Girly calendar

[Colorad007]

I certainly thank everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut. It seems I have a consensus on a way to approach this. But one question is not getting answered and I’m not quite sure that the quote above from the cathesis is clear to me either. Is there an admiration of beauty? What is real beauty? It is all around to admire it is that to lust after it? The beauty of a woman for example physically and otherwise should be the same as the beauty of a sunrise or sunset shouldn’t it?

Bill

I hear that a lot, but it’s not really true that looking at a beautiful woman is like looking at a beautiful sunset. A woman’s beauty, in part, rests in her sexual attractiveness, something a sunset can obviously never convey. And sexual atttractiveness rests in, well, sex, so it’s really a much more dangerous area for the male mind. I can stare and oggle a sunset until the sun goes down, and I won’t have a lustful thought. But more than a few seconds looking at an attractive woman and I"m already bordering on mental sin.

Simply put, pretty women require a lot of caution and sunsets generally do not (although temperance and sensual mortification might call for limits on both).

 

[OneDayASaint]

Well I guess since someone out there somewhere is going to be pervy over something no matter how modest I guess we should just throw in the towel and have no standards whatsoever. Or better yet, instead of encouraging women to behave and dress modestly we should just wrap them up like mummies so we can’t see them because we can’t handle ourselves in their presence. Great arguments. I’m not buying into it, though. I haven’t given up on humanity and I won’t though you’re welcome to do so.

Okay, now that I have gotten that out of my system I’m going to move onto more pragmatic things.

Discerning whether something is right or wrong for you as an individual (let’s ignore society as a whole for now - if the plane is going down you have to put the mask on yourself before you think about your neighbors much less the whole plane) the first question a man must ask himself is “would I have no qualms whatsoever if my daughter, sister, wife, or mother was doing what this model is doing dressed as she is dressed?”. If the answer is no to any of them, then if you continue to support it with your money or just your gaze on some level you feel that not all women deserve a certain level of dignity, but just the ones you decide are worthy of that. On some level, you feel that your entitlement to that woman’s body trumps her entitlement to the dignity you reserve for women you feel a sense of responsibility towards. That’s just a base secular standard on my part. There’s more questions to be raised if you’re trying to live as a Catholic but not everyone is so anything further wouldn’t apply to them. If we could get all men regardless of belief to get past THAT hypocrisy we’d already change the world to be more in tune with Catholic standards. I hope we don’t get to the point where only devout Catholics don’t want their daughters and mothers posing and dressing in a way to invite sexual feelings towards them from hundreds of random men.

It’s fortunate that not everyone goes into a frenzy of lust when they see an image of a woman on a magazine at a grocery store because our culture shoves it in our faces constantly. But we’re not talking about evasion of sin in spite of the world around us, we’re talking about whether we should bring that piece of the world we live in into our homes.

There are men out there that marry women in the sex industry and are very proud to have a wife whose body is displayed and lusted for by thousands of other men. I have a feeling they have other aspects of their life to look into before they bother with the girly calendar question, however, so I will leave that one alone.

 

[clem456]

I hear that a lot, but it’s not really true that looking at a beautiful woman is like looking at a beautiful sunset. A woman’s beauty, in part, rests in her sexual attractiveness, something a sunset can obviously never convey. And sexual atttractiveness rests in, well, sex, so it’s really a much more dangerous area for the male mind. I can stare and oggle a sunset until the sun goes down, and I won’t have a lustful thought. But more than a few seconds looking at an attractive woman and I"m already bordering on mental sin.

Simply put, pretty women require a lot of caution and sunsets generally do not (although temperance and sensual mortification might call for limits on both).

What’s better yet is, the sexuality of a woman is designed to be shared in a relationship of conjugal love. The conjugal relationship is a mirror of the trinity, God the Father loves God the son and gives us the Spirit of Love.

This relationship also mirrors the love of Christ for His bride, the Church.

The sexuality of a woman is designed to be shared and enjoyed in right relationship, with a spouse, not as a stand-alone object. Anything else is a perversion of God’s purpose. This is not to say that we don’t have sexual thoughts or feelings from seeing a beautiful woman. The crux is, whether of not the woman is seen as, or presented as, a sexual object, outside this relationship.

A sunset is a thing of beauty that can be enjoyed as God’s creation, appreciated as an object.

 

[billcu1]

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.

