Husband's dirty magazines

[Bennie_P]

Has it occurred to anyone that he likes to READ Playboy Magazine?

I’ve picked up a Playboy Magazine a time or two (at friend’s and relatives houses) and found the articles to be quite interesting.

Being ashamed of naked women is a purely PURITANICAL phenomenon, not to be found in the Catholic Church, outside of Protestant/Puritanical United States.

Any type of pornography is exploitation of women( and even children). This has nothing to do being puritanical, that was Hugh Hefner’s argument.

*You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. *
Matthew 5:27-28

trueknights.org/pornography.html

 

[shirleytowers]

it isn’t puritanical and it isn’t just naked women, it is women masturbating and suchlike, with full regalia exposed for all the world to see. It is not okay everywhere but the US. If you go to Asia or the Americas, porn is not accepted in polite society and no one wants their wife to star in the spread. Good grief, if a woman goes to Thailand and wears shorts, they will politely hand her a more modest sarong. In Europe, they don’t like it either, but they tolerate it because they just don’t care enough to do anything about it.

I am sooo sick of this “blame America” “America is so stupid” stuff.

 

[chevalier]

Has it occurred to anyone that he likes to READ Playboy Magazine?

I’ve picked up a Playboy Magazine a time or two (at friend’s and relatives houses) and found the articles to be quite interesting.

Being ashamed of naked women is a purely PURITANICAL phenomenon, not to be found in the Catholic Church, outside of Protestant/Puritanical United States.

I’m sorry but skinny dipping with friends is one thing and porn is another. Nudity per se is not wrong or sinful, but the uses of it may well be and mostly are. Playboy is neither a medical journal, nor an artistic periodical. The photos of women are perhaps not in as demeaning poses or situations as in other magazines (I’m making an educated guess here), but the intent is to incite lust.

If nudity were so neutral and casual as you are implying, there would be no need for porn. People would casually strip naked for the pool or beach or some sports, family members or friends would change clothes in each other’s presence and so on, which doesn’t happen and is not going to happen any time soon. I don’t know about secularist environments in some countries in Europe, but here in Poland we definitely do not see that as normal (a minority “we”, Catholics who care enough) and I remember a priest forcefully saying that watching pornography was a mortal sin and one should not go to communion.

I’m neither ashamed of my body nor particularly of naked women in art (my father is an artist and yes, he has painted and sculpted that), but I somehow do not feel puritanical for not buying porn magazines or going to naturist beaches or whatever such. Playboy is a part of the sex industry. It’s intuitively different from art, even artistic photography, which I don’t find altogether appropriate, although if there’s no exploitation and no discomfort on the part of the model, who is not married, and the audience is not looking to lust, then I abstain from judgement and who knows, maybe I would take a look for the artistic value of it. It’s not like I skip the nude paintings if I go to a museum. There are many in the Vatican Museums, actually. But Playboy is different.

Besides, if it were only about the aesthetic beauty of the female body, I doubt a decent man would stick to it if his wife were hurt by it. I would hide or get rid of the nude statue and painting that I own if a girlfriend or wife had a problem with it, for instance (or any person living with me). When the wife’s feelings count less than some magazine with nude women, it doesn’t even matter if it’s really sexual or if the wife just sees it like that. The wife is simply more important. Much more. Infinitely more. It’s the sexual side of it which makes the man want to look despite his wife’s hurt feelings.

Besides, one doesn’t have a wife to look at some women who show themselves to the world. Come on, if you have a good, caring, compassionate, kind, saintly even sometimes, Catholic woman who will sleep with you, especially if she’s “beautiful to look at” (loose quote from Esther), what else do you need from life in that regard? Shouldn’t you be insanely happy already? What’s the deal with looking at loose women if you can have much more with a lawful wife in a holy relationship?

 

[Joseph_Mary]

Is Playboy Magazine not “art” because it is photography?

I haven’t actually looked at a Playboy Magazine in a LONG time - 20+ years perhaps - but I can tell you that the last time I saw one, the pictures of the women were tastefully done; yes, they were beautiful, “sexy” even.

Is it sinful to be beautiful, sexy?

Is it sinful to have those traits while posing for a picture (by the way, one doesn’t have to be nude to have those traits)?

You people remind me of John Ashcroft, who, while Attorney General of the United States, was so ashamed of nudity, that he had a curtain covering some statues with bare bosoms, which would have been shown on television during a press conference.

