Is it okay to watch "Naked and Afraid"?

[Leo2014]

In response to the first. If something causes you personally to sin, don’t do it. There are certain things that I would refrain from watching because they would be occasions of sin for me, but not necessarily for others. There are people who could likely watch a sensual love story without it evoking any feelings of inappropriate desires. I can watch violent films without feeling any desire to act out unjust violence on others.

True that not everyone is lead to sin by the same temptations. But the reason that I cannot be in complete support of your argument is that we do have a responsibility to others. Part of that responsibility is with the message we convey. Yes, this can be supported Biblically.

I one time watched an interview with Quentin Tarantino; he got upset when it was brought up about how violent his movies are and the amount of killing and vulgarity portrayed within them. Now, if someone was to start a violent rage resulting from one of his movies, there would be those that feel the movie had nothing to do with the outbreak. I am certain Mr. Tarantino would take a step back and claim “no foul”! Somewhere in time, we are going to have to start taking responsibility. The envelope keeps getting pushed wider when it comes to what is acceptable viewing content for public consumption.

Let me ask; would a show like “Naked and Afraid” ever get pass the sensor 20 years ago? Oh, but it’s OK, the characters are blurred. Maybe there is nothing sexual about this specific programming. But, times have change and we keep pushing the envelope. Just look at the content of what is acceptable family viewing. Remember, there was a time when even mentioning that one was gay wasn’t permitted on television. Now the entire family can sit down and watch them.

 

[FreeEver]

Come on folks, let’s get real. This is very close to Soft Porn. Another TV show out there, “Dating Naked” mimics this garbage. Sadly, the way the culture is headed in this country (USA), these type of programs will become the norm within a decade or sooner.

Mr. Hefner, Mr. Guccione, and Mr. Flynt have moved this country in the direction of the days of Rome.

God Bless and Peace to all.

 

[AMFV]

Like I said before, it’s hard to believe that Catholics actually defend programs like this. To compare Catholic Modesty to puritanism is another big stretch. God Bless, Memaw

It’s not the program I’m defending it’s the unfounded assertion that watching it is sinful.

True that not everyone is lead to sin by the same temptations. But the reason that I cannot be in complete support of your argument is that we do have a responsibility to others. Part of that responsibility is with the message we convey. Yes, this can be supported Biblically.

But everything can be temptation for somebody, we do have a responsibility to protect others. But not all others, if I have a friend who I know would have a problem because of this show I would not watch it with them, mention it to them, and I would discourage them from watching it if they brought it up.

However if we ban anything that could be an occasion of sin for somebody, we would ban literally everything, because anything can be an occasion of sin, depending on the context and associations you have with it.

I one time watched an interview with Quentin Tarantino; he got upset when it was brought up about how violent his movies are and the amount of killing and vulgarity portrayed within them. Now, if someone was to start a violent rage resulting from one of his movies, there would be those that feel the movie had nothing to do with the outbreak. I am certain Mr. Tarantino would take a step back and claim “no foul”! Somewhere in time, we are going to have to start taking responsibility. The envelope keeps getting pushed wider when it comes to what is acceptable viewing content for public consumption.

I don’t think that you can blame a movie for a killing spree. That responsibility lies with the person. Now a person who is prone to rage, might watch a movie and be gratified by it, which could potentially be sinful. A more difficult argument though since violence is not necessarily sinful, in the same way that sexual actions outside of marriage are.

Let me ask; would a show like “Naked and Afraid” ever get pass the sensor 20 years ago? Oh, but it’s OK, the characters are blurred. Maybe there is nothing sexual about this specific programming. But, times have change and we keep pushing the envelope. Just look at the content of what is acceptable family viewing. Remember, there was a time when even mentioning that one was gay wasn’t permitted on television. Now the entire family can sit down and watch them.

I agree that there is a significant pushing of the envelope, but I do not feel that there is by and large more sinful action than there was 20 years ago. I suspect it is exactly the same. Now the methods by which people are sinning have changed.

Come on folks, let’s get real. This is very close to Soft Porn. Another TV show out there, “Dating Naked” mimics this garbage. Sadly, the way the culture is headed in this country (USA), these type of programs will become the norm within a decade or sooner.

Mr. Hefner, Mr. Guccione, and Mr. Flynt have moved this country in the direction of the days of Rome.