What was the problem with your magazines. There are many ways to make love to a woman in hindu religion and I think they have some good ideas. Simply singing, playing a musical instrument, painting and I guess that would be like watching or helping put on makeup that one I’m not sure. But I think women’s magazines would be excellet in admiring women. What they like, what they think…I don’t understand the problem there.

 

[prodigalson2011]

What was the problem with your magazines. There are many ways to make love to a woman in hindu religion and I think they have some good ideas. Simply singing, playing a musical instrument, painting and I guess that would be like watching or helping put on makeup that one I’m not sure. But I think women’s magazines would be excellet in admiring women. What they like, what they think…I don’t understand the problem there.

Spoken like someone who has never cracked open an issue of Cosmo. That magazine encourages women to play men for sex. Its founder was a radical anti-marriage/family libertine.

 

[prodigalson2011]

What was the problem with your magazines. There are many ways to make love to a woman in hindu religion and I think they have some good ideas. Simply singing, playing a musical instrument, painting and I guess that would be like watching or helping put on makeup that one I’m not sure. But I think women’s magazines would be excellet in admiring women. What they like, what they think…I don’t understand the problem there.

Spoken like someone who has never cracked open an issue of Cosmo. That magazine encourages women to play men for sex. Its founder was a radical anti-marriage/family libertine.

 

[billcu1]

Spoken like someone who has never cracked open an issue of Cosmo. That magazine encourages women to play men for sex. Its founder was a radical anti-marriage/family libertine.

Yes your right. I was actually thinking more along the lines of a woman’s book like Redbook or Woman’s World. I’ve never looked in Cosmo.

 

[GangGreen]

Truly it depends on your frame of mind.

If you go to Europe, they have topless women on TV and it’s seen as normal. In the US you may see that on HBO or Cinemax, but never on cable TV. However, even in this case, does merely seeing a woman’s breasts constitute sin? No. In the same way, is looking at a model in a bikini a sin? No.

However, the difference is if you look at said woman and think “she’s pretty” or even “she has nice breasts”. This is no different than you thinking that a woman has a pretty face. However, those things are much different than if you look at said woman and think about what you want to do with her sexually or get some sort of arousal from looking at her.

The problem is that A typically leads to B. If you see a beautiful girl walking down the street and you take a look at her “assets” and think about how pretty she looks and then go on your way, it’s different than if you have lustful feelings after you think that. Here, the woman comes and goes and she’s on your mind for a second and then gone. In the same way if there’s a woman in your line of sight and you keep staring at her, it’s obviously for more than just taking a look and admiring her beauty. If you’re buying a magazine specifically because it has beautiful women, then your intent isn’t just to admire.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yes your right. I was actually thinking more along the lines of a woman’s book like Redbook or Woman’s World. I’ve never looked in Cosmo.

You’re better off for it.

 

[edwest2]

How about an artistic nude? I don’t just mean a painting either. Plenty of genuinely artistic photographs of the human form without clothing out there.

Maxim photographs are not meant to convey the beauty of the human form. They’re meant to inspire certain thoughts. If you don’t see that, you’re lying to yourself.

And to the point made by other posters, if you’re not incited into lust from those pictures or even pornographic pictures or videos that’s fine. But the media itself is still intrinsically evil because it’s meant to drive lust.

If, on the other hand, you’re lusting after a modestly dressed person or an artistic nude, the problem is with you.

Plenty of artistic photos? I know of no legitimate source for such photos. Even “photography” magazines portray women as sex objects. Are there beautiful women and exceptional examples of the male form? Yes. Where do they usually appear in photos? At beauty contests that are not meant to objectify the women and at contests such as Mr. Universe which show the male physique as a work of art.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think my friend, all of this is because you have no standard to draw from as to what is inappropriate. To clarify, in the past, one would automatically say that both these magazines are inappropriate. Why? Because the women portrayed in these magazines are dressed inappropriately i.e. will cause temptation to the average viewer. Similarly, a woman will be more than hesitant to dress this way because they will feel “yucky” or “being used”.

This form of knowledge on what is tempting to the average individual as well as instilling a conscious attitude toward what is exposed in women is fostered by Culture. As Bl. JP II indicates in his Theology of the Body, such a fostering is indeed good and the personal sensitivity it instills in one regarding ones body and those of others is reflective of the truth of a human being.

