B
Balance
Guest
- Status
J
JeffAustralia
Guest
When you marry, you DO “own” each other. That’s the Catholic way. Always has been. In the same way, you don’t let other men have sex with your wife “because it’s her own body”. It’s not! She gives herself to you, body and soul, and you do the same for her. And much as it’s easy to say something as a non-married man, wait until the instincts kick in after you get married. I can’t see you feeling the same. You know that what your wife gives to you and shares with you is something very precious, and the fact that you DON’T share it with others only makes it that much more special. You are the ONLY ONE…not just some bloke she knows. That’s one of the things that’s very wrong with the world these days. Sex is given out as though it were nothing special, and that only cheapens the whole experience. When people marry, their bodies and their sexuality are no longer something precious. They’ve lost a wonderful gift from God.
S
Sean.McKenzie
Guest
Sean.McKenzie:
S
Sean.McKenzie
Guest
Sean.McKenzie:
Are you being completely honest with yourself? You wouldn’t mind another guy seeing your future wife nude? If not, there is a problem. Remember in Genesis, God gave Adam and Eve to eachother
And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.Gen 1 said:
They become one, both for the other, God specifically made Eve to be his, and him to be hers. Yet they still remain under God and they both still belong to God.
B
Benedictus
Guest
I used to think that way. I’ve come to believe that they really don’t see what they do in a sexual way, but I’ve also come to believe that they’re also weird.
L
LilyM
Guest
Interesting … I guess this is one of those situations I’d never really thought about before. I suppose artists may need to see real live real nekkid people to learn properly. Though even this is debatable - Leonardo used to learn about anatomy by dissecting cadavers I believe.
To me, well it’s exhibitionist at least in a sense, smacks of a lack of modesty about one’s body. Not that it’s something to be ashamed of but not to be displayed too much either. The short answer is no way would you ever catch me doing it.
To me, well it’s exhibitionist at least in a sense, smacks of a lack of modesty about one’s body. Not that it’s something to be ashamed of but not to be displayed too much either. The short answer is no way would you ever catch me doing it.
J
JeffAustralia
Guest
You also find that a lot of those artists used to hop into bed with the model afterwards, so that’s probably not a good example.
As for the nudists, they seem to like holding nude beauty contests for girls (including very young girls), and they seem to like taking photos and videos. For people uninterested in nakedness, they have a funny way of behaving.
As for the nudists, they seem to like holding nude beauty contests for girls (including very young girls), and they seem to like taking photos and videos. For people uninterested in nakedness, they have a funny way of behaving.
B
blessedstar
Guest
I can’t understand for one minute why a bunch of people want to get together and sit around with no clothes on. I can’t speak for their intent as there does have to be intent for a sin to be present, but I can say that the whole idea seems very weird and inappropriate and needless to say, pointless and in most cases a rather chilly pursuit.
W
wcknight
Guest
I think nudity should stay where it belongs in the bedroom between husband and wife. Even IF the artist and model have no problems with nudity (and that in itself is highly debatable), the sexual excitement that it may invoke in others may be causing someone else not to avoid the near occasion of sin. In otherwards, you may be causing someone else to sin, never a good thing.
As far as nudists, some folks should never ever be nude in public (myself included). Anyone over 60 or certainly over 70, should be required to cover as much as possible. Just the thought of an old man or lady in the altogether is just plain gross !!! :bigyikes: IF you have a great body, terrific, show it off, BUT if you are way past your prime, PLEEEEEAAAASSSSeee for Heaven’s sake leave it all on !
As far as nudists, some folks should never ever be nude in public (myself included). Anyone over 60 or certainly over 70, should be required to cover as much as possible. Just the thought of an old man or lady in the altogether is just plain gross !!! :bigyikes: IF you have a great body, terrific, show it off, BUT if you are way past your prime, PLEEEEEAAAASSSSeee for Heaven’s sake leave it all on !
J
JimG
Guest
This reminds me of an incident that happened to my brother when he was taking an art class. He walked into the wrong door, at one end of a long studio, entering right in front of a nude model. But she wasn’t modeling for his group. They were way back at the other end of the room, working on a still life. Big disappointment.
B
Balance
Guest
Yes, artists do.
I don’t see any difference between a live naked body and a dead anked body though - do you? Why would it be “ok” to see a dead naked body and draw it, but not a live one?
B
Balance
Guest
This is my point I think - the conflict between “not something to be ashamed of” and “not something to be displayed”, which seems to be an issue of misplaced modesty verging on prudery. If the naked body is not something to be ashamed of then what’s wrong with displaying it? (By “displaying it”, I’m talking about this specific example - modelling nude for a “life art” class.)
It’s that idea of John Paul II’s that, if we see a naked body and think “sex” there’s something wrong with the way we see sex and the human body - the problem is in us, not in the body we’re looking at. (And this is the same thing as talking about old people’s bodies as ugly - if we see them as ugly, the ugliness is in us, not in their bodies. Just because a body is saggy and wrinkled doesn’t make it ugly.)
B
beckyann2597
Guest
My sister in law was a fine arts major and in the final part of her education, she had to sketch live nude models. She siad (in so many words) that the people who pose for the classes are not people who incite lust, all of her models were older hippie people with plenty of interesting tatoos to draw aand were not people who were the most physically fit, but were very comfortable with their bodies. When you are an artist at that point, you are focusing on the lesson of trying to recreate the human form,on parer, not thinking about lustful desires of the model.