God Bless and Peace to all.

This isn’t anything like soft porn, which is intended to titillate, as is “Dating Naked”, a show that I would defend less than this show. We have here nudity in a NON-SEXUAL context, it is intended to raise the stakes of the survival experience. Not all nudity is sexual. And a show where everybody is clothed and acting in a more provocative fashion would be far more sinful.

 

[Memaw]

It’s not the program I’m defending it’s the unfounded assertion that watching it is sinful.

But everything can be temptation for somebody, we do have a responsibility to protect others. But not all others, if I have a friend who I know would have a problem because of this show I would not watch it with them, mention it to them, and I would discourage them from watching it if they brought it up.

However if we ban anything that could be an occasion of sin for somebody, we would ban literally everything, because anything can be an occasion of sin, depending on the context and associations you have with it.

I don’t think that you can blame a movie for a killing spree. That responsibility lies with the person. Now a person who is prone to rage, might watch a movie and be gratified by it, which could potentially be sinful. A more difficult argument though since violence is not necessarily sinful, in the same way that sexual actions outside of marriage are.

I agree that there is a significant pushing of the envelope, but I do not feel that there is by and large more sinful action than there was 20 years ago. I suspect it is exactly the same. Now the methods by which people are sinning have changed.

This isn’t anything like soft porn, which is intended to titillate, as is “Dating Naked”, a show that I would defend less than this show. We have here nudity in a NON-SEXUAL context, it is intended to raise the stakes of the survival experience. Not all nudity is sexual. And a show where everybody is clothed and acting in a more provocative fashion would be far more sinful.

Why the need for nudity at all. Those acting in the program are sinning, doesn’t that mean anything to you? And who knows what it is doing to some of those that watch it, in which they are somewhat responsible for. The blurring doesn’t cover enough. And why do they blur anything if it’s so great. Just the fact that they feel they have to blur any part of it shows that they know it isn’t right to uses nude people . You have your own ideas about what you wish to believe but the Church would NOT agree with you at all. God Bless, Memaw

 

[AMFV]

Why the need for nudity at all. Those acting in the program are sinning, doesn’t that mean anything to you? And who knows what it is doing to some of those that watch it, in which they are somewhat responsible for. The blurring doesn’t cover enough. And why do they blur anything if it’s so great. Just the fact that they feel they have to blur any part of it shows that they know it isn’t right to uses nude people . You have your own ideas about what you wish to believe but the Church would NOT agree with you at all. God Bless, Memaw

Cite the source for your claim that being nude is sinning. Seriously. Cite it. It’s not in the Catechism section on Modesty, which in fact limits modesty to sexual temptation which this is not. It’s not in any encyclicals as far as I am aware. We don’t even observe their nudity. Again I did a search for this very thing and found nothing, so either you are claiming an authority beyond that of the Magesterium, which is a VERY dangerous thing to be doing, or you are acting on some supposition of which I am unaware.

 

[Memaw]

Cite the source for your claim that being nude is sinning. Seriously. Cite it. It’s not in the Catechism section on Modesty, which in fact limits modesty to sexual temptation which this is not. It’s not in any encyclicals as far as I am aware. We don’t even observe their nudity. Again I did a search for this very thing and found nothing, so either you are claiming an authority beyond that of the Magesterium, which is a VERY dangerous thing to be doing, or you are acting on some supposition of which I am unaware.

My Mom used to call that having a 'one track mind." I don’t think I am the one on the VERY “dangerous” thing as you call it. Your not going to listen to anyone here. You need to talk to a priest. Prayers and God Bless, Memaw

 

[AMFV]

My Mom used to call that having a 'one track mind." I don’t think I am the one on the VERY “dangerous” thing as you call it. Your not going to listen to anyone here. You need to talk to a priest. Prayers and God Bless, Memaw

I definitely don’t have a “one track mind” since I see nothing particularly sexual in that case of nudity. If I had, as you allege, a “one track mind” I would perceive the nudity as sexual. And again I’m only stating that one should be very aware of what the Church teaches before accusing others, particularly complete strangers as the actors in that show likely are to you, of being sinful.

 

[truetofaith]

Somewhere in the New Test. it says that it’s sinful to engage in foolish arguments…

That is what this Thread has become.

I’ll observe but no more comments.

