Catholicism and the Erotic - A fine line that is seemingly perpetually blurred

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daegus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Daegus

Guest
If there’s one thing that bothers me about the state of affairs in regards to the Church it is Catholicism and its relationship with sensuality/sexuality and the erotic.

Some people might contend that the erotic is always pornographic in nature outside of marriage and must be condemned immediately, whereas conversely, others may contend that the erotic is a wonderful expression of God’s creation and love and is only pornographic if people make it out to be that way.

I, for one, am absolutely obfuscated by this. Is the erotic inherently wrong or is it not? Am I supposed to think about sex/the erotic or not? I feel like I am trapped in a state of perpetual guilt because I like things that are erotic and they pique my curiosity and interest. Is that so wrong? Am I damning myself to the eternal flames because I like to observe nakedness (feminine nakedness in particular) and admire it? Is it wrong that I enjoy such things?

I will not lie to you. Being aroused at just about anything makes me feel guilty. Being interested in things erotic makes me feel guilty. Thinking about sex in whatever context it may be makes me feel guilty, like I’m doing something wrong. I mean, I’m only a teenager. I can’t help it, can I? But of course I can, it must be my fault that I am interested in these things. If only I would just turn a blind eye to such evil… Or is it really evil at all? Can I actually help myself? Where is the line to be drawn between “lust” and a healthy interest, driven by natural male sexuality? Please, do tell.
 
Please listen and listen well

I know the full horror that crossing the line leads too and would give my arm to be able to go back and reverse the past.

It is a tricky question you ask and I cannot tell you where the line is; I believe your own spirit will guide you there. What I will say is that the erotic is all around us, we cant escape it but we can stop ourselves from looking for more. Lead us not into temptation.

If a woman is naked in front of you then you can’t avoid noting it but you don’t need to search for it or dwell on it. You are right we have an inbuilt appreciation of the beauty of the opposite sex but we have a duty to try and control our appetites and to not allow us to stop seeing the person in front of us and just a body.

Thats probably the first big flag that you are crossing the line when you stop seeing the person with feelings, hopes , thoughts . Someones friend, sister, cousin, and neighbour and only something for you to undress and enjoy.

I can tell you it will be easier for you to train your mind and body now to stay within what is a healthy interest than it will be to untrain your mind after years of filling it with images that you can never loose.

But don’t flog yourself for everytime your young mind pushes things to far, accept it and be aware it was wrong and try not to allow yourself to linger in that place so long the next time you are presented with the same temptation. One of the temptations of the Devil is in guilt, it runs along the lines of you are terrible for thinking that you should be guilty so you feel guilty, then it happens again and you feel guilty and you think oh i,m never goin to be perfect , I can’t beat this, so I might as well give in at least I can enjoy it if im goin to be guilty anyway. The old might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Before you know it your at the point where you think there is no going back so you just dive in deeper.

So in short , don’t do anything to feed the situation, trust your intuition to tell you whats healthy interest and whats a bit dubious. A good question is “if they could read my mind how would i feel?”

If your standards drop dont dwell on it, pray , confess and try to avoid doing it again. Even if you do it again remember Peter denied Christ 3 times. Pick yourself up and pray for more strength and try again.

You will grow out of the heavy hormone push you are experiencing now ; but if you train yourself into lust it will take you a lot longer to untrain.

A bad habit is easy to form and hard to break. Try to develope a prayer habit especially last thing at night.

I hope im not sounding to preachy; I hope you can enjoy your youth. You sound like a wonderfull young person

Love and Respect
 
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’re saying, teenage males are programmed to be interested in the opposite sex (and the opposite is also true!). Viewing pornography and viewing nude art ARE two completely different things, and admiring one is considered sinful however the other is not (I’m sure you know the difference!).

I think some of the more conservative members of this forum may take a different view, but my limited knowledge of Catholicism has led me to believe there is nothing wrong with appreciating nude art, so long as that is what it truly is - and of course, that the subjects are adults. I have heard that said elsewhere on this forum so I know my view is not entirely incompatible.

So long as what you’re asking is pretty much “Is it wrong to be interested by erotic yet not pornography art?” then the answer is no. Although I have to say I think the more conservative members will question your meaning of “erotic” with the view to thinking it already means pornographic.

Think of it this way - can you see it in an art/photography gallery that’s open to the public in a reputable venue? If yes, then it’s okay. I think that’s a good rule of thumb to use.
 
LemonAndLime said:
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’re saying, teenage males are programmed to be interested in the opposite sex (and the opposite is also true!). Viewing pornography and viewing nude art ARE two completely different things, and admiring one is considered sinful however the other is not (I’m sure you know the difference!).

