Nude Modeling (yes, again)

[josh987654321]

As a matter of fact, I saw someone selling semi-nude photos from the 1950s, and in each description, he wrote: “Art not Porn.” That’s how the continuing degradation of women spreads over the decades. First, it’s a little graphic, then a little more, followed by a little more, until we hit the 1970s and porn (Adult) bookstores open everywhere. Then someone tries to convince us that those “Old” photos are art. In used bookstores, today, those “art/model” magazines from the 1950s are stacked by the more graphic stuff.

After over 40 years of exposure to more and more sexual situations in movies and on TV, which has gotten worse every year, and on the internet, yes, some people think it’s somehow OK. We must remind them of the truth. Porn addiction affects Catholics as well as non-Catholics. Nude modeling has no legitimate outlet in the world today, with the possible exception of sacred art. No, the human body is not sinful or something to be ashamed of, but it hurts me to see attractive celebrities posing here and there without shame. Pray for them. The word “art” is not a bulletproof shield and is not a legitimate reason in almost all cases.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks Ed.

There is a reason why Jesus isn’t shown ‘naked’ on the cross as he actually was. Do people think the Romans stripped him of his clothes for art?

 

[josh987654321]

Sounds like you think Gods creation is dirty and wrong, and should be not be viewed by anyone?

Is the sexual act between a husband and wife wrong? I don’t think so, does it than follow that it’s okay for public viewing? absolutely not!

What are you thinking???

 

[josh987654321]

If I said the statue of David was art and not porn would that make sense?

No.

The statue is nude, but not designed for sexual arousal.

The picture of a naked woman in Playboy magazine is designed for sexual arousal, the same picture in a museum or art class is not designed for sexul arousal. So really you have two of the same picture, you condemn one and praise the other based on design … it’s the same picture! what sense does this make?

Where is the sanctity of the human body? you are desacralizing it in the name of art.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No.

The picture of a naked woman in Playboy magazine is designed for sexual arousal, the same picture in a museum or art class is not designed for sexul arousal. So really you have two of the same picture, you condemn one and praise the other based on design … it’s the same picture! what sense does this make?

Where is the sanctity of the human body? you are desacralizing it in the name of art.

The Sleeping Venus by Giorgione is hardly the same as a Playboy centerfold, the positioning is different, expression, objects in the image, style, lighting.

 

[josh987654321]

The Sleeping Venus by Giorgione is hardly the same as a Playboy centerfold, the positioning is different, expression, objects in the image, style, lighting.

If heterosexual men cease to be sexually aroused by pretty naked women, than they cease to be heterosexual.

Like I said, If someone painted a naked picture of our blessed mother Mary, or made a naked scupltur of her, would you be offended? would you think it disrespectful/degrading? or would you be praising it as art?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

If heterosexual men cease to be sexually aroused by pretty naked women, than they cease to be heterosexual.

Like I said, If someone painted a naked picture of our blessed mother Mary, or made a naked scupltur of her, would you be offended? would you think it disrespectful/degrading? or would you be praising it as art?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Look, I’m a woman sexually attracted to men, while I find the statue David to be very attractive I don’t find it arousing.

 

[josh987654321]

Look, I’m a woman sexually attracted to men, while I find the statue David to be very attractive I don’t find it arousing.

Does that make it right? if you wouldn’t make a statue of Jesus or Mary like that, than why would you encourage other people to do it?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I assume many people would become deeply saddened or outraged by a naked picture or sculptur of our blessed mother Mary, why? becuase she deserves more respect than that.

So I don’t understand why people would encourage a poor woman like Pound Coolish to disrespect and degrade herself like that through nude modelling. I believe Pound Coolish deserves more respect than that, I believe she is worth alot more than that.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Um… actually, the papacy once officially suggested artists make nude portrayals of the Blessed Virgin.

I already mentioned that in this thread, but it’s a fact. In fact, such paintings used to be not uncommon in cathedrals and monasteries in certain centuries. (I’ve even come across one such piece of art in a Catholic blog where Mary is squirting milk into a monk’s mouth.) If you’re disgusted, well, tell it to the Vatican.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks Ed.

There is a reason why Jesus isn’t shown ‘naked’ on the cross as he actually was. Do people think the Romans stripped him of his clothes for art?

You’re welcome. Art is not a magic word.

Peace,
Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

Does that make it right? if you wouldn’t make a statue of Jesus or Mary like that, than why would you encourage other people to do it?

If someone were to depict Mary nude, there is a 99% probability that it would have been done for shock value, to be offensive, etc. It doesn’t make sense to say that because we shouldn’t portray Mary as nude, we therefore should shield all other female figures. There’s a difference.

I probably stated this before: a man might be “turned-on” by practically anything. A man could look all day at a painting of a nude women, and feel no sexual attraction at all. The same man could catch a glimpse of a woman attired in an entirely “chaste” manner and immediately feel a sexual attraction.

The only way to define porn in any sensible manner is this: “I know it when I see it.”