 

[truetofaith]

Somewhere in the New Test. it says that it’s sinful to engage in foolish arguments…

That is what this Thread has become.

I’ll observe but no more comments.

I found it…Titus 3 : 9-11 " Avoid foolish controversies & genealogies & arguments …etc…they are unprofitable & useless. Warn a divisive person, once, twice, then have nothing to do with him…etc. …he is self-condemned."

 

[Leo2014]

I found it…Titus 3 : 9-11 " Avoid foolish controversies & genealogies & arguments …etc…they are unprofitable & useless. Warn a divisive person, once, twice, then have nothing to do with him…etc. …he is self-condemned."

I hope this topic is still a “discussion”? I also would not use the word “divisive” to describe my fellow Interlocutors. I think if you can summarize anything from this topic, is that people have a different perspective on what is sin.

I admitted earlier, that I never had seen this show (I am not a big fan of television - so I never heard of it). Just this morning, I looked up the show on YouTube and watched 20mins of one episode. In my opinion; it is not sinful. I am not certain if it even qualifies as voyeurism? I would describe it more as macabre; the show places two individuals in an extreme survival situation. Then I guess we are to find entertainment with their struggles? My question is; does a person come back each week to watch? After the trial period, you introduce another couple to start the whole process again? Next time, in order to continue capturing an audience; do you have to raise the stakes?

In regards to the couple encountering the adventure; we have to wonder about their common sense? They are naked for 21 days with a member of the opposite sex that is not their spouse. Both participants in the episode I watched were married, the young lady had a 14 month old child at home. Unless they are fooling everyone and all the events are taking place in a backlot somewhere, they can potentially risk unnecessary harm. I think from the Producers standpoint; an accident will only increase ratings or if the couple begins to have an inclination towards each other…I don’t plan to watch any more.

But ending with your quote; I do my best to not be condemning. Catholics for too long have had a reputation of maintaining a rapier condemnation towards others. This is not healthy and we are no less a sinner. What I have been stating in regards to this topic is that we do have a double standard. Don’t allow ourselves to support content that we do not believe is good.

 

[truetofaith]

I hope this topic is still a “discussion”? I also would not use the word “divisive” to describe my fellow Interlocutors. I think if you can summarize anything from this topic, is that people have a different perspective on what is sin.

I admitted earlier, that I never had seen this show (I am not a big fan of television - so I never heard of it). Just this morning, I looked up the show on YouTube and watched 20mins of one episode. In my opinion; it is not sinful. I am not certain if it even qualifies as voyeurism? I would describe it more as macabre; the show places two individuals in an extreme survival situation. Then I guess we are to find entertainment with their struggles? My question is; does a person come back each week to watch? After the trial period, you introduce another couple to start the whole process again? Next time, in order to continue capturing an audience; do you have to raise the stakes?

In regards to the couple encountering the adventure; we have to wonder about their common sense? They are naked for 21 days with a member of the opposite sex that is not their spouse. Both participants in the episode I watched were married, the young lady had a 14 month old child at home. Unless they are fooling everyone and all the events are taking place in a backlot somewhere, they can potentially risk unnecessary harm. I think from the Producers standpoint; an accident will only increase ratings or if the couple begins to have an inclination towards each other…I don’t plan to watch any more.

But ending with your quote; I do my best to not be condemning. Catholics for too long have had a reputation of maintaining a rapier condemnation towards others. This is not healthy and we are no less a sinner. What I have been stating in regards to this topic is that we do have a double standard. Don’t allow ourselves to support content that we do not believe is good.

There should be only one perspective on what is sin…10 Commandments & what the Bible & Church says is sin.
If Naked & Afraid puts impure thoughts into someone’s head…it’s sin!

 

[Memaw]

I hope this topic is still a “discussion”? I also would not use the word “divisive” to describe my fellow Interlocutors. I think if you can summarize anything from this topic, is that people have a different perspective on what is sin.

I admitted earlier, that I never had seen this show (I am not a big fan of television - so I never heard of it). Just this morning, I looked up the show on YouTube and watched 20mins of one episode. In my opinion; it is not sinful. I am not certain if it even qualifies as voyeurism? I would describe it more as macabre; the show places two individuals in an extreme survival situation. Then I guess we are to find entertainment with their struggles? My question is; does a person come back each week to watch? After the trial period, you introduce another couple to start the whole process again? Next time, in order to continue capturing an audience; do you have to raise the stakes?