As for St Joseph, would he have had a Playboy magazine? I don’t know, but if he were a football fan, he might have, because I think they have a pretty good round-up of the various teams at the beginning of the season…ANYWAY, I maintain that nudity isn’t sinful, per se. Sure, decency in dress is important in the public space (especially at Eucharist - what’s with people wearing shorts, tank-tops, flip-flops, etc.?) but if somebody wants to celebrate the beauty of the nude female, that shouldn’t be judged a sin, even if some people are brought to lust by those pictures. The lust is their own sin, not the sin of the girl, the photographer, or they guy down the street that happens to enjoy the magazine for it’s articles.

 

[Peterdiago]

Is it sinful to be beautiful, sexy?

I hope not, because my wife would be going straight to Hell!

Is it sinful to have those traits while posing for a picture (by the way, one doesn’t have to be nude to have those traits)?

It is certainly not sinful to be sexually attractive - it is, in fact, a good thing which God has made. However, just as it is perfectly fine and even morally good to be fit and healthy and strong, to use your strength to bully others is wrong.

The same applies to sexuality - it is morally wrong for a person to deliberately go out and attempt to create lust in another person.

Playboy is one of the “tamer” publications - the women are universally sexy and attractive, but they are not in explicit poses for the most part. I cannot comment on the motivations of Playmates or the photographers, but I suspect that the intention is to create sexual desire in places where it should not be created.

A woman dressing attractively but who does not wish to create sexual desire, but rather wishes to be enjoyed, is a different kettle of fish to a Playmate.

“The desiring of the desiring of ones beauty is the vanity of Lilith, the desiring of the enjoying of ones beauty is the obedience of Eve.”

As for St Joseph, would he have had a Playboy magazine? I don’t know, but if he were a football fan, he might have, because I think they have a pretty good round-up of the various teams at the beginning of the season.

I would suggest he wouldn’t have done - he would have had a magazine that didn’t have pictures of naked girls spread all over it. You seriously suggest that the spouse of Our Lady would have chosen to have a magazine which contains something that can very easilly be considered porn?

ANYWAY, I maintain that nudity isn’t sinful, per se.

And you are in good company because the Church agrees with you.

if somebody wants to celebrate the beauty of the nude female, that shouldn’t be judged a sin, even if some people are brought to lust by those pictures. The lust is their own sin, not the sin of the girl, the photographer, or they guy down the street that happens to enjoy the magazine for it’s articles.

If we were talking about the lingerie section of a mail-order catalogue, you might have a case - the teenage boy who takes those while his mother is out of the house and looks at the pictures and has lustful thoughts bears full guilt; those pictures are designed to model the clothes and not to arouse lust. Certainly, the models are beautiful - but they are generally in modest poses (this does not apply to much of the Victoria Secrets catalogue, however!)

But we are taking about Playboy - a magazine which showcases nude women. These women often have looks of simulated sexual enjoyment on their faces, or have their hands in self-pleasuring positions, or are shown stripping or otherwise in a sexual situation.

Certainly - the man who walks down the street, sees a pretty girl dressed in a long skirt, jacket and blouse and has lustful thoughts is solely guilty. The guy who buys Playboy and has lustful thoughts over the centerfold who is pretending to be sexually aroused shares his guilt with the girl, the photographer, the publisher and the peole who chose to sell that magazine.

 

[chevalier]

Is Playboy Magazine not “art” because it is photography?

It is not art because the aim is not artistic expression but the incitement of lust.

I haven’t actually looked at a Playboy Magazine in a LONG time - 20+ years perhaps - but I can tell you that the last time I saw one, the pictures of the women were tastefully done; yes, they were beautiful, “sexy” even.

Is the last part especially attractive in it?

s it sinful to be beautiful, sexy?

If by sexy you mean intentionally causing arousal in a non-spouse then yes.

Is it sinful to have those traits while posing for a picture (by the way, one doesn’t have to be nude to have those traits)?

It is a sin to pose for a picture counted on awakening sex drive and to drive lookers to sin.

Sexuality is meant as a gift between spouses, not as something used to entice or please the general public. Posing for sexually aimed pictures is a lesser form of prostitution.

You people remind me of John Ashcroft, who, while Attorney General of the United States, was so ashamed of nudity, that he had a curtain covering some statues with bare bosoms, which would have been shown on television during a press conference.

You probably missed a good part of my post then.

As for St Joseph, would he have had a Playboy magazine?

No.

