If a woman wears immodest clothing, and it results in a man lusting after her, who’s fault is it, the woman or the man?
Who’s fault is it?
8 Comments »
If a woman wears immodest clothing, and it results in a man lusting after her, who’s fault is it, the woman or the man?Who’s fault is it?
8 Comments »
Comment by Leah
Both. She set up the temptation and he chose to allow himself to think about her inappropriately.
Comment by Anonymous
The answer to this is like saying that’s the world’s fault that i fell into porn, conformity, adultery, etc. You have got to be on guard. Yes, the woman has played a part in the man’s lusting, but the man is accountable.
Comment by Joselyn Rushton
The answer to this is like saying that’s the world’s fault that i fell into porn, conformity, adultery, etc. You have got to be on guard. Yes, the woman has played a part in the man’s lusting, but the man is accountable.
Comment by Marcus
If a lady wears immodest clothing, she has the Lord to answer to for that. However, if it results in a man lusting after her, the man has the Lord to answer to for lusting.
If a man was to walk down the red-light district in town, there will be plenty of prostitutes seducing him with their eyes, bodies and clothes. But just because the man is in a situation that will naturally allow him to lust in his fleshy nature, DOES NOT MEAN that the man has no choice but to lust. Following that, the man actually has a choice of whether he wants to sin or not.
So it is the man’s fault for lusting.
Comment by Chris
They are both at fault. The man is at fault for lusting and the woman is at fault for causing a stumbling block in front of the man. Sin is sin
Comment by Mr. H
I won’t quote Bible Verses because everyone should already be well known to which ones “fall” under this category. I have had many discussions with people (especially females) who profess the name of the Lord Jesus, but just don’t care how they dress, about this subject.
They don’t care if they show the shape of their body, how much skin they show, nor what other people think about that. It’s all about what makes them feel good, what makes them look better than the other person. I always wonder if they feel that the world would value them more as a person depending on how much skin (or body parts) are shown.
If you bring it to their attention, they get defensive and they stick to the “their Perverts and they shouldn’t look at me in that way” line. And also, “The Lord sees our heart, not our appearance”, “I need to look cute for my husband and not cover myself up from head to toe or else he is going to leave me for another attractive woman”.
They always, and I mean always, justify their clothing style no matter how revealing their clothes is or what the Bible says about it.
We as men, and some more than others, struggle with our eyes just wandering all over the place, especially when a female is involved. By nature, that’s who we are! Women sometimes don’t understand that and that’s why they don’t care and call men perverts. But they just don’t see the damage they are causing for all men out there.
I’m also not saying that you women need to wear a super long blanket over you and only have your eyes showing… so don’t get it all twisted. Their is ALWAYS a modest and decent way to dress “Cute” and “Stay in Style” without being revealing or inappropriate.
Just think of it this way, “will I be okay standing right in front of our Lord dressed this way?”
Because of today’s Fashion and Hollywood Entertainment world, women want to dress with the latest fashions and it don’t matter how much of their body shows. Which is wrong.
So to answer the question without anymore of my two cents, it’s the women’s fault IF they dress with immodest clothing!
Comment by Ethan
Both are accountable!
The girl is accountable for making Him stumble by casting a stumbling block.
1 Corinthians 8:9-10 “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?”
And the Guy is accountable for what He thought, breaking the 7th Commandment.
Matthew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Comment by curtis
Maybe both…To me you should only worry about your sin unless ,the woman causing people lust is your daughter or wife. In my opinion it is not lust to look at beauty but it is when your mind goes to far with that beauty, just simply enjoying beautiful women is natural and God intended for us to…just be careful
Comment by Michael James Stone
Who’s fault is it?
If a woman wears immodest clothing, and it results in a man lusting after her, who’s fault is it, the woman or the man?
(interesting this isn’t asked in the Normal Format)
This is a Fallacy question:
1) A woman dresses immodestly
>Fallacy is there is no criteria stated for modesty.
2) Man lusting after her
>Fallacies are “implied” by the dress
>It actually can be a Man who lusts after her no matter what she wears.
Whose fault is it?
>Fallacy is there is only ONE action stated, the man and lust.
It’s what we call a logic bomb. There is no actual fact based answer because it a Vagary disguised as a specific.
See:http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Introduction/introduction.html
For an exact definition.
But lets play with the scriptures the premise is trying to create the scenario the person wants.
Are you accountable to the actions of another’s reactions?
The “dress” of the person is not a scriptural issue, or, it is a relationship development aspect that a person who has issue with the persons dress is required to seek “settlement” for peace sake if both parties are in the same faith etc.
A man lusting after a woman is not “invoked” by dress. It is a process development of Thought, Consideration, Decision making, and Participation All on the mans “actions” and “intentions”.
If a man is tempted, then he knows it is not the source that is the issue, but the response to temptation in which he decides to “reject” the initial “contact” of the temptation in thought by sight or external stimulus.
If he chooses to “participate” in the temptation, he creates in himself the opportunity for sin. He “indulges” in the process of development of self-discipline by either responding in a scriptural/spiritual/godly manner, or “heeding” and yielding his member (his mind) to the provocation.
If he did not, it would be a growth process.
Since the person who is viewing the “immodesty” is determining the modesty or immodesty and response, it isn’t the clothes that make a circumstance one way or the other.
The same scenario would be less dramatic if you said: A Doctor noticed a woman who was dressed immodestly came to him for a Full Pelvic exam. The fact I didn’t say Gynecologist would also make what looks like “sin of the womans choice of clothes” above proof that this is a Bad question and used in logic classes as a Prime example of fallacy because Scripture is absolute, so your answers have to include any exceptions……