The word prude needs to be redefined; the standard definition has apparently been changed. When The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1970, prude meant: “A person, especially a woman, who is over-concerned with being or seeming to be proper, modest, or righteous” (1054). The English word comes from a French word, meaning “virtuous woman,” which implies that at one time during the history of France there must have been one.
But now prude has come to mean anyone that will stop somewhere short of nudity. This fact may be deduced from Dear Abby’s April 4th column which appeared on Easter Sunday. Members of the Lord’s church (at least, those who respect the authority of the Scriptures) do not treat this Lord’s day differently from any other first day of the week. But the “religious” world does; so why did she run a column promoting nudity on a day when most people are thinking about the resurrection of Christ? Perhaps she just wanted to balance loftiness with seediness. But after accusing the Bible and the Holy Spirit, as well as Christians who trust in them, of belonging to the Dark Ages for not agreeing with her that homosexuality is by birth rather than by choice, what can be expected?
A woman writes to Abby expressing doubts about going to a nude beach in France (where else?) when she and her husband are on vacation. Her concern, however, does not involve nudity. She writes: “I have been on nude beaches before, and I’m certainly no prude, but I’m very uncomfortable about being seen in public with my ‘deformity’.” (She has had a mastectomy.)
The implication is obvious: a prude is someone who thinks a person ought to wear some clothes in public. A person who thinks that wearing some clothes is necessary (no matter how skimpy, how little is left to the imagination, or how “see-through” they might be) is a prude. The only way one cannot be called names is to be willing to appear naked on French beaches.
If such is the new definition, Christians should feel good about being called prudes; perhaps we should fire this slogan back at critics: BETTER PRUDE THAN CRUDE. [Crude means “an unrefined or natural state; raw” (318); so this word would be correctly applied.]
One might wonder how Abby would respond to such a bizarre question. Would she say something sensible, such as, “You shouldn’t go to a nude beach, but it has nothing to do with your appearance; it has to do with common decency”? No, that would be too narrow-minded for someone of Abby’s worldly intellect.
Instead, she responded:
As you know, you see everything on the nude beaches in Europe–old, young, fat, thin, and everything in between. This includes people who have various surgeries, scars and all, so please don’t be concerned about being viewed as a curiosity.
How broad-minded (no pun intended)! How utterly non-prudish. The world of non-judgmentalism affords so much freedom and sophistication. “After we look at bridal gowns, ma belle amie, why don’t we go over to the nude beach? We’ll just leave our morality behind.”
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25). There was a reason the first couple was not afraid to be seen in public naked. So far as we know, there was no public. They also had not yet eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, they were innocent people in a pure world. After they ate of the tree, however, things changed. They were still married, and there was still no public (unless some of their children had been born, although they are not mentioned until later).
“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Gen. 3:7). Apparently, none of that fruit thrives today near the Riviera. Now if there were not as yet any children, for what purpose did they cover themselves? There was no shame in seeing one another, and God sees and knows everything (were they at this point deficient in that knowledge?). Or does possessing a knowledge of good and evil simply cause one to become instinctively modest?
Babies newly arrived into this world love the freedom that nakedness provides. They are not lewd; they just dislike clothes. This lack of modesty continues for several years (much to the chagrin of many parents). But as little ones begin to mature, there comes a point when they would be absolutely horrified for anyone to see their private areas. They have developed a sense of shame.
Of course, if they are taught that it is all right to remove most of their clothing in order to go “swimming,” they will probably not be embarrassed because this form of disrobing in public is “acceptable.” European children, who might otherwise be embarrassed at nude beaches, may have few problems since the nudity is confined to the beach and everyone is doing it. The conscience will respond to the way it is trained.
Most Americans have been taught that nudity is wrong, but the conscience can become seared, as with a hot iron. We have become desensitized over the years with immodest dress and swimsuits that have shrunk in size (and not due to the water either, since some of them seldom get wet).
Movies and television have led the way, sporting heroes barely clad and heroines in alluring outfits. Slowly but surely, people’s sense of shame has crumbled. What would have shocked audiences thirty years ago is now considered pretty tame stuff. Naturally, many desire to imitate the fashion ideas on the screen and display themselves publicly. Decency has continued to prevail, but for how much longer? We already have nudist camps; will there soon be special nudity zones?
Last year’s Academy Award went to Titanic. The distressing thing about that movie was the nudity of the heroine. The actress who portrayed her allowed the camera to be quite friendly to her naked breasts. This year’s “best picture,” Shakespeare in Love, contains even more nudity than last year’s winner. According to the review that one can read on the Internet at , under the sex/nudity category, the following actions occur:
Will and Viola slowly undress each other (he slowly unwraps the material that was flattering her breasts). Then they kiss and we see her bare breasts (while her nurse fans herself outside the door in embarrassment).
Viola’s “attributes” are seen several more times, and the movie does not spare strong implications of continued activity on the part of the two lovers. At the rate things are going, one wonders how long it will be until X and Triple-X movies are nominated for prestigious awards. Perhaps there should even be a new category for “Most Tastefully-Done Seduction Scene.”
That these movies are made is indicative of what Hollywood producers think people want to see; even more disturbing is that they are right–society has become so jaded that it will tolerate maximum profanity and abundant nudity on the screen. The review of 8MM would take an entire page of this bulletin and is too sordid to print. It carries only an R-rating.
No one needs to be re-created in these ways. Recreation means “refreshment of one’s mind and body after labor through diverting activity” (1090). The verb form means “to impart fresh life to; refresh mentally or physically” (1090). When one is made to feel dirty and sullied, such is not refreshing. Christians would do better to play harmless card or board games, enjoy various word puzzles, or re-introduce themselves to the joys of reading. If all else fails, the lost art of conversation could be restored. Certainly, we do not need to be “entertained” in such dismal fashion.
To be modest means “having a regard for decencies of behavior and dress” (843). Nude beaches and R-rated movies violate this concept. Furthermore, they are a corrupting influence on all of society. When such things are no longer a matter of concern and outrage, we have become too sophisticated. The very least Christians can do is to abstain from these fleshly lusts because they war against our souls (1 Peter 2:11). If Christians are called prudes, it can only be because the word has been redefined. We do not wear overly-modest clothing, as women are required to do in some Muslim countries. But we ought to adhere to modesty in our personal apparel (which cannot include excessive skimpiness or outright nudity) and in our entertainment.