Nudity beauty and lust

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I have heard differing opinions on what is lust and what is considered beauty. The consensus seems to be that a playboy picture is out for beauty. I don’t know if I agree with that or not. Sex with multiple partners is definately wrong and I am sure a SI swimsuit calendar is fine. Any opinions?
 
Any photographic image that presents a woman as a sexual object is sinful. This includes Playboy, the SI swimsuit issue and too many movies and TV shows. “Art” is no defense. Appealing to old paintings and statues is no defense either.

There are beautiful women but they can only be viewed in their wholeness and privacy of their person. Anything else falls into varying degrees of pornography which causes lust.

Peace,
Ed
 
billcu1 said:
I have heard differing opinions on what is lust and what is considered beauty. The consensus seems to be that a playboy picture is out for beauty. I don’t know if I agree with that or not. Sex with multiple partners is definately wrong and I am sure a SI swimsuit calendar is fine. Any opinions?
Click to expand...
I believe any picture that is posted to arouse lustful thoughts is wrong. That can mean a swim suit in SI, or a seductive pose in playboy that is provocative, is meant to entice eye candy or lustful thought. Because you maynot be given to lustful thought doesnot mean that young boys and men are not. This reminds me of the joke that use to go around about playboy, “I buy playboy for the articles”, then everyone would laught because we all knew why we were looking at it. The biggest joke is that SI has there swimsuit issue for men to see beautiful women. Only one thing will attract most men more than sports is lustful women.
 
I’m not sure if I’m wording it right but-if you look at a beautiful woman and think of the ways she could make YOU happy it’s lust. But if you look at a beautiful woman and don’t have those thoughts it’s ok, you are just appreciating her beauty
 
billcu1 said:
The consensus seems to be that a playboy picture is out for beauty.
Click to expand...
I do recall that being the consensus, back in high school :o

(“Do not remember the sins of my youth or my acts of rebellion…”)

Jokes aside, whatever moves us to lust (disordered enjoyment of sexual pleasure) is monstrous and horrible even if it may entice the senses - and this can include the calendar as well as even more “innocent” images. Nudity - whether seen or unseen - is beautiful because God created man and woman and made them beautiful in each other’s eyes…but beauty is not nudity (which is a level of intimacy meant to be reserved to the spouses in wedlock). Beauty is modest, and is in the soul and in the heart. All that moves us to God and reflects him - that I will call beautiful.
  • When old age shall this generation waste,
    Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
    Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,
    “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
    Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. *
 
I am surprised that many of the responses, although technically correct, do not consider the inate beauty of the human body, both male and female.
Most of the answers suggest all nude pictures exist to elicit prurient interest. That may be so for adolescent boys with raging hormones, but not for mature people who appreciate beauty.
How many of you have ever seen the murals in the Sistine Chapel? You will see more nudity in these murals than you will see on many beaches.
And speaking of beaches, yes, the bathing suit issue of Playboy sells itself on the basis of erotica, but how many of you have been to the beach lately? I am not talking about the beaches in some exotic locale that allows nude bathing, but your average US or Canadian beach? What you see in Playboy is what one can see live at any beach in California, Florida, or the Gulf of Mexico coast every day of the swimming season.
Granted, a lack of modesty in our society is no excuse, but how many normal adult men walk around a beach in a state of sexual excitement? Not many. They are too mature to allow themselves to react to such brazen stimuli! Likewise from depictions of human nudity, whether in a painting, drawing or photograph.
By promoting such a puritanical attitude toward such things, one is just making them more attractive to those with sinful intent.
 
Nice try. I will never visit a beach again. Too many girls have been brainwashed to believe a few pieces of string and barely enough cloth to make a handkerchief constitutes a “bathing suit.”

As one beauty contestant acquaintance of mine told me: “It looks like underwear and I don’t want people seeing me in my underwear.” She only wears one piece bathing suits.

And once a man reaches a certain age, there is an automatic off switch? Nonsense.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
And once a man reaches a certain age, there is an automatic off switch? Nonsense.
Click to expand...
It depends on many factors. There is a world of difference between, say, a 16 year old discovering the opposite sex for the first time, and a mature, middle aged married person that knows how to control his emotions.

Is there an automatic switch? No. But one can learn how to turn it on an off. Religious people, especially those in leadership positions, have been doing it forever.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
I am surprised that many of the responses, although technically correct, do not consider the inate beauty of the human body, both male and female.
Most of the answers suggest all nude pictures exist to elicit prurient interest. That may be so for adolescent boys with raging hormones, but not for mature people who appreciate beauty.
How many of you have ever seen the murals in the Sistine Chapel? You will see more nudity in these murals than you will see on many beaches.
And speaking of beaches, yes, the bathing suit issue of Playboy sells itself on the basis of erotica, but how many of you have been to the beach lately? I am not talking about the beaches in some exotic locale that allows nude bathing, but your average US or Canadian beach? What you see in Playboy is what one can see live at any beach in California, Florida, or the Gulf of Mexico coast every day of the swimming season.
Granted, a lack of modesty in our society is no excuse, but how many normal adult men walk around a beach in a state of sexual excitement? Not many. They are too mature to allow themselves to react to such brazen stimuli! Likewise from depictions of human nudity, whether in a painting, drawing or photograph.
By promoting such a puritanical attitude toward such things, one is just making them more attractive to those with sinful intent.
Click to expand...
Oh please. I am in my mid fifties and, while I can appreciate beauty, I find that the attire at most beaches is a cause for enticement. How many “normal” adult men walk around a beach in a state of sexual excitement? Answer: As many as there are women walking around almost naked. Please let’s not fool ourselves.
 
edwest2 said:
Any photographic image that presents a woman as a sexual object is sinful. This includes Playboy, the SI swimsuit issue and too many movies and TV shows. “Art” is no defense. Appealing to old paintings and statues is no defense either.

