All of your points in this exceedingly well-written response are worth considering in a prayerful manner. I only hope that my reply comes close to the obvious thought you put into yours and isn't too disjointed. So here goes...
I'm now into my 70s (born in 1943) so there may be a generational lens that shapes my viewpoint. One of the phrases that our church of Christ preacher uses (probably borrowed from Billy Graham) when the topic involves sex and marriage is "...the new morality is the old immorality." To some, the 1960s were liberating but to me, I saw standards of behavior deteriorating. During my youth, men and women attired themselves modestly. In fact, everyone has seen the pictures of men and women in Ward and June Cleaver attire when sitting in the stands at baseball and football in th4 1940s and 1950s when my cultural norms were being shaped.
One of the things that was in the back of my mind when I initially posted to this thread were Free Republic discussions from earlier this year about Virginia legalizing cohabitation. Some of the remarks were rather cavalier (pun intended, it is Virginia after all) and you can see them here and here. Yes, I get some of the comments were light-hearted in the FR tradition. Furthermore, I fully understand why a state law on the books outlawing cohabitation may rankle those with a libertarian bent. Nevertheless, and based upon what you wrote, I think we can all agree that sex outside of marriage is adultery. No question about it in my mind.
That's a bit of background and might explain where I'm coming from and perhaps why the "guilty/not guilty" and "I'd hit it" threads touched a nerve. Now, after that detour, I'll try my best to swerve back to the matter at hand and quote a portion from you, Danny:
I don't think to wonder what a woman would be like in bed is necessarily wrong. It's probably nothing more than God given sexual attraction combined with our God given imaginations.
When all is said and done, I think there's actually not a whole lot of distance between our viewpoints. Yes, indeed, God gifted us with sexual attraction to fulfill his directive to "be fruitful and multiply." Where there may (or may not) still be some disagreement comes to down to how we should or would behave if Christ were again made flesh and walked among us. And here, I come back to some of what I see on occasion on Free Republic. If Christ in the flesh were sitting next to me as I browse this pro-God, pro-family, I wonder just how He'd react to some of the sexually-oriented threads, which -- on occasion -- do degenerate into soft porn.
Being a mere human, born into sin, my failings and shortcomings are numerous. There's probably not a second that goes by when I miss the mark set by the Lord. Still, as much as possible for this old, flawed vessel, I try to consider how Christ as a worldly companion would measure my behavior and thoughts.
Since my response has been something of a scattershot, I'll wrap things up with another reading from yet another church of Christ congregation. This one's from the church in Moody, AL and is titled, Immodest Dress. No, the text doesn't advocate burquas nor do I. :)
I'm a Southern Baptist. Growing up they taught us to be aware of our witness and that moderation was key. The local Catholic church used to host a youth dance every Saturday night. And our church was fine with our going to it. They just advised us to have fun but to also be conscious of how we danced and not to dance or dress in a way designed to provoke lust.
Sex outside of marriage is either Adultery of Fornication. Fornication is when neither party is married.
On Immodesty... A lot of what is considered "immodest" is what people are used to. Our society has gotten used to a fair amount of skin and I don't think it still has the same effect as it used to when cultural norms were stricter. And frankly, if I had my choice, I'd much rather live in a society with relaxed standards of dressed than an uptight one.
You are right about the standards of behavior have declined. I'm not convinced that the dress standards are a causative factor. I suspect they are more symptomatic than causative.
I was recently talking to my 16 year old daughter about how when I was young the churches were engaged in active battles against pornography. And there was tension between freedom of speech and pornography. And she asked me if we won. And I realized it's not a simple yes or no.
We might actually be surprised at how Christ would react to some things if we could actually sit and talk to him in the flesh. Apparently before the fall, nudity was fine and God didn't have a problem with it. And then you have Kind David led by the spirit to dance nude in front of all Israel. Since God invented the body with all of it's "features" and is also the inventor of sex, I suspect He may not be nearly as prudish as we imagine. He has a holy nature which absolutely condemns sin, but He's able to clearly see the proper role of sexuality and when's the heart crosses the line.
I think some and possibly all of the "shame of nudity" is related to our fallen condition. Now I'm not saying we should be nudists. I wouldn't want to live in a society where nudity is common and can't be avoided. But I'm not really convinced that nudity provokes lust as much as we think. The burka communities don't seem to have reduced rapes and appear to have as many ongoing battles with lusts as we do (impression not studies), even though it often means death in those communities.
I think lust provoking has more to do with the deviation from the cultural norm, than the cultural norm itself. And probably more with the choices that a man makes instead of either the cultural norm or whether there are provocations in that culture.
I think the decline in standards of behavior have a lot less to do with dress and more to do with men rebelling and rejecting God altogether.