C
- Status
S
silicasandra
Guest
Do you mean subjective?
I get what you’re saying. There isn’t a clearcut definition of what, exactly, constitutes material designed to incite lust, just as there isn’t a clearcut definition of what exactly constitutes modest attire.
Still: Why do the men who get excited about the swimsuit issue get excited about it?
It is common sense. There may be a few men who may have it show up in their mailbox and not really care (just like there may be, somewhere, one or two men who really read Playboy for the articles.) That doesn’t make it OK. I have seen it. My dad used to subscribe to Sports Illustrated. And he never gave a **** about any of the issues except the swimsuit issue. Even when I was six or seven years old, I knew that he shouldn’t look at other women the way he looked at women in that magazine. I also knew that it made my mother upset, especially since, at 5’2" and after bearing four children, she would never be able to look like the women in those magazines even before they were airbrushed. My mother is one of the most beautiful women in the world, but my dad - the one man who was supposed to know that and tell her that - ignored that for women he didn’t even know, and even tried to use it to tell her that she needed to make more of an effort. 
Maybe the “line” needs to be: Do you want your mother, wife, or daughter to know you read it? Would you openly read it and use it the way you would if you were alone in front of them?
B
Burdensome1
Guest
Yes, subjective. Like everything in the last several posts.
S
silicasandra
Guest
The fact that there is no definitive line that has existed all through time and will continue to exist for the rest of time does not mean that it does not matter, or that someone can just say, “Well, for this other guy it’s OK, so it must be for me!”
I think many posters have shown reasons why one should at least be very, very careful when dealing with materials like these. Sure, perhaps for a few people, they could look at them and not be incited to lust. For some people, a shoe ad insert in the Sunday paper would incite lust. But shoe ads are completely different in nature than magazines depicting women in various states of undress, simply for the purpose of showing them in various states of undress.
B
Burdensome1
Guest
And we don’t paint over nude images in museums anymore.
Let people be the guardians of their own eyes in matters that are ambiguous, lest we be confused with Puritans.
Let people be the guardians of their own eyes in matters that are ambiguous, lest we be confused with Puritans.
E
edwest2
Guest
The only purpose that Maxim, Playboy and the SI “swimsuit” issue serve is to tempt men to lust. Admiring has disappeared for the most part in the media. It’s rarely the case where a man sees a picture of a beautiful celebrity in a dress or gown and admires her beauty, instead, way too many are posing in inappropriate ways like there’s nothing wrong about it. Had they not crossed that line, it would be easier to admire their beauty, but since so many have, it’s hard to separate the two.
When I think of beautiful women I admire, I want her to be a whole person, meaning she has grace, poise, dignity and a personality, instead of letting herself be shown in a way obviously designed to incite lust. Beauty, modesty and dignity can coexist, but aside from real people you may know or see, the media presents women as ‘sex objects’ way too often.
Peace,
Ed
S
silicasandra
Guest
I resent, more than a little, the implication that those who find SI swimsuit issues, Maxim, etc. distasteful must somehow be puritanical. I have no problem with nudity in art per se. I have a problem when nakedness is sold to make a quick buck, and I think it more than obvious that those “quick bucks” are usually sold because people want to use those images for immoral purposes (by entertaining immoral thoughts or more.)
People don’t go to museums and look at nude art to get their jollies.
E
epan
Guest
How in the world can you be on the Internet, and porn just pops up?
S
silicasandra
Guest
It is fairly common on certain sites used for downloading (usually of the illegal variety.) Or if someone else who uses the computer has accessed pornography, and then something innocent you do triggers bringing it up. Shortly after we got the Internet in my house (early 2000s), we had a virus for several weeks that automatically set our home page to a pornographic website - didn’t matter how many times we reset it or whose account we logged in with, as soon as the browser was closed and reopened we went to that site. Someone in our house did something that made that happen (I think I know who but if the person ever 'fessed up I didn’t hear about it), but it wasn’t the fault of the next person who was just trying to check their e-mail.
E
epan
Guest
You must be kidding. If you stay away from sites that you should not be visiting anyway, porn will not be popping up on your computer.It is fairly common on certain sites used for downloading (usually of the illegal variety.) Or if someone else who uses the computer has accessed pornography, and then something innocent you do triggers bringing it up. Shortly after we got the Internet in my house (early 2000s), we had a virus for several weeks that automatically set our home page to a pornographic website - didn’t matter how many times we reset it or whose account we logged in with, as soon as the browser was closed and reopened we went to that site. Someone in our house did something that made that happen (I think I know who but if the person ever 'fessed up I didn’t hear about it), but it wasn’t the fault of the next person who was just trying to check their e-mail.
The exception might be spam in your mailbox, which you should not be opening anyway, for a number of reasons.
B
billcu1
Guest
You don’t have a pop up blocker. I get on you tube to listen to some music and inappropriate images are always there. You could type in a web URL and be redirected to something that you didn’t expect. I’ve done it before. It doesn’t happen much. My sister typed in a website name once of a celebrity or someone and a porn site “popped” up.
S
silicasandra
Guest
No, I am absolutely serious. If someone else has access to your computer, all bets are off. It’s wise, of course, to have filtering software and pop up blockers, but there are workarounds, they don’t always work as they should and it is not easy for a person to cover their tracks - making it more likely that someone else will find it accidentally.
C
clem456
Guest
I do as well.
The Church draws a very clear line on this issue. Anyone who really wants can determine where this line is.
It is a very basic Catholic thing to be able to make the distinction between chastity and purity, and Puritanism.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
For sure. Nowadays, simply being against premarital sex and hardcore pornography will get you labelled as a puritan. I think, far too often, we are far too concerned with how the secular world views us. There seems to be an attitude of compromise-by-degrees–how much can we get away with?–to appear more “modern” and “moderate.” In this case, however, I don’t think there’s any question of what side of the moral line these things fall upon. Suffice it to say, I don’t think you’ll see any S.I. or Maxim pinups in a museum of fine art any time soon.
B
Burdensome1
Guest
And yet, when pressed, the lot of you have made no headway on the topic. Sports Illustrated, the “body issue”. Claims to be art. Go, debate that. I can’t wait to watch.
C
clem456
Guest
Sir, there is no debate. Perhaps you would like one, I don’t know.
There is plenty of headway for anyone who whishes to hear it.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
And a lot of hardcore pornographers claim that what they’re doing is art. What’s your point?
D
Deo_Gratias42
Guest
Surely if I, as a woman, had to throw out all my Glamour and Cosmo beauty magazines because they contained “inappropriate content”, then surely Maxims and what have you are out as well.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
SI’s swimsuit issue never claimed to be art. Ever. ESPN’s The Body issue poses actually nude athletes, both male and female, in poses that cover up the genitals and breasts in the case of females. But that issue also, as I mentioned, tends to include disabled athletes and sports figures who are, well, past their prime or not athletic at all. I think there’s a case to be made that such photographs are art. The subjects are naked but they’re not posed in alluring fashion.
I personally don’t get ESPN the Magazine and as a recovering pornography addict don’t want to put myself in anything close to temptation. But let me just say that the response I had towards SI’s swimsuit stuff was a lot more lustful than anything I saw in The Body issue of ESPN’s mag.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
^ This. I didn’t notice that the previous poster erroneously attributed that to SI, I thought he was talking about the swimsuit issue. But ESPN’s the body is a perfect contemporary example of tasteful depictions of the human body. The poses are clearly intended to illustrate the true beauty of the human body. The SI Swimsuit issue, on the other hand, is full of licentious poses, seductive expressions and immodest outfits.
- Status