In regards to the couple encountering the adventure; we have to wonder about their common sense? They are naked for 21 days with a member of the opposite sex that is not their spouse. Both participants in the episode I watched were married, the young lady had a 14 month old child at home. Unless they are fooling everyone and all the events are taking place in a backlot somewhere, they can potentially risk unnecessary harm. I think from the Producers standpoint; an accident will only increase ratings or if the couple begins to have an inclination towards each other…I don’t plan to watch any more.

But ending with your quote; I do my best to not be condemning. Catholics for too long have had a reputation of maintaining a rapier condemnation towards others. This is not healthy and we are no less a sinner. What I have been stating in regards to this topic is that we do have a double standard. Don’t allow ourselves to support content that we do not believe is good.

I doubt they are in much danger, health wise, they have a camera crew following them every where they go. Some one told me they also have a medical crew with them. Now lets get one thing straight, I am not judging the souls of those actors or those who watch them. That’s up to GOD, but I am judging their actions according to Church teaching. CCC, 2521.
“Purity requires Modesty, and integral part of temperance. Modesty PROTECTS the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.” There’s more, you can read it for yourself. This is and always has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Just because society tells us otherwise, doesn’t make it right. God Bless, Memaw

 

[grasscutter]

I don’t watch the show, but if I did, I doubt it would lead me to impure thoughts. The fact that the participants are nude (with parts blurred - in a survival situation) isn’t quite prurient enough to inspire me to have any sinful and impure thoughts/actions.

God bless, grasscutter.

 

[AMFV]

There should be only one perspective on what is sin…10 Commandments & what the Bible & Church says is sin.
If Naked & Afraid puts impure thoughts into someone’s head…it’s sin!

But what if I have a thing for feet and therefore anything that shows exposed feet leads me to sin? What if something makes me revel in a sinful memory but is in and of itself innocent?

Again, if something brings you to sin, you should stop that action. That’s simple, but if your motivations for watching “Naked and Afraid” are not in and of themselves sinful, and if the show doesn’t lead you to sinful thoughts, I see no issue with it.

I doubt they are in much danger, health wise, they have a camera crew following them every where they go. Some one told me they also have a medical crew with them. Now lets get one thing straight, I am not judging the souls of those actors or those who watch them. That’s up to GOD, but I am judging their actions according to Church teaching. CCC, 2521.
“Purity requires Modesty, and integral part of temperance. Modesty PROTECTS the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.” There’s more, you can read it for yourself. This is and always has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Just because society tells us otherwise, doesn’t make it right. God Bless, Memaw

Yes, and there is no explicit teaching on exactly what that means. Modesty is not only cultural (again should we go to Africa and force the Church there to be clothed by our own modesty). But contextual, if I am naked in a shower am I sinning? If I am naked before my spouse am I sinning?

I ask again, If I am naked in a public shower, am I sinning?

I don’t watch the show, but if I did, I doubt it would lead me to impure thoughts. The fact that the participants are nude (with parts blurred - in a survival situation) isn’t quite prurient enough to inspire me to have any sinful and impure thoughts/actions.

God bless, grasscutter.

Exactly, and while it might inspire them for some, I doubt it would be universal.

 

[Leo2014]

Yes, and there is no explicit teaching on exactly what that means. Modesty is not only cultural (again should we go to Africa and force the Church there to be clothed by our own modesty). But contextual, if I am naked in a shower am I sinning? If I am naked before my spouse am I sinning?

Here is where I agree with you; women seem to think that they are all attractive. The reality is they are not. Simply because one is standing in front of me is not necessarily going to entice me to have sex. Now, an attractive girl is going to be attractive even if she is wearing something modest. That enticement has always existed.

My issue is not with the subtleties of what is defined as modest or two dummies on a show prancing around a jungle naked. For me it’s the obvious cases such as the abundance of sex and violence that is displayed within an “R” rated movie. But it’s no longer just limited to “R” rated movies. The problem is many families sit together with the kids and watch a movie were the hero encounters his sexual conquest or someone is brutally murdered. Have they sinned for watching? Maybe, Maybe not? My point is that it is hard to make a case in support of abstaining from sex or to stress how sacred life is if sinful acts are on such public display.