My group, the MSC - Marriage, Sex and Culture, London - tracks the evolution of sexual norms and mores, and has been deeply concerned by the inroads of pan sexual ideology into formerly ‘safe’ institutions, including the evangelical Church.
We carry three briefs: gay conversion therapy bans, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE), and the erosion or complete loss of freedoms of speech, association etc.
However, we believe that it is not enough to “just say no” to the sexual revolution. We definitely “say no”, but then proceed to offer a non-religious apologetic based on the hard sciences, public health, sociological data and human development principles as to how and why it is destructive, and what positive, life-affirming content needs to replace it.
So why am I venturing into this realm of female dress/undress, where few are willing or able to go?
Damaging impact
I am doing so because of the feedback my group is receiving from males who are being damaged by it. Though less so, this problem is prevalent even among the devout.
In many ways, that we find ourselves here is no surprise. The Church has been on the backfoot, shamed and shut down, since the promise of orgasmic bliss by the Father of the Sex Revolution, Alfred Kinsey, duped the West.
Because the church has largely refused to ‘go there’, the indisputable facts about Kinsey which discredit his ideology or ‘religion’ are unknown. The people of God are influenced almost as much as those outside church walls, they just ‘do it’ with less ease and far greater guilt.
Cynical 20th century American journalist, HL Mencken, once quipped: “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Though a ludicrous caricature, it has proved hugely successful in shutting down a critical examination of the sexual revolution, sold to and bought by the general and Christian public as ‘little bits of happy, healthy, naughty fun, tee hee hee’.
But to return to my topic, how is it that ‘the world’ has encroached so successfully in terms of dress into the Church of the West?
Caveats
Three caveats here. One: I am not addressing the whole theological realm of ‘nakedness’ and associated ramifications from Genesis 2 onwards. Though impacted by the fall, I believe God made our bodies, sex and marriage - and said it was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1). Two: I am not engaging in the realm of ‘appropriate’ versus ‘inappropriate’ wear, i.e. formal or casual or informal clothing. Three: sincere, godly people may well disagree with me, and fair enough.
But what about …
There is a legitimate need for latitude and ‘horses for courses’. I am not promoting a ‘cover up everything; showing skin is a sin’ line. However, some brave commentators sound another note: is there a downside to the automatic assumption that ‘West is Best’?
According to Bettina Arndt (Daily Sceptic 18 June 2026) in her insightful ‘Clash of Sexual Civilisations’:
“Western sexual culture has its own pathologies. A culture which encourages women to display their half-naked bodies in public - and then pathologises every male response, including an involuntary glance. A legal framework so aggressively expanded that the line between predatory behaviour and a misread signal has become genuinely unclear.”
You can see how and why this is a minefield!
So here, three points.
Viva la Différence!
First, if women understood male anatomy and physiology, they would realise the kinds of problems they are inadvertently creating for men in such circumstances.
There are very real differences between males and females on the anatomical, biochemical, and emotional levels. Cutting-edge science informs us of: brain nuclei size differences; nuclei neuron density differences; profound hormonal differences; body tissue composition differences; sexual developmental differences; and relationship preference differences.
Men are far more oriented to the visual than women, and, in general, have between 10-20 times higher testosterone levels than women. Sexual Integrity Scientist, Dr Joe Malone, has more:
“Women who say, ‘It’s my body and I can dress (or undress) as I please!’ are being naïve about the sexual signals they are consciously or unconsciously sending out. I would ask them, ‘Do you want to have sex with the males who are trying not to stare at your intimate body parts? If not, then please respect both yourself and the men around you by covering things up. Whether you know or admit it or not, you are advertising and objectifying your sexuality. Do you really want to do this?’”
The weaker brother
As mentioned above, I believe there is no one way to ‘be modest’, and that culture, class and situation will play a role in what godly women wear. However, as Paul notes in I Corinthians, though Christians may enjoy ‘freedom’ from various rules and restrictions, it is important that one’s fellow Christians - here, fellow brothers in the faith - are not harmed along the way.
Women need to be aware that their state of un-dress is noticed by men. At the most extreme, we hear from Dr PJ Bedwell, CEO of Youth for Christ, Australia, in his courageously honest ‘Love Questions’ podcast:
“I've really had to learn through practice and through God's grace how to take my thoughts captive. How to not reflect on past sexual experiences or not look at that girl.
“I mean guys going to the beach is crazy right now. People are just wearing nothing. It's out. It's really crazy how things have changed. Just being a surfer and going to the beach.
“So I've had to learn and I'm still learning how to take my thoughts captive and how to not look and how to live with purity.”
In my view, honest conversations need to be had between the sexes in terms of what is or is not acceptable. If my freedom damages the men I am around by foregrounding my sexuality, how is that kind, loving or right?
The process of desensitisation
Finally, very few know how the ankle was once deemed an erotic body part in Western culture. Now of course it is not remotely sexual, and perhaps for the best. But the notion of ‘diminishing returns’ is important, as there is a strong desire to ‘push the envelope’ further, without realising there are always consequences.
We see this clearly with pornography, how what used to be sexually ‘hot’ ends by eliciting a yawn. The brain and the body remember, and become accustomed to what used to elicit horror, shock, etc. The terminus: impotence.
But almost as important is that women are doing themselves no favour by focusing those around them on bits of their bodies (‘live’ pornography), with their transitory external nature. Inherently we know that we are far more than this and smart women develop and integrate all aspects of themselves, including their physicality.
What is almost more tragic, however, is how ‘the latest’ is always in the process of being superseded by the next, even younger, even more attractive cohort of nubile female bodies and young fresh flesh. This is a lose-lose for women for whom time and the accompanying ageing process will take a significant toll, whether or not they admit it.
Conclusion
In his magisterial Mere Christianity, CS Lewis noted,
“You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease - that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food?
“And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us.”
And how right Lewis is here! Thanks to Kinsey (among others), the state of our ‘sex instinct’ has become seriously deformed.
Though many aspects press, this article has been a plea to women, particularly in the Church, to realise how their rights to dress/undress impact men. Because the sexes operate very differently in these matters, it is neither kind nor helpful or thoughtful to exhibit one’s private parts in public.
Not addressing such matters sends out the messages they ought not to be addressed. I don’t believe that is right. Our men deserve better, but so too do our women.