B
Balance
Guest
I disgaree with this.
The human body - nudity - belongs not just in the bedroom but in the world. To say that it belongs only in the bedroom is, to my mind, simple prudery. That sort of thinking leads to actions like painting figleaves and loinclths on great works of art like the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, years after the original works were painted, in a misguided attempt to be “modest” and to relegate nudity to the bedroom only. John Paul ordered that these later additions be removed, recognising that there is nothing shameful about the human form, and, in fact, that looking at representations of the naked human body is edifying for us as human beings and as Christians.
As far as being responsible for provoking “sexual excitement” in another person, where does that start and end? Should I ensure that no part of my unclothed body is showing, ever, and grow a beard and shave my head and wear drab clothing, to reduce the chance of a woman “having impure thoughts” about me or my body? Fact is, while I need to be modest (and that’s a hard word to define, a hard concept to delineate), I’m not responsible for what goes on in other people’s heads. We need to be careful about how we “cause someone else to sin” - sin is always and only a personal choice for a person. It’s like someone saying, “I yelled at you because you made me mad.” Well, no, you yelled because you chose to yell. Pure and simple - it was your choice. The other person’s behaviour - doing something that annoyed the first person - might be wrong, but it is a completely separate issue.
(on a side note, I take umbrage when people talk of how women should “dress modestly” (which to some means long sleeves, long dresses etc) around men, as if I and men around me were animals who can’t control ourselves and will lose the plot at the merest glimpse of naked flesh. Give us some credit!)
L
LilyM
Guest
Yes but the opposite extreme means you have (true story) naked statues - not of idealised women or anonymous models but of the Pope’s favourite mistress - IN ST PETERS’ ITSELF!
There has to be a line drawn somewhere and I just happen to think modelling naked is on the ‘wrong’ side of it.
S
SAINThoodSEEKER
Guest
There are many eloguent, informative replies here (34 in fact). A good rule of thumb in situations like these:
** “If you have to ask whether something is wrong, then it must be.” - my mother**
** “If you have to ask whether something is wrong, then it must be.” - my mother**
2
2Rollin_Stoned
Guest
I understand that St. Thomas Aquinas defined beauty as,
“That which seen, pleases”
Now, Aquinas says of the beautiful, and indeed thus defines it, that it is “that which seen, pleases”. This, from a philosopher who calls things by their names: who, when he means ‘understand’, says ‘understand’. Let us unpack the implications of his “that which seen, pleases”. LINK to article
“That which seen, pleases”
Now, Aquinas says of the beautiful, and indeed thus defines it, that it is “that which seen, pleases”. This, from a philosopher who calls things by their names: who, when he means ‘understand’, says ‘understand’. Let us unpack the implications of his “that which seen, pleases”. LINK to article
B
Balance
Guest
grin Maybe. There’s something true in that rule of thumb. I didn’t ask if it was wrong, though, or if it was a sin. I said I don’t beleive it’s wrong, and asked what other people thought.
B
Balance
Guest
There’ll always be extremes - we’re not concerned with them, are we? We can’t be concerned with extremes, or with people who are extreme, or we would all wear head-to-toe garments that covered any trace of skin, just so there would be no chance of leading those who are extremely sensitive, or weak, or broken, into sin. And that’s obviously ridiculous.
As to the desire to draw a line - that’s a totally understandable desire. It’s far easier to draw a line and say this side is good, that side bad. However, life’s not like that. Was it John Paul II who said “Life is a series of different shades of grey and it’s our job to work towards the whiter shades.”?
So I don’t think we can draw a line and say “Nude modelling is wrong” because then we open up a can of worms. We then have to ask, “Well, is any and every painting of a nude wrong?” “Is every depiction of the nude human form in painting, film, sculpture, photography, drawing wrong?” “Should we paint little loincloths and figleaves on paintings, and knock the penises off statues?” (As wellintentioned but misguided Christians have done in the past.)
(As far as film goes, here’s a good link about how films depicting nudity (and sex, violence and profanity) can be edifying. It’s a list of 45 films that the Vatican recommends we watch.) www.decentfilms.com/sections/articles/2572
(from the article) “In recognizing the merits of these particular films, the commission did not endorse everything these films contain, or gave them any kind of imprimatur or blanket ecclesiastical approval. Movies, like other works of culture, are seldom if ever perfect. Even with good or important ones, the viewer must be able to think critically and sort out the good from the bad.”
another excellent article, again about film but applying to other artforms, is:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea1.asp
(from the article) “No. That would be the same kind of thinking that would result in refusal to enjoy the company of imperfect people, to attend an imperfect church, to or eat imperfect food. That is no way to live.”
The key is to view a piece of art, or an action like nude modelling for an art class, with a critical eye - again, this is harder and takes more effort than just saying, “No, it involves nudity, it’s wrong” but if we take the easy path and make such blanket statements, we will miss out on a lot of good art and what could be good experiences; we’ll miss out on things which, when a bit of work is put in, will edify us and make us better Christians and better people.
Kind of getting into a different topic here - “The value of art” or something rather than the topic of the original post.
B
Balance
Guest
your post was number 36 and you say that there are 34 eloquent and informative replies - please tell us which is the one that is not eloquent and not informative? grin
- Status