Mixed swimming might more honestly and more
appropriately be termed "mixed nudity." How else can we be consistent and
morally honest with our Biblical heritage of holiness? Popularity of and
acceptance of mixed swimming notwithstanding, it is wicked, morally
indefensible, and behavior that ought not to be named among true
Christians of previous generations were
aflame with zeal and desire to live holy lives. May I say they would be
scandalized in the extreme were they to see present day “Christians” shamelessly
cavorting around in modern swim wear, unblushingly exposing major portions of
their bodies for all who wish to see. May I submit we have become desensitized
to sin and have adopted the ways of the heathen!
Defining Acceptability: The Occasion or The
To put this in perspective, imagine dear
brother, if your wife and/or your daughter are in the privacy of their
bedrooms clad only in the most intimate of foundation garments. Would you invite
them thus to meet your male friends? If you would invite them, would they allow
themselves to be viewed by masculine eyes in such a scantily clad
Hopefully, you are offended and horrified by
even the thought of such a suggestion. And, hopefully, your wife and daughter
would be similarly scandalized at such a compromise of their privacy and
Or, would you, sir, cavort around the living
room in your underwear as your wife is hosting a ladies' tea?
Sadly, many “Christians” would only be
ashamed at the type of garment in a wrong setting, not at the exposure of their
nakedness. The same woman who would rather die than expose herself to the eyes
of men while in her foundation garments, will thoughtlessly and shamelessly
expose herself simply because she is wearing what is called swim wear. Dearly
beloved, the sin and scandal is not in wearing inappropriate garments on wrong
social occasions, but in the nakedness itself!
Nakedness is Shameful
Scripture is universal in its
condemnation of nakedness as being "shameful" (Ex. 32:25; Rev. 3:18; 16:15).
Even priests were cautioned about their clothing and carriage so no one could
view their thighs. And, because God is clear that "the eyes of man are never
satisfied" (Prov. 27:20), we recognize it is our vision that is the primary
gateway of incipient sexual arousal. Job affirmed this principle: "I made a
covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?" (Job 31:1).
The man who says that the nakedness of women does not bother him is either too
young, a pervert, a liar, or dead! Pornographers understand the insatiability of
this voyeuristic principle in a lot of men and crassly utilize this weakness
against them to enrich themselves.
The only difference in a man visiting a
pornographic web site and pornographic store as opposed to viewing scantily clad
women in swim wear is that in the latter case he does not have to purchase his
Though women in swim wear do at least cover
some areas of their bodies, this is small consolation as they are still
sufficiently naked as to be the object of lustful gazing from any man who wishes
to titillate his lustful fantasies.