There are beautiful women but they can only be viewed in their wholeness and privacy of their person. Anything else falls into varying degrees of pornography which causes lust.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
For some people I don’t think it’s possible to look at a nude fe/male and have lust arise in their mind. I think here what one needs to do is look at their thinking. You might even be able to stretch things and say man and woman together is beauty and I think we all are in consensus when it comes to the sexual act being viewed by others is wrong since we believe it’s sacred and private. As to whether or not a woman exposing herself nude for artists I’ve heard that’s ok. Should a woman have shame because originally in the garden they didn’t. I believe I can look at a SI swimsuit and be ok. Others my not. Certain pics in playboy I can dig up arousal others no. Others say something else. I am struggling with the definition of lust and haven’t been able to pin it. Is it subjective objective or both. As for beauty, Aristotle said it was a concept where the parts of a thing are in harmony with the whole. Now god is beauty. But how can we understand that?
 
teachccd said:
Oh please. I am in my mid fifties and, while I can appreciate beauty, I find that the attire at most beaches is a cause for enticement. How many “normal” adult men walk around a beach in a state of sexual excitement? Answer: As many as there are women walking around almost naked. Please let’s not fool ourselves.
Click to expand...
But what is sexually exciting seems to be subjective. To me anyway. That’s why I’m having trouble understanding things.
 
billcu1 said:
. . . Now god is beauty. But how can we understand that?
Click to expand...
So looking at Sports Illustrated Calendar pictures makes you think of God.

Trying to be conscious of God in every activity makes life joyous.

But sometimes there is a lot of dirt; this does not mean one is further from Him.
Rather that dirt reflects His presence, revealing the status of one’s soul in the moment.

I don’t think I can answer your question. I think looking for an answer will bring you closer to God.
 
billcu1 said:
I have heard differing opinions on what is lust and what is considered beauty. The consensus seems to be that a playboy picture is out for beauty. I don’t know if I agree with that or not. Sex with multiple partners is definately wrong and I am sure a SI swimsuit calendar is fine. Any opinions?
Click to expand...
I would say that SI Swimsuit and Playboy are both pornographic magazines. It is simply a matter of degree, not kind. Both these magazines depict women as sexual objects with the intent to cause sexual excitement. Pornography is not restricted to nude images. Mere written words can be pornography.

Here is what Sacred Scripture says on this matter:

Do not keep company with a harlot,
in case you get entangled in her snares.
Do not dally with a singing girl,
in case you get caught by her wiles.
Do not stare at a virgin,
in case you and she incur the same punishment.
Do not give your soul to whores,
or you will ruin your inheritance.
Keep your eyes to yourself in the streets of a town,
do not prowl about its unfrequented quarters.
Turn you eyes away from a handsome woman,
do not stare at beauty that belongs to someone else.
Woman’s beauty has led many astray;
it kindles desire like a flame. (Ecclesiasticus 9:3-9)
 
HansTrappist said:
I would say that SI Swimsuit and Playboy are both pornographic magazines. It is simply a matter of degree, not kind. Both these magazines depict women as sexual objects with the intent to cause sexual excitement. Pornography is not restricted to nude images. Mere written words can be pornography.

Here is what Sacred Scripture says on this matter:

Do not keep company with a harlot,
in case you get entangled in her snares.
Do not dally with a singing girl,
in case you get caught by her wiles.
Do not stare at a virgin,
in case you and she incur the same punishment.
Do not give your soul to whores,
or you will ruin your inheritance.
Keep your eyes to yourself in the streets of a town,
do not prowl about its unfrequented quarters.
Turn you eyes away from a handsome woman,
do not stare at beauty that belongs to someone else.
Woman’s beauty has led many astray;
it kindles desire like a flame. (Ecclesiasticus 9:3-9)
Click to expand...
Yes but then there’s the law of love. Our master ate with harlots and tax collectors.
 
Aloysium said:
So looking at Sports Illustrated Calendar pictures makes you think of God.

Sometimes

Trying to be conscious of God in every activity makes life joyous.

agreed

But sometimes there is a lot of dirt; this does not mean one is further from Him.
Rather that dirt reflects His presence, revealing the status of one’s soul in the moment.

I don’t think I can answer your question. I think looking for an answer will bring you closer to God.
Click to expand...
I’m a single man and I get lonely sometimes my SI calendar is laying just off the floor in my bedroom with appointments written all over it.
 
teachccd said:
Oh please. I am in my mid fifties and, while I can appreciate beauty, I find that the attire at most beaches is a cause for enticement. How many “normal” adult men walk around a beach in a state of sexual excitement? Answer: As many as there are women walking around almost naked. Please let’s not fool ourselves.
Click to expand...
Thank you,

Ed
 
billcu1 said:
For some people I don’t think it’s possible to look at a nude fe/male and have lust arise in their mind. I think here what one needs to do is look at their thinking. You might even be able to stretch things and say man and woman together is beauty and I think we all are in consensus when it comes to the sexual act being viewed by others is wrong since we believe it’s sacred and private. As to whether or not a woman exposing herself nude for artists I’ve heard that’s ok. Should a woman have shame because originally in the garden they didn’t. I believe I can look at a SI swimsuit and be ok. Others my not. Certain pics in playboy I can dig up arousal others no. Others say something else. I am struggling with the definition of lust and haven’t been able to pin it. Is it subjective objective or both. As for beauty, Aristotle said it was a concept where the parts of a thing are in harmony with the whole. Now god is beauty. But how can we understand that?
Click to expand...
This is relativism. It doesn’t work and it’s time to stop promoting it.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top