I think some of the more conservative members of this forum may take a different view, but my limited knowledge of Catholicism has led me to believe there is nothing wrong with appreciating nude art, so long as that is what it truly is - and of course, that the subjects are adults. I have heard that said elsewhere on this forum so I know my view is not entirely incompatible.

So long as what you’re asking is pretty much “Is it wrong to be interested by erotic yet not pornography art?” then the answer is no. Although I have to say I think the more conservative members will question your meaning of “erotic” with the view to thinking it already means pornographic.

Think of it this way - can you see it in an art/photography gallery that’s open to the public in a reputable venue? If yes, then it’s okay. I think that’s a good rule of thumb to use.
Click to expand...
When I say erotic, I mean nakedness in general. A presentation of sexuality in general without necessarily being suggestive. For example, I consider Michelangelo’s David to be erotic. His sexuality is, very blatantly, being put on display for the world to see, yet he does not flash it. It really is a masterpiece. Not overly simple yet not too complex.

I do not consider Playboy and the like to be “Erotic”. Those are just porn to me. The way their sexuality is presented makes me think they are saying “come to me!” instead of just saying “this is who I am.”
 
Daegus said:
When I say erotic, I mean nakedness in general. A presentation of sexuality in general without necessarily being suggestive. For example, I consider Michelangelo’s David to be erotic. His sexuality is, very blatantly, being put on display for the world to see, yet he does not flash it. It really is a masterpiece. Not overly simple yet not too complex.

I do not consider Playboy and the like to be “Erotic”. Those are just porn to me. The way their sexuality is presented makes me think they are saying “come to me!” instead of just saying “this is who I am.”
Click to expand...
Oh well in that case - what you’re describing in the first paragraph should be okay. 👍 Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
 
I think it can actually be dependent on the context. Let me take some examples from my own experience seeing nudity in comics.

For instance, you put a naked girl’s body inside a giant glass tube filled with water, ‘clothed’ only with creepy, LS stuff like wires, and an oxygen mask. Believe it or not, I’m less likely to think, “Wow, sexy!” and more likely to assume, “I’m looking at someone capable of killing me in half a second aren’t I?”

Another situation would be one is walking along the beach and all of a sudden they see a naked person washed up on the shore, all banged up, but yes naked. Do you a.) ogle and lust or b.) use your bloody common sense and call for help?

Here’s a third example. Suppose I see a naked girl but in addition to her nudity, her body is glowing very brightly, there are white wings sprouting from her back, a ring of gold light is hovering above her head, and she’s pointing a finger at me… along with dozens of other magically floating swords, ready to impale me like a pincushion. I’d think I’d rather get on my knees and beg for my life than spend another second being a pervert.

I’m sure my examples may seem silly but here’s my actual point. Nudity has a lot of contexts and causes be they in art, fiction, or even real life. The context doesn’t have to be sexual. Your example with David is another good example of that. He’s nude. It is erotic in a sense that sexuality is put on display. And yet, is the context really sexual? From your understanding of the sculpture, it actually isn’t.
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with nudity. We are all born naked and we are all programmed to be interested in sex. Sex is very important! Without it, none of us would be here!

That said, I think that the line is crossed when, when one sees a naked women they only see the nakedness, and not the mind or soul of that woman. Porn is harmful because it portrays women (and men) as merely sex objects.

I think there is a danger in being too anti-erotic. Unless you are planning to live celibately, sex is going to be a big part of your life when you are married. Too much sexual repression can make it very difficult for even married adults to enjoy the gift that God has given us, which leads to many troubled marriages.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
I think it can actually be dependent on the context. Let me take some examples from my own experience seeing nudity in comics.

For instance, you put a naked girl’s body inside a giant glass tube filled with water, ‘clothed’ only with creepy, LS stuff like wires, and an oxygen mask. Believe it or not, I’m less likely to think, “Wow, sexy!” and more likely to assume, “I’m looking at someone capable of killing me in half a second aren’t I?”

Another situation would be one is walking along the beach and all of a sudden they see a naked person washed up on the shore, all banged up, but yes naked. Do you a.) ogle and lust or b.) use your bloody common sense and call for help?

Here’s a third example. Suppose I see a naked girl but in addition to her nudity, her body is glowing very brightly, there are white wings sprouting from her back, a ring of gold light is hovering above her head, and she’s pointing a finger at me… along with dozens of other magically floating swords, ready to impale me like a pincushion. I’d think I’d rather get on my knees and beg for my life than spend another second being a pervert.