I don’t know, but if he were a football fan, he might have,

No, not really.

because I think they have a pretty good round-up of the various teams at the beginning of the season…

Which he could find elsewhere or live without.

ANYWAY, I maintain that nudity isn’t sinful, per se.

So do I.

Sure, decency in dress is important in the public space (especially at Eucharist - what’s with people wearing shorts, tank-tops, flip-flops, etc.?) but if somebody wants to celebrate the beauty of the nude female, that shouldn’t be judged a sin,

Excuse me, but is tank top in church bad, but being nude for all to buy in a kiosque is all right? How can you have a problem with tank tops if you don’t have a problem with public nudity on glossy pages?

Celebrating the beauty of the nude female in one’s locked bathroom?

Or celebrating the sexuality of the nude female?

even if some people are brought to lust by those pictures.

The pictures are aimed to cause lust.

The lust is their own sin, not the sin of the girl, the photographer, or they guy down the street that happens to enjoy the magazine for it’s articles.

If pictures are aimed to cause lust, the lusting is intended by the photographer and the model who are paid to take and pose for pictures aimed at inciting lust, and do so willingly. That’s a sin. The guy who likes the magazine for its articles may or may not be putting himself in occasion of sin. Financing the sex industry is an additional problem.

 

[jules11]

Is Playboy Magazine not “art” because it is photography?

I haven’t actually looked at a Playboy Magazine in a LONG time - 20+ years perhaps - but I can tell you that the last time I saw one, the pictures of the women were tastefully done; yes, they were beautiful, “sexy” even.

Is it sinful to be beautiful, sexy?

Is it sinful to have those traits while posing for a picture (by the way, one doesn’t have to be nude to have those traits)?

You people remind me of John Ashcroft, who, while Attorney General of the United States, was so ashamed of nudity, that he had a curtain covering some statues with bare bosoms, which would have been shown on television during a press conference.

As for St Joseph, would he have had a Playboy magazine? I don’t know, but if he were a football fan, he might have, because I think they have a pretty good round-up of the various teams at the beginning of the season…ANYWAY, I maintain that nudity isn’t sinful, per se. Sure, decency in dress is important in the public space (especially at Eucharist - what’s with people wearing shorts, tank-tops, flip-flops, etc.?) but if somebody wants to celebrate the beauty of the nude female, that shouldn’t be judged a sin, even if some people are brought to lust by those pictures. The lust is their own sin, not the sin of the girl, the photographer, or they guy down the street that happens to enjoy the magazine for it’s articles.

What a cop out. If you are a married man, you should be looking at your wife naked. NO OTHER WOMAN.
If you are a single man, you should not be looking at naked women to incite lustful thoughts. Sex is for marriage and nakedness as portrayed in playboy is for self pleasure and lust. NO other reason.
It is a sin for a woman to pose for playboy. It is a sin for the photographer to photograph for playboy.
It is not a sin to be beautiful but it can be sinful to use that beauty to cause someone else to lust. It is a sin to use yourself a sex object.
I’m sorry, but you are WRONG. It is a sin. It is indecent. It is wrong.
Would you be scandalised if your parish priest read playboy?
I would!
It is not ok to even use the weak excuse that someone reads it for it’s articles. There are far more magazines or books for that matter, that you could get for their ‘articles’
It is just an excuse.

And it is insulting and almost sacrilegious to insinuate that St. Joseph would ever look at such rubbish. His mission was to help bring God to the world. He was the foster father of Jesus. This is scandalous to say such ridiculous things!!

It is PORNOGRAPHY. Pure and simple.
Don’t make excuses for sin.

 

[litllulu]

What a cop out. If you are a married man, you should be looking at your wife naked. NO OTHER WOMAN.
If you are a single man, you should not be looking at naked women to incite lustful thoughts. Sex is for marriage and nakedness as portrayed in playboy is for self pleasure and lust. NO other reason.
It is a sin for a woman to pose for playboy. It is a sin for the photographer to photograph for playboy.
It is not a sin to be beautiful but it can be sinful to use that beauty to cause someone else to lust. It is a sin to use yourself a sex object.
I’m sorry, but you are WRONG. It is a sin. It is indecent. It is wrong.
Would you be scandalised if your parish priest read playboy?
I would!
It is not ok to even use the weak excuse that someone reads it for it’s articles. There are far more magazines or books for that matter, that you could get for their ‘articles’
It is just an excuse.

