Some more clarifications: I do think certain words carry very different connotations for peopleon both sides of such an argument (or for feminists and modesty-preachers), and I see a lot of assumptions in all directions that I would not expect, or do simply disagree with... Like the idea that men are predators by default, which is quite sexist and degrading in my opinion, but -sadly -can work self-fulfilling in certain individuals or probably even entire (sub)cultures...

All of this is quite subjective anyway, both individually and societally, nakedness is not special at all for certain tribes, and for some cultures naked ankles or knees would be more sexual than a cleavage or naked breasts. So forget all 'hard-wired' stuff, we in the current Western world are conditioned by a visual culture based on the male gaze and a hypersexualisation of the female body. Try to imagine a world where the focal point for beauty and sexiness would be the male athletic body, like the old Greeks did, and you come up with something different. so sexiness is in a way very relative.

What I read in the article for me was a situation where a person expreses sexiness in such a way that it eclipses the personality and reduces humanness to bodily sexuality(something porn tries to do all the time), which is something that can exist perfectly without any patriarchal structure around and with all sexes and sexual orientations. (And personally, even if I'd get caught in a stare myself, in the end the result for me is disconnect, not waking whatever predator a man stereotypically should have inside of him. )

I agree with this post, and I think there should be more nuance in the world than jumping from one toxic extreme to the other side... The opposite of the extreme modesty culture is as unbalanced as what they're criticising sometimes. (And I say this as someone who grew up in a secular country, who has never experienced the extreme side of modesty culture -some of my evangelical female friends might have, but the overall culture isn't like that at all-, and with a grandfather who painted weird abstract female nudes)
Putting all blame on the man in every situation is as wrong as blaming the woman in every situation. There is an over-exaggeration sometimes in how men are 'more visual' and therefore always so easily tempted (or some men are really like that, neuroplastically formed in the image of the cliche by a visual culture centered on the male gaze and filled with dumb porn) and blaming women for men who can't handle seeing a woman is just toxic, but some things do give a reaction, and it is true that some men will lust after every woman, no matter what she's wearing, but some female clothing combined with behavior or just 'aura' (And I'm not at all talking about bikinis or short clothing per se, all fine by me) expresses some kind of aggressive sexuality that's hard to ignore, and I suppose the described glitter-boobs might fall in that category for me.

I also think there is probably a male version of this too that is never named and that I'm oblivious of, but I will never be that kind of 'stumbling block' anyway...

all I can say is that I'm so glad that I'm not an American girl who has to live in this whole 'modesty' cramp... As a European these standards of modesty sound quite alien to me. Sorry to say it, but you have a quite irrational and exotic culture. Just like ours would be to you, and like every culture is looked at from another one probably...

"Your body is not so powerful that it can drive others to distraction." Could probably be more nuanced, but it's basically true. There might be distraction, but the question is what you do with it: Look one second to see that there is a female beauty that might be distracting and then look away, or look at the eyes, or keep on staring and entertaining 'wrong' feelings.

And even then, there is a difference between being 'distracted' and seeing a beautiful girl, and having real impure thoughts. It's not because I see a sexy woman that I want to do something with her in my head. That step is not necessary at all... Looking and finding attractive does not equal lusting and wanting to have sex with her...

A man that follows Jesus should learn how to view each woman as he would look at a sister, mother or daughter, depending on her age. Look at them as persons, created in Gods image, no matter how they are dressed. People that are worth loving in a friendly way, and bringing them down to the level of a sex object to use in your mind is pure blasphemy. I thought that that was basic wisdom...

(And the whole 'men are visual' stuff, that might be average more so with men than with women, but my wife is more visual than me...)

I live in Antwerp, and we do have a red light district similar to what you describe. I can remember than one day, when I was a older teenager or almost 20, that I was lost in the wrong part of the city, and that I accidentally stumbled into that street where there are girls in bikini's behind windows. I must say that it was a shocking experience to me, not because of any temptation (and yes, I'm male and heterosexual) even if I was staring my eyes out. All I saw was girls, some even around my age, locked in a kind of abuse that I as an inexperienced virgin could not understand, but it looked terrible. I've been haunted by their plastic smiles and the look in their eyes for ages after that... I didn't even care for their bodies actually.

The (almost)naked woman is there to sell sex, and she would be as powerful if clothed more or clothed less, because the men who go such a place just want that one thing. even dressed in a tuxedo a woman in that place would be seen as a sex object by most of the men that frequent such a place, and they would probably view it as a kinky gimmick... It's not what they wear that's turning men on, it's why they wear it; and why they are there behind that window...

Now tell the pope...

Why that picture of Osteen?

Now this will be an interesting series to follow... If I'm honest, I must say I have no connection whatsoever with reformed theology at all. I grew up part of a marginal pentecostel minority in a dechristianising catholic country (Belgium; when I was a kid in the 80's the catholic school I was in was at the very end of a 'slippery slope' from liberal catholcism to secular atheism or agnostic 'somethingism') and later as a teenager was part of a vineyard church plant. After that I've been exploring other Christian tradtions (at least in reading books about them) and broadened my view.

Peeling away the parts of my christian background that lost any meaning or appeal to me, I'm still left with some Wesleyan roots with a charismatic flavor (though very careful and somewhat uncertain on that) and some catholic quietness (I don't know how else to call it) and from vineyard I did inherit a strong Kingdom-focussed outlook on the gospel; enriched with some neo-anabaptism. And Oh I'm hopelessly and irrevocably postmodern...

But the reformed way fo thinking stays alien to me, how hard I might try. It feels a darksynchretism to a world that isn't mine. I can't see atonement in a mainly legal way; I can't even care take the determinism serious, and I feel like they're reading things into the bible all the time that aren't there at all (wait, that happens all the time in other traditions too)

So I'll be looking forward to what you have to share

shalom

Bram

Funny, I was wondering the same a while ago while reading a book on the enneagram simultaneous with Brian McLaren. I wondered if Brian (just like me) would be a numer nine.. Which does influence your woldview and theological preference...

The same with the new atheists... some of them are just bordering on autism... (Just like some neo-calvinsts...)