And come on, a Playboy picture is not the same thing as a painting in a museum. Imagine what a Playboy picture might look like, and compare it to a painting by Peter Paul Rubens, like The Fall of Adam. If you’ve never seen a Playboy picture, I’ll save you from looking at one: There is no comparison between someone like Hugh Hefner and someone like Rubens.

 

[on_the_hill]

The Vatican weighs in on our discussion:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028888/Vatican-plea-uncover-Virgin-Mary-breast-feeding-baby-Jesus.html

 

[on_the_hill]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_Magdalene_%28Titian,_1533%29

Porn?

 

[edwest2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitent_Magdalene_%28Titian,_1533%29

Porn?

Yawn. 1533? Is that the best example you could find? Sacred art is called sacred art for a reason.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

If someone were to depict Mary nude, there is a 99% probability that it would have been done for shock value, to be offensive, etc. It doesn’t make sense to say that because we shouldn’t portray Mary as nude, we therefore should shield all other female figures. There’s a difference.

I probably stated this before: a man might be “turned-on” by practically anything. A man could look all day at a painting of a nude women, and feel no sexual attraction at all. The same man could catch a glimpse of a woman attired in an entirely “chaste” manner and immediately feel a sexual attraction.

The only way to define porn in any sensible manner is this: “I know it when I see it.”

And come on, a Playboy picture is not the same thing as a painting in a museum. Imagine what a Playboy picture might look like, and compare it to a painting by Peter Paul Rubens, like The Fall of Adam. If you’ve never seen a Playboy picture, I’ll save you from looking at one: There is no comparison between someone like Hugh Hefner and someone like Rubens.

Sacred art that includes nudity or semi-nudity would never appear in Playboy. A photograph of a real person can never be compared to a painting, no matter how photo-realistic (and I’ve seen examples of photo-realistic work).

Peace,
Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

Sacred art that includes nudity or semi-nudity would never appear in Playboy. A photograph of a real person can never be compared to a painting, no matter how photo-realistic (and I’ve seen examples of photo-realistic work).

Peace,
Ed

I think that gets to my point. There’s porn, and there’s not porn. Somehow, the conversation got routed toward the notion that all nudity is porn. I’m trying to demonstrate that not all nudity is porn. (and, not all porn is nudity).

 

[edwest2]

I think that gets to my point. There’s porn, and there’s not porn. Somehow, the conversation got routed toward the notion that all nudity is porn. I’m trying to demonstrate that not all nudity is porn. (and, not all porn is nudity).

OK, but the topic is nude modeling. As someone who works in the media, and has to screen for offensive content, including paintings, there are zero outlets for nude modeling that are acceptable. NONE. With the possible exception of sacred art.

Peace,
Ed

 

[josh987654321]

.

May I ask why you want to do nude modelling?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

If someone were to depict Mary nude, there is a 99% probability that it would have been done for shock value, to be offensive, etc. It doesn’t make sense to say that because we shouldn’t portray Mary as nude, we therefore should shield all other female figures. There’s a difference.

Is the difference that you see Mary as more respectful than than that? If you wouldn’t encourage our blessed mother Mary to do nude modelling, why would you encourage other women to do it?

I probably stated this before: a man might be “turned-on” by practically anything. A man could look all day at a painting of a nude women, and feel no sexual attraction at all. The same man could catch a glimpse of a woman attired in an entirely “chaste” manner and immediately feel a sexual attraction.

Would you encourage women to walk naked down the streets or in other public places? Yet when it’s for ‘art’ it’s okay?

The only way to define porn in any sensible manner is this: “I know it when I see it.”

What if I look at a playboy magazine and say “I don’t see it” thus it’s not porn?

And come on, a Playboy picture is not the same thing as a painting in a museum. Imagine what a Playboy picture might look like, and compare it to a painting by Peter Paul Rubens, like The Fall of Adam. If you’ve never seen a Playboy picture, I’ll save you from looking at one: There is no comparison between someone like Hugh Hefner and someone like Rubens.

I wish more women valued themselves enough to say “No, I will not be objectified like that.” The less and less sacred our body/sexuality becomes, the less and less intimate any marriage will be. There’s nothing really special about the bike the whole town has seen.

I read a story the other day about a woman who had been spied on and had naked pictures of her taken and plastered all over the internet, she would have given just about anything for those images back, yet now we have men and women who do it voluntarily?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

You know, once those images are taken of you like that, you cannot take them back, especially once they hit the internet, you have no control over them. Once you have exposed yourself like that, you cannot control who you are exposing yourself to.

I would like to share with you a short story about lying.

*A man went about the community telling malicious lies about a preist. Later, he realized the wrong he had done, and began to feel remorse. He went to the preist and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything he could to make amends. The preist told the man, “Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds.” The man thought this was a strange request, but it was a simple enough task, and he did it gladly. When he returned to tell the preist that he had done it, the preist said, “Now, go and gather the feathers. Because you can no more make amends for the damage your words have done than you can recollect the feathers.” *

I believe you will be doing the same thing here. It will be near impossible to make reparation for this, once those images are taken, you have no control over where they will go or end up. You will have scattered your sanctity to the wind.

Thank you for reading
Josh