Hotlink
Have you compared grains of sand recently? Blades of grass? Bird feathers? Pine needles? Snowflake designs? Tree leaves? Shapes of seashore rocks? Women's body parts normally covered with at least bra and panties?
Do you know that each individual one is different?
Similar - yes - but not exactly the same.
So how many have you actually seen? How many has anyone actually then intently seen and analyzed? A very few experts(?) have specialized in observing and studying the tiniest fraction of all in existence which [God] The Creator has made.....and the remainder are NEVER seen by anyone!
What percentage of the Sun's light and heat hit the Earth? A millionth? A billionth? The rest is WASTED?
I once heard a sermon on "The Extravagence of God" in which the preacher informed me of the obvious fact that most (and what part of the word 'most' don't you understand?) of what the LORD has made is never ever seen nor felt nor perceived by humanity.
So how many naked girl and women body parts can one observe, compare, and fixate at during one's life? It is said that Solomon had 600 wives and 400 concubines....and - assuming he at least one time saw each of them in the nude - perused a mere 1000 of [probably-rather-nicely-formed?] inferior-gender weaker sex created out of man's rib.
We in the 21st century already have a mind-boggling-myriad, historically-accumulated plethoria of publicly-accessible/publicly-viewable, rather-high-quality paintings, photos, videos, holograms, etc. of many many more female humans without any clothes on whatsoever, and the number of them publicly observable by far more than one Old-Testament character has increased dramatically, possibly reaching into the tens and hundreds of thousands and beyond during their limited lifetimes.
THAT is a LOT of comparing and competition of what is on one hand VERY similar but on the other hand intricately and infinitely varied. Such relentless body-part-viewing occupation both has and will continue to get VERY tiresome eventually. Perhaps, regrettably, even somewhat boring. Such boredom is sometimes contributory to inciting the perversion of homosexuality in ultimate retaliatory disgust for non-asked-for grossly-erotic intrusion (into public and unreasonably-imposed potential-public domain) of what should be privately reserved for the one it should be singularly enjoyed.
Keep in mind that in order for a typical boy or male to get sexually aroused merely takes the sight of a woman's presentable-part face and/or hands (with or without seeing scarved or shawled chignoned or
single-ponytailed hairstyle). It is not necessary to view more of her private parts (e.g. naked arms, back, belly, navel, legs, feet) to get titillated. And once a man is thus turned on by this minimal number of
phenomena, he of course will naturally proceed to pursue the woman for a mutual heterosexual relationship, hopefully culminating in marriage.
Another thing.
It is unwise to wrongly deduce that one must see the private parts one intends to marry before one marries them. Logically, if one's girlfriend eats and drinks, then enters the lavatory, it can be rightly assumed she is urinating or defecating, and thus has conventional private parts for her urine and feces to come out of from typical openings common to not only emerging newborn female human babies but also adequately described by not merely herself but even the Bible. Thus, there is no need to uncover and explore such before marrying her and then discovering the minute details.
If she wears rather roomy slacks, one should be able to tell whether or not she weighs out at 300 pounds or more by simple casual outward observation.Therefore, pre-martial inspection of undercover particulars is both needless and obscene.
Also keep in mind that whatever human female a man sees belongs to some man or will belong to man someday - whether that is a father or a husband. Most likely, the father of a daughter he loves and has nurtured from birth through childhood to teenaged maturity and older can adequately describe her private particulars to her future husband-to-be and will not want her molested nor either her ignorantly or deliberately flaunting whatever partial nakedness she has to flaunt, nor having some man in heat himself violate whatever modesty she thankfully and hopefully consistently exhibits and can be relied upon.
The husband of a wife similarly will not want his own wife immodestly defiling herself nor being immodestly defiled by someone else. If a guy encounters a publicly-immodest exhibitionist exhibiting herself to him and others currently around him, she will probably do the same exhibitionism again when he is not around and predictably entice and incite other men.
Concordantly, there is the 6th of the 10 Commandment understandably forbidding adultery, which applies to both visual and tactile illicit intercourse of both the eyes and hands. Jesus Himself substantiated that with the proclamation: "Whoever looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery with her," as did Job when he stated that he would "not look upon a virgin" because he had "made a covenant with his eyes" and so would not "sin against God."
Demonically, if a woman herself uncovers any part or parts of her which should not be uncovered (as apparently bathing Bathsheba did against King David), anti-lust covenants of purity are broken, resulting in "the name of God being blasphemed among the nations" and His doctrine defamed because of such perverted immodest offenders.
Years ago, most pioneer, pilgrim, and puritan women of the Old West appeared fully dressed with chignoned hairstyled, long-sleeved blouses, full-length skirts, and boots....except when in the secluded bedroom with their own husband (which explains the consequential large families).
Even now, we see the well-publicized pics of shawled-and-long-robed-covered islamic fundamentalist moslem women, women of India and China, headskarved Russian women with long skirts working the fields, Amish, and more....none of which are lacking for large families that do not appear out of the blue like magic without in-home nudity during sex.
Concurrently, many worldly-minded anti-Christian and godless women (on the Devil's broad and easy road to destruction) fail to realize that their particularly-summertime partial indecent immodesty of seductively displaying loosened long hair, sleevesless naked arms, slacksless nude legs, and socksless part of bare feet is a type of live-person porn....overly-sensitizing men to excessive and out-of-place arousal plus overly-desensitizing them to the finer nuances of gentle subtle and legitimate marital foreplay striptease. What then occurs is a lewd overdose of excessive stimulation resulting in a frigid and prudish aversion to romantic invitations while ironically imposing needless and useless non-solicited partially-immodest sexual harassment. It then "goes without saying" that harlot-equivalents who misdress in such "fashion" cause corresponding and worse substitutional pornography searches, productions, indulgence, and victimization.
In response to the amply-bemoaned incessantly-complained-about porno licentuousness caused by such immodest lasciviousness is to educate all women (and men) with "suitable" and pertinent Scripture verses (such as found in Numbers 5, II Samuel 13, Proverbs 5, Song of Solomon 7, Isaiah 3 and 20 and 47, Jeremiah 2, I Timothy 2, and others). Accompanying that should be consistently-legal corrective punishment in view of that Bible verse reminding us that "By mere words a servant is not disciplined, for though he understands, yet he will not give heed."