And it is insulting and almost sacrilegious to insinuate that St. Joseph would ever look at such rubbish. His mission was to help bring God to the world. He was the foster father of Jesus. This is scandalous to say such ridiculous things!!

It is PORNOGRAPHY. Pure and simple.
Don’t make excuses for sin.

That seems so simple and true, can you imagine if we lived in a country that embraced that? Imagine how different it would be. I am convinced, this is the entire root cause of homosexuality, pornography, abortion, Aritificial contraception, rape, and the other dispicable crimes. The problem is, we have men paying to see it, and women willing to do it! It is a no win situation!

 

[chevalier]

The other factor is that maybe not in case of Playboy, but with other, really dodgy porn, there are ties with the mafia, those guys who force women into prostitution. Who knows if they were posing voluntarily? How would a guy react to a photo of a nude woman bending over in some demeaning position if he knew she could have taken a bullet to her head if she had refused? Or another one in a horizontal position if he knew she had been drugged up before? You just be a moral person and keep looking at that without asking yourself if those women really wanted to do it. Even if you called it artistic, would you really be able to keep looking at her sad artsy face thinking that perhaps the sadness was not acted but real? What if that woman was married or got married later? What if she quit and regretted that it was impossible to have the pictures pulled? What if she later converted to Christianity? Chances are many. If not a husband and/or children, or maybe some boyfriend, all of them has a father and a mother, and maybe siblings. How would you feel if your daughter did that? Or sister? Wouldn’t the perspective change?

 

[Jay2]

It is a sin for a woman to pose for playboy. It is a sin for the photographer to photograph for playboy.

There was a squad of people a few hundred years ago (Church Officials at the head of it) that took chisel & hammer, or paint & brush to examples of sculpture and portrait.

These works are now considered “Priceless Art”… even though the genitals are chiseled off, or an exposed breast was crudely slopped over with paint… Thousands of dollars and labor-hours have been spent un-doing the damage dictated by the powers of the time.

500 years ago the medium was either stone, or paint & canvas. Today it is a CCD imager/camera, and the Internet. The subject matter is the same! The nude (usually female) body!

I will concede that the situation in which the nude is portrayed has changed, but that is only a circumstance of what society has deemed acceptable. In defense of Playboy, they are probably the only publication of its nature to publish nudes in some reasonable context of art/beauty of the female form.

 

[jules11]

=Jay2;1980939]There was a squad of people a few hundred years ago (Church Officials at the head of it) that took chisel & hammer, or paint & brush to examples of sculpture and portrait.

These works are now considered “Priceless Art”… even though the genitals are chiseled off, or an exposed breast was crudely slopped over with paint… Thousands of dollars and labor-hours have been spent un-doing the damage dictated by the powers of the time.

500 years ago the medium was either stone, or paint & canvas. Today it is a CCD imager/camera, and the Internet. The subject matter is the same! The nude (usually female) body!

There is a vast difference between naked women carved out of stone and/or painted and photographed women.They are stone and canvas. In most works of art such as these, you could not recognise the particular woman if you saw her again. SHE wasn’t real! She is not flesh and blood. Photographs ARE real women. They are real people. And most paintings and sculptures were done tastefully and were not erotic poses where the women had looks on their faces that simulated sexual arousal.
They are NOT the same. You cannot compare. Playboy is meant to cause arousal in men. These paintings were portraying the beauty of the woman.

I will concede that the situation in which the nude is portrayed has changed, but that is only a circumstance of what society has deemed acceptable. In defense of Playboy, they are probably the only publication of its nature to publish nudes in some reasonable context of art/beauty of the female form.

I do not agree. They do not publish them to show the beauty of the female form. They are portrayed as sex objects. They have faces, names, feelings, lives… sculptures do not.
They are meant to excite. That’s what MOST men buy them for. How many men do you know that would buy a playboy magazine and not use it for personal gratification??
What about what the magazine represents? or who and what it finances? Hugh Hefners hedonistic lifestyle, where he actively has sex with many many women.
Sin is sin. Do not cover it up with fancy words and weak comparisons. I get so tired of hearing people downplay pornography, of defending this kind of thing. The pornography business is a muliti billion dollar a year business and who does it help? What good does it do? NONE. It makes objects of women, slaves of men, makes rich those who run it hurts a lot of people; ruins marriages, blackens souls. It is evil.
Yes, women are beautiful. The woman’s body is beautiful but God wants us to use the beauty modesty and in a holy way.
There is NOTHING modest or HOLY about playboy.
It’s not hard to work this out…would Jesus approve? I know He wouldn’t.