I’m sure my examples may seem silly but here’s my actual point. Nudity has a lot of contexts and causes be they in art, fiction, or even real life. The context doesn’t have to be sexual. Your example with David is another good example of that. He’s nude. It is erotic in a sense that sexuality is put on display. And yet, is the context really sexual? From your understanding of the sculpture, it actually isn’t.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you understand where I am coming from as well. His whole body is on display which conveys an element of sexuality (or the erotic), but Michelangelo was not trying to cause lust in the hearts of others when he sculpted it, now was he? I highly doubt it. Just like (for example) if I were to see a naked woman wearing a lampshade over her head, I will be more likely to ask why she is wearing a lampshade over her head. What is the significance of this? Is there a hidden meaning within the picture? That sort of thing.

There is also the case of paintings of nude women. If she is doing a pose like waking up in the morning, without clothes on, is that inherently pornographic? Is it wrong that I take delight in looking at that? I do not take several minutes to ponder upon the vast amount of things I could do to her. Rather, I take a moment to absorb God’s creation. It can be arousing, yes and I guess that is what gets me confused. Is it wrong that I get aroused? Does it mean that I am lusting? I can’t help but get aroused. But then again… If I get aroused, maybe I shouldn’t look at it :confused:.

In a way, I suppose you could also call the Song of Songs erotic as well, but I don’t see it as pornographic. Maybe I’m just rationalizing, I don’t know.
 
Daegus said:
Yes, I think you understand where I am coming from as well. His whole body is on display which conveys an element of sexuality (or the erotic), but Michelangelo was not trying to cause lust in the hearts of others when he sculpted it, now was he? I highly doubt it. Just like (for example) if I were to see a naked woman wearing a lampshade over her head, I will be more likely to ask why she is wearing a lampshade over her head. What is the significance of this? Is there a hidden meaning within the picture? That sort of thing.

There is also the case of paintings of nude women. If she is doing a pose like waking up in the morning, without clothes on, is that inherently pornographic? Is it wrong that I take delight in looking at that? I do not take several minutes to ponder upon the vast amount of things I could do to her. Rather, I take a moment to absorb God’s creation. It can be arousing, yes and I guess that is what gets me confused. Is it wrong that I get aroused? Does it mean that I am lusting? I can’t help but get aroused. But then again… If I get aroused, maybe I shouldn’t look at it :confused:.

In a way, I suppose you could also call the Song of Songs erotic as well, but I don’t see it as pornographic. Maybe I’m just rationalizing, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I think if you get an art book of the Masters of fine art, Like Botticelli, Michelangelo, Leonardo, etc. would be quite helpful.

Could you also possibly take a guided tour of an Art Museum?

Because a woman or man is nude, it isn’t erotica.

Here is a definition:

[ih-rot-ik] Show IPA

–
adjective Also, e·rot·i·cal.
  1. arousing or satisfying sexual desire: an erotic dance.
  2. of, pertaining to, or treating of sexual love; amatory: an erotic novel.
  3. subject to or marked by strong sexual desire.
Click to expand...
You can view some of the art from the vatican museum at this link:

mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Select/30select/30select_04.html

Obviously, nothing there would be considered obscene.
 
I can’t think of anything in my lifetime that was produced and was erotic and NOT pornographic. When you view David, you don’t get the sense that it was carved with the express intention of showcasing a penis. Can’t say I’ve yet come across a movie with nudity or sex scenes that appeared to have a similar intention.

In fact, I don’t agree that such classics should be considered erotic at all. They were made in an age when the culture at large refused to consider the meaning of the human body and prudishness really did exist. Our age is not that age, and art today should focus on its highest role of prophetically pointing out overlooked truths about the human experience.

In any case, if you are being aroused by an object, you are into unhealthy porn (regardless of whether its a classic or not). Eros is designed to be focused on the person of your spouse. Any other use of it is a disordered one.

As another poster above said, believe it: you WILL wish you could unburn some of those porn images from your mind some day. It does real and lasting damage to your soul.
 
Guilt comes after understanding standards. At one time, beautiful women were openly admired for their beauty, but they were also modest. Modesty guards virtue, meaning I can think Person A is beautiful but I know in my heart that that is as far as it goes. Person A helps me to think that way because she is not crude in any way. Her beauty was only part of who she is. Yes, young men are made to be attracted to beautiful women, but normally, this attraction should also include thoughts about getting to know the person beyond her physical appearance. This can lead to friendship or even love.

What is missing today is the person inside the beautiful woman. Today, the woman is presented as her outward appearance only. Human dignity is lost and replaced by fantasy.

We, as a society, are encouraged to look at each other as primarily sexual outlets. We are taught that there is no need to develop a relationship with the other person. Today, young men and young women need to get to know each other and respect each other first.

As far as “erotic,” I think even art galleries fail in what they show. Crude depictions of a sexual nature can appear. The fine art world today should not be compared to the Classical Arts, such as the Greeks or Romans. Aside from nonrepresentational art that features inexplicable images, I’ve seen enough of the representational art to know that crude depictions of human sexuality exist.

