As a woman, I found this article offensive. I will try not to be offensive in return in my response to you.
Yes, I would prefer to see a female gynecologist, but not necessarily for modesty's sake, but rather for the sake of having someone who understands what I tell her and has experienced the things the same things that I have.
My current gynecologist is very capable. I appreciate him. And he is not perverted and he does not treat me as if I am a "naked woman". He treats me like a human being and with great respect.
Now to your article. You probably won't even read my response here, but it will make me feel better to post it.
The first thing that you cited were three scriptures. All three of them are out of context.
"For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." Eph. 5:11,12
This is not referring to nudity or to sexual relations between married couples.
Read the entirety of chapter 5. It is admonishing Christians to stay away from sexually immorality, impurity, greed, obscenity, foolish and coarse talking, and idolatry.
"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in fire, than thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear......Revelation 3:18"
Again, read all of chapter 3. Jesus is giving a message to the church at Sardis and at Laodecia. He said that some at Sardis has not "soiled their clothes". This is
figurative speech. At Laodecia, Jesus says that they think they can do it all by the flesh and by themselves. He says that by themselves, they are "wretched, poor, pitiful, blind, and naked".
Is it a sin to be blind? to be poor? to be naked?
No these things, in this passage, represent man's attempt at leading his own life.
Jesus says they they should buy clothing from Him so that they won't be naked.
He is saying, quite
figuratively that we should put on His righteousness (gold clothing) so that our unrighteousness (nakedness) won't show.
"So he that goeth in to his neighbor's wife; whosever toucheth her shall not be innocent. Proverbs 6:29"
This is talking about adulterous sex, not nudity before a doctor.
If this verse, about the
touching, is to be taken literally, then a man could never touch a woman that was not his wife. For any reason.
Last week, while walking way too briskly across the parking lot at work, carrying way too much in my hands, I tripped and fell. My heel got caught in a hole in the pavement and I went face down on the pavement and my belongings went scattering to the winds.
Two dads, walking their children to school and one high school boy came running to me and helped me up, brushed the dirt off my jacket and my knees and gathered my belongings.
Were they sinning? I think not.
"In the Bible, the only nakedness allowable between a man and a woman is between husband and wife. Genesis 2:25 reads, "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
In Gensis 3:7, it says that they WERE conscious of their nakedness and tried in vain to hide it from each other and from God. What changed? Their bodies? Using your own literal logic, then even married couples should be ashamed before each other.
Nothing changed except for the fact that they became sinful creatures. The were naked before they sinned and after they sinned. In covering up their nakedness, they were trying to cover up before God what they had done.
However, in Leviticus 18, God goes into great detail condemning nakedness.
No, brother. In Leviticus 18, God goes into great detail condemning sexuality depravity in the form of incest.
Isaiah 47:3a - "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen."
God is talking to Babylon here, condemning her. He is not talking to a literal woman.
Exodus 28:42 - "And thou shalt make them linen breeches in cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach" God is commanding here that men wear pants to cover their his entire thigh down to the knee..."
No, God is not talking to men in general and is certainly not commanding the wearing of pants. God is giving a commandment for the style and function of
priestly garments.
Not one time in the God's word is there mention of a woman being examined nude by a man who is a medical professional.
Well, indirectly there is. There is the woman in Mark, chapter 5 who had an issue of blood for 12 years
(she was bleeding vaginally for 12 years, probably due to what we would call today "fibroid tumors"). The bible says that she was treated by many doctors with no results. I'm sure that some just gave her herbs to drink and some, I'm sure, actually tried to treat her and probably saw her naked. But they had no modern knowledge by which to treat her "insides".
Women have been giving birth for the last 6000 years without the aid of male doctors...
This statement show ignorance, brother. Sure, women have had babies by themselves out in the fields somewhere.
But during those times of primitive medical help, the infant mortality rate was sky-high. Many, many countless millions of babies were either still-born or never lived to see their 1st birthday.
And many, many countless millions of mothers either died in childbirth or never lived to have another baby.
Modern doctors, both male and female, have saved the lives of countless mothers and babies who would, left by themselves or in the hands of untrained laypeople, would have died.
...and yet Christians today seem to think that a woman must expose herself to a male doctor in the name of medicine.
Offensive.
I have never "exposed myself" to a male doctor. Choose your words more carefully, brother, so as not to imply that women are evil.
Many have used the argument, "Oh, they've see it so many times, it no longer affects them"
Offensive.
"it"? I am not an "it". My body is not an "it".
Men who look at nudity and pornography for extended periods of time become more perverted, not less perverted. If the appetite for nudity is fed, the appetite increases not diminishes,
No man can look at pornographic images and not be affected. This is why God commands us repeatedly to set no wicked thing before our eyes.
Offensive. Grossly, grossly offensive.
My body is NOT pornographic. My doctor is NOT perverted. You have lumped innocent women into the same category as whores and innocent men into the same category as perverted ingrates.
That old man was once a young man who decided to go to school to be an obstretrician/gynecologist in order to examine women in intimate areas.
Offensive.
Do you want to know why some men specialize in ob/gyn?
$$$$$$$$....It's lucrative.
There will ALWAYS be babies being born and it costs money. And there will always be women's health issues because of our body's function in child bearing.
And they are also men who specialize in this area for the sake of bring babies into the world safely.
Any doctor that look upon and touches a woman's private parts in his office "hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Again, you have misquoted scripture.
Jesus says in the book of Matthew that a man "who looks upon a woman in a lusting manner" commits adultery.
Sir, if you let you wife go to a male gynecologist, you need to get right with God.
You are making the masculine error of "entitlement" or abuse of power in a man's authority over his wife.
The overwhelming majority of women ALREADY HAVE a gynecologist before they ever even meet their husbands.
Her having a family or personal doctor that she is comfortable with and happy with has nothing to do with her relationship with her husband.
In fact, her husband should be comforted and relieved in the knowledge that she has a doctor that she can trust with her body. There are countless thousands of husbands who have lost their precious wives to breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, death in childbirth, heart disease, and other health issued pertaining to women.
Brother, I cannot agree with your article and suggest that you rethink the scriptures that you cited.
Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><
[ March 14, 2006, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Scarlett O. ]
