Thank you all for your carefully considered replies, they have made me think quite a bit.
Quick note: this baby took me half an hour. I may or may not keep up with this thread, it is proving time consuming. Just be forewarned. 
Thank you,
Edwest, but in fact there are. I have come across some myself.
Op
I am really at a loss as how nude modeling for art students is honoring God. Seriously?
There is another angle as well. In Detroit area, there is a very expensive restaurant for the rich called the Lark. In it a a nude painting of the sister of the owner. His sister many years ago posed nude for some artist. Somehow the owner was able to get ahold of it. Instead of destroying it in honor of his sister, he proudly displaces it in his restaurant to show how modern and “sophisticated” they are. Such a nice brother. In other words, the artist that are using your body can use that anywhere at time and maybe many years later show up on the internet or even in a restaurant for the rich so the world can see. Now maybe you don’t think it is no big deal but and think that you are honoring God but really you are dishonoring yourself. Is that the kind of example you want to leave for your children later if you have them? Sadly you seem real stuck on this and think you are doing great art but all it is is really pornography at it’s finest. Ever see or listen to Hugh Hefner? He thinks he is honoring the body too. Only someone falling into exhibitionism would be drawn to this.
No, about Hugh Hefner, I haven’t.
You raise a good point with the idea that nudity can be misused. If that was done without the sister’s consent, or, especially against her wishes, that is dreadful.
However, the only way that would be a problem with me myself is if the painting was focused on being sexually seductive rather than of artistic value.
This will seem weird, even mentally and perhaps sexually twisted to you. How could anyone say it would be fine to have a representation of their body up in front of anyone who cared to look?To illustrate, then, consider the Sistine Chapel. Suppose you were one of the models Michelangelo used. Obviously, no paintings one poses for ordinarily would have a chance of comparing in any way to the Sistine Chapel. We use it as an illustration because this is one of the very few nude paintings even those who insist practically all other nudity is wrong must admit is in fact acceptable or look foolish.
Would you be so ashamed that your body was on the ceiling for all to see? Perhaps you would. However, many would be proud to be part of such an achievement, that their hours of posing through cramps and itches had a part of producing something glorious, awe-inspiring, perhaps even holy, for the whole world, and that your their body was a part of it.
Nacho
There is a difference between having one’s mind made up and defending one’s opinion. Putting forth an opinion and defending it is, as you know, called a debate and done quite a bit on here. I have greatly enjoyed this discussion, and I appreciate everyone’s time, including yours. If I am proven wrong, then, I hope, will not be such blockhead as to persist.
I ignored the main of your post because my previous one took about twenty minutes as it was, and I found your post somewhat insulting. Only mildly insulting and well-intended, so perhaps I overreacted, but an insult still.
Look up shameless on Miriam Webster. It is only “shameless” if one should be a ashamed in the first place. If you sweep the floor without shame, you are not being shameless. You have no reason to be ashamed.
If my reasons are poor, then please show me how. So far, few have taken my arguments for the purity and beauty of nude modeling head on. You for instance, just expressed your arguments against nude modeling. You did not actually refute my proofs to the contrary. This is a poor way to hold a debate. If we just put forth our own opinions and arguments, the debate becomes a contest to see who has the most arguments, not to determine if the arguments are good and which premise is truly right.
One final big point to everyone arguing that all nude modeling is wrong…
Again and again, the fact has been addressed that many beloved works of classic art have been done with nude models, yet no one has responded.
Many respectable religious persons, nuns for example, have written books on classic art and even movie documentaries. They tend to include nudes that had models, such as
Luncheon.
Now, there is no doctrine that can directly support what any of you are saying, none of you so far have even tried to use any. There is doctrine about lust and such of course, but little about exactly what nudity is acceptable.
In other words, these opinions that nudity and posing for is wrong are your own. Not The Church’s. You are not defending the Church’s teachings. You are defending The Teaching of Me.
And, in affect, you are saying the hundreds of artists and models and the millions who have appreciated their work through the centuries are wrong. That the pious who have made books and documentaries on them are wrong.
And that you are right.
We are all ants artistically speaking compared to Degas and all the hundreds of respected classical artists who portray art. We know nothing,
nothing about art compared to them.
Suppose you were to time travel, and saw Botticelli painting the model he used, and he did use one as I have mentioned, for
Venus.
Now, picture yourself walking up to Botticelli and saying, “Excuse, sir, but you should know that this painting will be adored by millions for centuries. However, though what I know about art is like a speck of dust compared to what you know, I just wanted to inform you that what you are doing is sinful and you should not make this painting.”
