

    American agriculture was also in crisis, there was not enough labor to work the fields. Men invented tractors, cotton gins, pickers, manure spreaders, etc. By the taking of dominion men created tools that leveraged their labors exponentially. Today we worry about too much labor as much as too little, but that is just because there are more industries to be developed and more people to be served.

    I could give many more examples but the point is that when men are faithful to the dominion mandate the Lord will provide the increase in ways we do not presently see. He is faithful, and that is no reason for us not to be faithful.

  40. Well said. I enjoy your writings. They do make me think and I tend to agree with you but it is a mind bender. Our cultural Christian beliefs and dogmas are intertwined with Biblical truth to the point that they look the same. Tares sown with wheat.
    After 30 years of men’s groups that dissolve into “are you looking at porn?” while ignoring the sins that truly contaminate their (our) walks, your views are refreshing and freeing – if correct. That said, I must admit that I am cautious. Before I speak too openly to other Christian men about this, I want to make sure I still agree with you after praying about it and researching it, lest I be “the one who is throwing (others) into confusion” (Gal. 5:10).
    All the same, thank you for your courage and willingness to think critically.

  41. I’ve come to a similar conclusion regarding modesty. I used to be big on modesty—the “traditional” dresses only, cover-up version, and i eventually realized that this mentality often does lead you to have a negative view of men’s sexuality. Many times, women on the modesty forums I was a part of never seemed to consider their husbands’ feelings on the matter. They had good intentions, but I often would wonder at their strict modesty standards and think, does their husband actually want this? Maybe I’ve just got a really laid back husband who likes me to wear anything from skinny pants to long dresses. He doesn’t really care all that much to cover me up, except at church lol. I would rather please my man than some random woman’s modesty standards I found online! And the anti-pants thing always confused me. I thought most men find dresses a lot sexier, even a long one. The most “modest” dress I own is a turn on for my husband lol! If the idea is to prevent sexy thoughts from men, wouldn’t you put on a pair of baggy men’s pants instead of a dress? The whole thing seemed so contradictory to me. It makes much more sense to go by the original biblical meaning of the word “modest”.

  42. Hello, I have a question that is pertinent to your topic of discussion. Is turning one’s neck to look back at a woman who has already passed by, sin?

  43. Joseph,

    No, a man turning his head to look back at a woman who has already passed by is not sin in and of itself. It would be no more sin than if a hot car passed you and turned to see it as it passes you by. Where the sin comes is if as you are taking the second look you are contemplating in your mind how you could steal a ride in that car or in the case of the woman how you could get her to have sex with you outside of marriage. That is sinful.

  44. With that logic , Christian men should avoid going to museums they might view images of nude women ( painted 300 yr ago )possibly in uncompromising positions causing lustful, sinful thoughts
    I remember back in the 70s when women wearing jeans to church was deplorable and sinful ,some churches wouldn’t even allow women in unless they changed into something more ” appropriate ” Some things never change
    To there is nothing more beautiful on Earth then the female figure.

  45. Thank you BGR for your great articles that cover so much so thoroughly. As a young Christian woman desiring marriage and kids more than anything this is a great blog where I can read about and learn so much. Please keep up the great work!

  46. Words and context matter, and your interpretation fall more in line with what makes sense. Wish I had read them 20 years ago.

    Couple of comments in here worth noting.

    1. Mistranslation which makes looking = lust is a ploy by Satan that he somehow pulled off en masse.

    That was posted as sarcasm If I read it right, but upon reflection, it is a fantastic tool by Satan to turn men into sinners in this regard. As it is impossible to prevent the look, and maybe the initial twinge of desire…it is absolutely possible to prevent the coveting. But if the man believes that every time he looked of felt a twinge of desire he has sinned, he will quickly realize he can’t stop, must be a sinner and a horrible one at that, fall into feelings of guilt and depression for being such a failure at this and then cross a very dangerous line based on this thought “If I’m already condemned for the look I mine as well enjoy the pleasure” BOOM -Now he has actually sinned and Satan wins.

    Also a great way to keep men coming into church for confession or to feel subservient to a pastor, rather than do outing on their headship at home and direct relationship with God. Again- Satan Wins.

    Back to the original pint, Although it is counterintuitive, it is a very clever way to drive people to into giving up and sinning by deceiving them into believing non sinful behaviors are sinful. It’s brilliant if your in the business of making humans turn away from God.

    2. To the author- The cheeseburger analogy. Completely understand the physics and why as a man, you would use the cheeseburger as a trigger for food desire. Pizza may have worked as well. However, there may be a better food to compare a desirable women too, and perhaps one she can relate to as well. At least filet mignon for the male or a fine chocolate for women. Or perhaps a non meat analogy all together… one that inspire both men and women to food desire that doesn’t kill your credibility among those with feminist baselines but still makes a valid biological point. That may make them more open to your words.

    Just a thought.

    Thank you for your work on this subject, it is very helpful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.