Good news is that this is still the case in some parts of the world. Bad news is that the Western part of the world has more or less completely eradicated such a standard.

So if you asked my mother for an example, she will tell you that both these magazines are inappropriate though she might not be able to justify reasons for her intuition. But most who have grown up in this culture would have to start a whole discussion to analyze the situation using moral theology to try and determine if its good or bad. The problem for them is that the data required to judge if its good or bad (i.e. is it tempting to the average individual) is no longer known. Everyone just gives their opinion from their own experience. This too would be fine if the Culture had instilled a healthy personal sensitivity. BUT, as is stands, our current culture does not do that and instead is built around advocating one to dress as sexually attractive as possible.

Now the short answer to your question is that both the magazines you mentioned are not ok to be purchased for the following reasons.

1. It portrays women wearing inappropriate attire
2. Buying the magazine will promote the magazine and make it the popular standard for women to strive toward
3. It causes temptation for the average man
4. Even if it did not cause temptation to you, it will still cause temptation for the average man and you will be promoting the manufacture of such magazines.

In all this, keep in mind that the main point of what is tempting to the average man was determined by tapping in to the cultural sensibilities that were passed down to me (and ideally to you if you had lived before the whole sexual revolution). Now you might say that this method doesn’t seem foolproof. But the question to you then is “How can you do better?” In my humble opinion and experience, most likely no or someone has not come up with a better solution to my knowledge. Having a GOOD Culture is invaluable just because of things like this.

The data required is no longer known? This is not an accurate statement. The Church has provided guidance in the past. However, let me state this: anyone who is so desensitized to so-called soft porn is like the addict who has gone from low-level drugs to the hardcore stuff.

Viewing a beautiful woman must be done with a mind that understands a beautiful woman in her wholeness is not just the shape of her body or face. Without this learned ability to appreciate and the full stop needed to avoid imagining her as just a collection of parts, we become so desensitized to what we’re actually seeing as to regard it as normal, average or OK to look at girly material. What is required is modest dress, moral speech and behavior, intelligence and a natural joy that comes from having a natural heart that flees corruption from fleeing from sin. A very beautiful friend of mine has all these qualities, but she is always seen by me as fully human, with faults, regardless of her physical appearance. She is attractive because she is more than skin deep and very empathic, funny and exercises proper behavior and practices good judgement, and restraint.

These are the necessary elements. Human dignity demands that all, especially women, be treated with appropriate respect regarding their persons. And I’ve never met a beautiful girl that did not know where she fell on the beauty scale, in disregard for social convention. Example: Her daughter is constantly being called upon by handsome men at least six foot tall or taller, who look like athletes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Waiting patiently while everyone argues enough to realize a totally subject criteria is no criteria at all…

For Catholics, there is a standard. Your statement has no basis in fact. Ask any behavioral scientist.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yes, subjective. Like everything in the last several posts.

The “insistence argument” is no argument at all. This is a Catholic forum. The dignity of the human female person is the subject and should be of concern to all. Women should never be portrayed merely as sex objects. The word decency is in the dictionary and speaking as an artist, it very clear when a work crosses the line, including the work of other contemporary artists I work with, know or whose work I’ve seen.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

On what basis do you create this fact? The only fact I’m aware of is that over time, men are encouraged to view exploitation nudity as bad, then as a little wrong, to not wrong at all. Only by restoring our hearts and minds will we be able to clearly say no. All girly material is wrong. As Catholics, and as human beings, we have standards. As the early missionaries went out to preach the Gospel to the more primitive peoples, did they encourage the women to wear less clothing?

The excuses stop here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

You may live as you wish, but Catholics, at least, have standards. If you don’t like them, that’s up to you and only you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

How in the world can you be on the Internet, and porn just pops up?

I was at the main library of the city I grew up in, and out of the blue, the screen switched to what I wanted to porn. I put my hands over the screen since there were kids in the room playing computer games, and thought of how to go back to where I was but it wouldn’t let me by using the back function. I finally remembered a function key I was told about, hit that, and everything was gone and I was back on the main page.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

The exception might be spam in your mailbox, which you should not be opening anyway, for a number of reasons.

