Very good. I agree with your comment almost entirely. If we have come to a general agreement that being aroused by another person is the fundamental thing we are trying to avoid and the rest is a tall hedge, then that is something. The only thing I’d point out is that the greater good argument does not assume that it is routinely a problem, but that it could be. That is, you’re position requires that it is never the cause of sexual thoughts while the greater good argument may be trying to account for something infrequent. I will admit, that I am amazed at the level to which we trust that our doctors have developed an iron-clad compartment in their brains. We do not seem to be so believing (generally) of people from other cultures who say that nudity is non-sexual for them (like those referred to in #38). Instead you will often see people marshalling statistics in an attempt to show that these “enlightened” countries are fooling themselves. I find that discontinuity interesting.

If that’s the case, then the real reason we accept gynecology is that it serves the greater good despite some moral hazards it could on occasion present. If it is really the ‘no big deal’ that everyone is saying, why do we treat it as such a huge deal in any other circumstance where there is not an overriding concern forcing our hand?

I don’t think that explains my (#18), SCW’s (#29), nor Matt’s (#24) reasoning at all. “The greater good” argument requires that gynecology be arousing for one or both participants, but both agree to look past the arousal—or put up with it—for the greater good. Our arguments (sorry to lump you in with me, guys) are that the act of gynecology is not arousing for anyone involved, so there is no comparison of greater/lesser good to be made.

There is the flip-side to this of course. That is that women typically feel uncomfortable at the doctor’s office, and doctors (as SCW points out) typically have to do things they don’t really enjoy doing. Thus, if there is any “greater good” measurement here, it’s that both parties are doing something they detest for the greater good—and not what you suggest (which is that one of them is really enjoying himself, but it’s not a sin because it’s the greater good).

Depends on who you ask. If you ask a stripper he or she would probably readily say yes. The average American (or world citizen for that matter) would be less comfortable with it. It sounds to me like this is largely a variation on the old modesty discussion that gets beaten to death at the female-dominated blogs.

Yes.

One reason might be that it the reasons are so obvious they can’t bring themselves to waste time articulating them.

Yeah, that’s how I’m interpreting it. Your poll sounds like a trick question to me.

Huh? Who said that?

Just a bit of stereotype-based humor there, nothing to be alarmed about. Several people made comments about proctologists and “turn and cough” comparisons. The idea that men and women are turned on by the same things is pretty obviously absurd, which is why I choose the example I did. Perhaps that comment was too glib for you.

…has me scratching my head

As to what I am fishing for, I am being very candid about it. No trick, just interested in the moral reasoning being employed, as I said. Is the question actually so outlandish that you can’t even understand why it could be worth asking? It is one thing to say that it is morally fine. It is a harder thing to tease out the reasons why it is okay in the context of the puritanical attitudes that prevail in our church culture. Doing so is an exercise in separating what is fundamentally immoral from what is simply a hedge around immorality. One thing I am particularly interested in is whether people arrive at their view via ethical reasoning vs. by some other way (e.g. societal norms). One way to test this is to ask people to offer their reasons on something they don’t get asked about every day and then see what reasons they give.

The poll has been overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of choice #1, with a relatively few participants willing to hazard a definition of the relevant distinction. One reason might be that it the reasons are so obvious they can’t bring themselves to waste time articulating them. A different reason might be that although we are all very sure it is morally fine, our belief to that effect is based on something other than moral reasoning (I have a theory that this is almost always the case on moral issues, which I may post on at some point).

I recognize that by asking the question I may appear to be suggesting there is something wrong with gynecology. Similarly, by answering, some people may feel that answering such a “silly question” legitimizes it in some sense. I’ve tried to mitigate that by being clear that no one is doubting that it is morally acceptable.

Now, given that answer #1 is winning by so much, permit me to make a defense of answer #2. I have tried hard to think of scenarios in which it is viewed to be morally acceptable to be undressed around members of the opposite sex (leave aside touching for a moment). The examples I can think of are already mentioned on this thread. They all involve some specific and pressing need–medical emergency or incapacitated or whatever. I can’t think of any others that are accepted. Would it be acceptable to hike to a hot spring with another couple and soak in a state of undress? Would co-ed bathrooms (ala Ally McBeal) be acceptable (if you ask me, there is hardly anything more a-sexual than a bathroom)?

I can’t think of any time we think it is okay apart from some pressing need. That to me is a clear indication that we view it as inherently problematic to be around a member of the opposite sex in a state of undress (at least for someone raised in our culture). If that’s the case, then the real reason we accept gynecology is that it serves the greater good despite some moral hazards it could on occasion present. If it is really the ‘no big deal’ that everyone is saying, why do we treat it as such a huge deal in any other circumstance where there is not an overriding concern forcing our hand?