 

[jules11]

And I also doubt no man got aroused at the sight of a statueor painting or any woman was threatened by her husband looking at one.
I don’t think statues or paintings of nude women would be an image that would stay in one’s mind many months or years after having seen it. Women in porn magazines have that affect.
Jesus warned about ‘lusting after women, and commiting adultery in his heart’.

 

[Jay2]

There is a vast difference between naked women carved out of stone and/or painted and photographed women.They are stone and canvas. In most works of art such as these, you could not recognise the particular woman if you saw her again. SHE wasn’t real! She is not flesh and blood.

And the artist carved/painted the object from memory?

NO… there must have been a model. Somewhere in the course of the creation of this painting/sculpture somebody was willingly naked and totally exposed to the artist… and willing to have their likeness immortalized on canvas or in stone.

There’s no difference. The only variable is that now because of modern technology nudity (and it’s perversions) are more easily available.

 

[whatevergirl]

The odd thing with it all is that he had it sent home…if he wanted to hide something, he wouldn’t have sent it home. But, that being said…I’d talk with my husband…and use ‘I’ instead of ‘you this’ or that…I would simply say how this hurt your feelings…and ask why he got it? ( I would like to just hear the answer)

In all seriousness…men who frequently look at dirty magazines (not a teenager who is stumbles across one maybe at a friend’s party or something) whereby it becomes habit…he’s paying for a subscription…might need some help in how he views women. You can’t serve God, and serve man. If he respects women, he would see the ‘wrongness’ in looking at naked women…especially being married.

AND BY THE WAY…LOOKING AT PORN, HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHETHER A MAN OR WOMAN IS HAPPY WITH THEIR MATE…OR ‘GETTING IT’ ENOUGH. Affairs are the same way. I have known many ‘seemingly’ sexually happy couples…who husbands strayed for another…who viewed porn. It actually has more to do with a lack of respect for women, than it does being unhappy in a marriage. (just my $.02)

So…don’t despair. I would talk with him though. And, please keep us posted.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

OK, I haven’t read all the responses but I have to say (just reading the first few) you were NOT wrong in cancelling the subscription or throwing the magazine away. Porn is a HUGE stumbling block for men. My husband developed a serious addiction to porn and it started “innocently” with porn magazines. Your job as his wife is to help him get to heaven, his job as a husband is to help you get to heaven. Allowing porn in your house won’t help either of you and could lead to the end of your marriage (mine came very close to ending).

 

[whatevergirl]

OK, I haven’t read all the responses but I have to say (just reading the first few) you were NOT wrong in cancelling the subscription or throwing the magazine away. Porn is a HUGE stumbling block for men. My husband developed a serious addiction to porn and it started “innocently” with porn magazines. Your job as his wife is to help him get to heaven, his job as a husband is to help you get to heaven. Allowing porn in your house won’t help either of you and could lead to the end of your marriage (mine came very close to ending).

that was beautifully stated. i’m not sure i would have cancelled the subscription…but i can see the reason why it would make sense to do so. really nice reply.

 

[chevalier]

I’m a lawyer, I probably wouldn’t be able to overcome the inhibition from infringing on someone’s property that way. Plus the free will and the fact the other spouse is an adult… As I wouldn’t “forbid” anything to my hypothetical future wife just because I’m the guy, I wouldn’t probably cancel anything. Depends, don’t know, but even if I did, I would certainly feel as if I had broken a rule. However, I can understand what leads to such decisions and I will not argue that they are wrong.

 

[mariam1976]

i havent seen asella who started this thread after she said that her marriage was over… i hope she is doing ok…!!!

 

[jules11]

And the artist carved/painted the object from memory?

NO… there must have been a model. Somewhere in the course of the creation of this painting/sculpture somebody was willingly naked and totally exposed to the artist… and willing to have their likeness immortalized on canvas or in stone.

There’s no difference. The only variable is that now because of modern technology nudity (and it’s perversions) are more easily available.

This is right off the track, we are not talking about who created it. We are talking about the effect it has on people. You are clutching at straws to make your point. Who cares who photographed the women in playboy? The whole intent is for those pictures to cause arousal. I doubt if a marble nude would.
If you can’t see the difference then… well what can I say?

 

[Gamera]

I’m a lawyer …

Me too. Good — you know what they say, two lawyers can make a living in a place where one can’t.