Not so. Since I’m a researcher, I often go to unfamiliar internet sites to get data. One day, I switched on my computer and it had an inappropriate image on it and a link. I asked our computer expert for help and he installed a blocker, over and above the anti-virus software we were using, and the problem ended.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

That has been the formula for decades: get males used to a little, show a little more, go to court, show a little more, go to court and get graphic gynecological porn legalized as “free expression.” This is nothing more that the ‘make a dollar’ exploitation of the female form.

We have been very gradually desensitized by small degrees, especially over the last forty years, as it regards the depiction of the female form and her behavior.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well I guess since someone out there somewhere is going to be pervy over something no matter how modest I guess we should just throw in the towel and have no standards whatsoever. Or better yet, instead of encouraging women to behave and dress modestly we should just wrap them up like mummies so we can’t see them because we can’t handle ourselves in their presence. Great arguments. I’m not buying into it, though. I haven’t given up on humanity and I won’t though you’re welcome to do so.

Okay, now that I have gotten that out of my system I’m going to move onto more pragmatic things.

Discerning whether something is right or wrong for you as an individual (let’s ignore society as a whole for now - if the plane is going down you have to put the mask on yourself before you think about your neighbors much less the whole plane) the first question a man must ask himself is “would I have no qualms whatsoever if my daughter, sister, wife, or mother was doing what this model is doing dressed as she is dressed?”. If the answer is no to any of them, then if you continue to support it with your money or just your gaze on some level you feel that not all women deserve a certain level of dignity, but just the ones you decide are worthy of that. On some level, you feel that your entitlement to that woman’s body trumps her entitlement to the dignity you reserve for women you feel a sense of responsibility towards. That’s just a base secular standard on my part. There’s more questions to be raised if you’re trying to live as a Catholic but not everyone is so anything further wouldn’t apply to them. If we could get all men regardless of belief to get past THAT hypocrisy we’d already change the world to be more in tune with Catholic standards. I hope we don’t get to the point where only devout Catholics don’t want their daughters and mothers posing and dressing in a way to invite sexual feelings towards them from hundreds of random men.

It’s fortunate that not everyone goes into a frenzy of lust when they see an image of a woman on a magazine at a grocery store because our culture shoves it in our faces constantly. But we’re not talking about evasion of sin in spite of the world around us, we’re talking about whether we should bring that piece of the world we live in into our homes.

There are men out there that marry women in the sex industry and are very proud to have a wife whose body is displayed and lusted for by thousands of other men. I have a feeling they have other aspects of their life to look into before they bother with the girly calendar question, however, so I will leave that one alone.

Let’s talk about “our culture” for a moment. Here’s a recent quote I saw on another forum: “Does anybody remember when porn was considered dirty and hard to get?” If you were in charge of cultural exchange for the US Government, what would you send to another country as examples of what “our culture” consists of? Would it include a box of various issues of Maxim, various SI Swimsuit issues and girly calendars?

The term “sex industry” is a fiction. It describes nothing. It obscures the reality of what is actually occurring.

The correct term should be “the sexual exploitation of women for money industry.” That is precise but cannot be used since it is correct and sleazy and might inspire the “wrong” thoughts in men considering buying such material. It would be bad for business.

Just like the “porn industry” can never, ever call itself that. It instead chooses the completely false and totally misleading “Adult Entertainment Industry.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Truly it depends on your frame of mind.

If you go to Europe, they have topless women on TV and it’s seen as normal. In the US you may see that on HBO or Cinemax, but never on cable TV. However, even in this case, does merely seeing a woman’s breasts constitute sin? No. In the same way, is looking at a model in a bikini a sin? No.

However, the difference is if you look at said woman and think “she’s pretty” or even “she has nice breasts”. This is no different than you thinking that a woman has a pretty face. However, those things are much different than if you look at said woman and think about what you want to do with her sexually or get some sort of arousal from looking at her.

The problem is that A typically leads to B. If you see a beautiful girl walking down the street and you take a look at her “assets” and think about how pretty she looks and then go on your way, it’s different than if you have lustful feelings after you think that. Here, the woman comes and goes and she’s on your mind for a second and then gone. In the same way if there’s a woman in your line of sight and you keep staring at her, it’s obviously for more than just taking a look and admiring her beauty. If you’re buying a magazine specifically because it has beautiful women, then your intent isn’t just to admire.

What is appropriate about seeing a woman’s bare breasts on TV? What is appropriate about seeing a woman expose over 90% of her body in a bikini?

Note: I am never going to a beach in the US again.

Peace,
Ed