---

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? The popularity of and the acceptance of mixed swimming notwithstanding, it is wicked, morally indefensible, and is behavior that ought not to be named among true believers. Can you imagine what Christians down through the ages would think if they were to see our young people at a pool party? May I submit we have become desensitized to sin and have adopted the ways of the heathen! Moody, Spurgeon, and their contemporaries would be justified in crying out against our shameless nakedness.

Defining Acceptability: the Occasion or the Principle? To put this in perspective, imagine dear brother, if your wife and/or your pubescent 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 condition? 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 modesty.

Or, would you, sir, cavort around the living room in your underwear as your wife is hosting a ladies' tea? Sadly, many believers 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 3 1: 1). The man who says that the nakedness of women does not bother him is either pre-pubescent, a pervert, a liar, or dead! Pornographers understand the insatiability of this voyeuristic principle in men and crassly utilize this weakness of men's lower nature 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 viewing. 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 depraved fantasies.

David Cloud - Way of Life - Literature