Having been a teenager, I understand the fascination, but there are risks. It would be nice if most actresses and even girls we meet would understand their own dignity as persons more, and how valuable that is. Instead, I open my local newspaper and see Britney in what can only be described as a stripper outfit. Or I read that some actress has decided to pose with very little on somewhere. This is called exploitation. Willing or not, these adult women should know better.

Peace,
Ed
 
I just want to add here that a male friend of mine received for a present an art book of photographs of nude women that was extremely tasteful, had plenty of modesty and was not at all pornographic. The women were strategically covered in some places but the pictures were beautiful and I understand the photographer herself is female and wanted to show that female nudity can be seen without being pornographic. So no, I don’t at all think its fair to say that within our lifetime it has never been done. The male friend who received it was Protestant but had very old-fashioned views about sexuality and wanted to wait until marriage, but was curious - just like the OP.
 
Don’t define words for yourself. Learn the correct meaning and use them the appropriate way. Erotica always refers to sexuality. Nudity in of itself is not erotic.

Playboy is erotic. It serves to feed a disordered desire for objectification of women. Viewing such material is certainly putting oneself in the occasion of sin, which must be avoided.
 
From JAW642 on 03/17/2011

TO: Daegus – Original Poster ( OP ),

You may already know this, but I would like to point out that the Catholic Church does not regard human nakedness or nudity, per se, in and of itself, as shameful or sinful.

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty… Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful … Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person.”

In other words, if your main focus or interest is simply to enjoy and admire the splendor and beauty of nude persons in a movie or video or image or sculpture, ( male or female ), without de-valuing the human qualities of that person, then you need not be ashamed of that, because mere nudity is not sinful. Spending a reasonable amount of time to absorb God’s creation in the beauty of the male and female nude human body, without treating them as just sex Objects, is a good enough reason for doing what you do. Actually, Artists do that every day of the week.

There is a natural curiosity for virtually all males, and especially young males, to wonder what another person looks like without any clothes on. I think this curiosity is much stronger in males, because we are so visually oriented. I believe also that males have a much easier time in allowing ourselves to be seen naked, because we don’t usually have the same body esteem issues that the girls normally have.

While viewing nudity, many males can get either full or partial erections. That is very normal, because that is the way God has designed our male body. It is not at all surprising that you, as a young male of 16, get frequent and uncontrollable erections. As you get older, that will not happen as much, so enjoy them while you still can. As long as your erections are spontaneous, automatic, and beyond your control, just don’t worry about them. It is just a fact of life, that if the brain is stimulated in the right way, a male’s penis will simply get hard. You cannot prevent this normal and natural physical male reaction from occurring. Spontaneous erections that just happen on their own are never sinful. Your body is reacting as God has designed it to react. At sixteen, you should start worrying if you don’t get erections while seeing nude people and images, and even while normal sexual thoughts come into your brain. No male goes through life without getting normal sexual thoughts on a daily basis.

Viewing nudity is not pornographic, unless and until you erroneously think of it as pornographic in your own mind. And yes it will naturally cause erections and some normal sexual thoughts.

God already knows that you are a normal sexual teen male. He made you that way ! Don’t let that interfere with your good relationship with God.
Daegus, please click on and entirely read some of my previous Posts below.
Dec 7, '10, 10:44 pm - By JAW642 - Reply # 30

Re: Masturbation and Mortal Sin

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7343561#post7343561
Apr 14, '10, 2:51 pm - By JAW642 - Reply # 09

Re: Is this a sin?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6526214#post6526214
Overcoming the Masturbation Habit

Morality of Masturbatory Activity

couragerc.net/PIPMasturbation.html
Father Farraher also points out that sexual stimulation by a married couple is morally licit if it leads to natural vaginal intercourse or completes the marital act.'2 Farraher is very exact about what constitutes grave malice in masturbation when he writes: "for a person to be formally guilty of a mortal sin of masturbation his act must be a fully deliberate choice of what he fully realizes is seriously sinful."13 If such an act is done with only partial realization, or partial consent of the will, it is a venial sin; and “if there is no free choice of the will there is no guilt of sin at all even if the person is aware of what he is doing.”'4 Farraher goes on to point out that there is no sin even when a person foresees that sexual stimulation and orgasm will result from some action that the person is freely performing, provided that he does not intend such stimulation, but merely permits it, and that he has a sufficiently good reason for doing it. (This is simply an application of the principle of the twofold effect.)'5

Farraher corrects the misunderstanding that many Catholics have that if they experience sexual stimulation, however unwillingly, they have committed mortal sin.16
Please let me know if my previous Posts have helped you to be less confused, or if you have more questions.
From JAW642 on 03/17/2011
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top