Pornography, nudity, and chastity

[billcu1]

Thing is there have been some Christians going around promoting just that. Not saying Deacon Jeff holds that belief, but just letting you know it exists and has caused division. My apologies if I came across as disrespectful. I was sitting in Mass today worrying about it. I tend to be pretty blunt.

Also, I have been trying to log on all day and kept getting a HTTP 500 error. I tried from all my devices and cleared all my cookies and still couldn’t access the forum. My friends could though from their home so I knew the site was up and running which got me to thinking I was banned. In the past, I had quite a bit of trouble setting up this account. Their system had me flagged as a spammer, even though I have never and would never do that to anyone. I sent them an email and hope they resolved it. Otherwise, the only way I was able to log on just now was because I fiddled around with my router settings.

I was trying to log in yesterday too and not getting anywhere. The main website was fine. I’d say the site was down for some reason. The sub domain “forum.catholic.com” may have been down.

 

[billcu1]

This line of thinking is dangerous. Deacon, forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comment. I probably am, as this topic hits a nerve. … but just in case, I am not, well get ready for my rant.

The OP is not talking about the Sistine chapel, he is talking about someone’s wife, mother, sister or daughter. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is fine to look at naked women provided you are “appreciating the beauty of her gentle curves”. I hope this is not what you are implying. Men don’t get to violate the rules of modesty just because they tell themselves they are not lusting. Is it OK for a group of grown men to walk in on someone’s daughter or wife while showering? As long as they say, hey, don’t worry, we’re not lusting, we’re just appreciating your grand design of the feminine, she should be OK with it? Would that make everything right with God? Of course not. Men who keep parroting this grave error sound like they are just trying to come up with excuses to unwrap gifts that don’t belong to them. The parts of a woman’s body that involve sexual reproduction are an exclusive gift to her husband and only her husband. Breasts are also (for a given period of time) a gift to her babies. Men taking pleasure from women they are not married to are trespassing where they have no right to go. It is a huge deal to violate something so Holy between two married people.

I think screwtape must have come up with the idea of some men magically having immunity from concupiscence and so now they can look at naked women just so long as they label certain naked pictures, tasteful and therefore not porn, then they can continue deceiving themselves. Meanwhile what message does this send to women and little girls?

I once walked into a room and on the tv there were completely nude women reading the news. They weren’t doing anything to incite lust. Reading doesn’t meet the definition of porn so does that mean there is nothing wrong with it? Can we all hear the news and enjoy the gentle curves of God’s design? Of course not. A woman is not an art object for men to enjoy even if they aren’t lusting. Unveiling that which should remain veiled until marriage is wrong even if it technically isn’t defined as porn.

The only time someone can look at the naked body of the opposite sex is in marriage. After that exceptions are made if the principle of double effect comes into play ie medical necessity, woman giving birth in elevator alone with man not her husband, forensics etc.

If someone thinks it is fine to use the sense of sight to see a woman unclothed (provided you are not lusting), then I guess you could make the argument that as long as you don’t lust, you can use the sense of touch to feel a woman’s gentle curves in order to appreciate her beauty! Extremely perilous line of thinking.

There have always been Christians promoting nudism throughout the ages and the Church has rightly declared them in error. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but just saying this is what follows from being deceived. It is bad fruit.

To the OP, Bishop Fulton Sheen gave a talk and said, “love of nudity” was one of the signs of the demonic. Perhaps, spend some quiet time after Mass in prayer and talk to Jesus and Mary about it. After the fall, God clothed us for a reason. Don’t let the nudists and naturalists convince you otherwise. They will take you down a dark path. Peace.

I don’t see how you can look at a naked woman without as you say “lusting”. Maybe it depends on your definition of “lusting”. It kind of leaves me confused.

 

[billcu1]

This line of thinking is dangerous. Deacon, forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comment. I probably am, as this topic hits a nerve. … but just in case, I am not, well get ready for my rant.

The OP is not talking about the Sistine chapel, he is talking about someone’s wife, mother, sister or daughter. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is fine to look at naked women provided you are “appreciating the beauty of her gentle curves”. I hope this is not what you are implying. Men don’t get to violate the rules of modesty just because they tell themselves they are not lusting. Is it OK for a group of grown men to walk in on someone’s daughter or wife while showering? As long as they say, hey, don’t worry, we’re not lusting, we’re just appreciating your grand design of the feminine, she should be OK with it? Would that make everything right with God? Of course not. Men who keep parroting this grave error sound like they are just trying to come up with excuses to unwrap gifts that don’t belong to them. The parts of a woman’s body that involve sexual reproduction are an exclusive gift to her husband and only her husband. Breasts are also (for a given period of time) a gift to her babies. Men taking pleasure from women they are not married to are trespassing where they have no right to go. It is a huge deal to violate something so Holy between two married people.

I think screwtape must have come up with the idea of some men magically having immunity from concupiscence and so now they can look at naked women just so long as they label certain naked pictures, tasteful and therefore not porn, then they can continue deceiving themselves. Meanwhile what message does this send to women and little girls?

I once walked into a room and on the tv there were completely nude women reading the news. They weren’t doing anything to incite lust. Reading doesn’t meet the definition of porn so does that mean there is nothing wrong with it? Can we all hear the news and enjoy the gentle curves of God’s design? Of course not. A woman is not an art object for men to enjoy even if they aren’t lusting. Unveiling that which should remain veiled until marriage is wrong even if it technically isn’t defined as porn.

The only time someone can look at the naked body of the opposite sex is in marriage. After that exceptions are made if the principle of double effect comes into play ie medical necessity, woman giving birth in elevator alone with man not her husband, forensics etc.

If someone thinks it is fine to use the sense of sight to see a woman unclothed (provided you are not lusting), then I guess you could make the argument that as long as you don’t lust, you can use the sense of touch to feel a woman’s gentle curves in order to appreciate her beauty! Extremely perilous line of thinking.

There have always been Christians promoting nudism throughout the ages and the Church has rightly declared them in error. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but just saying this is what follows from being deceived. It is bad fruit.

To the OP, Bishop Fulton Sheen gave a talk and said, “love of nudity” was one of the signs of the demonic. Perhaps, spend some quiet time after Mass in prayer and talk to Jesus and Mary about it. After the fall, God clothed us for a reason. Don’t let the nudists and naturalists convince you otherwise. They will take you down a dark path. Peace.

“Signs of Demonic”, what exactly do you mean there? Do you mean being tempted?

 

[billcu1]

This line of thinking is dangerous. Deacon, forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comment. I probably am, as this topic hits a nerve. … but just in case, I am not, well get ready for my rant.

The OP is not talking about the Sistine chapel, he is talking about someone’s wife, mother, sister or daughter. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is fine to look at naked women provided you are “appreciating the beauty of her gentle curves”. I hope this is not what you are implying. Men don’t get to violate the rules of modesty just because they tell themselves they are not lusting. Is it OK for a group of grown men to walk in on someone’s daughter or wife while showering? As long as they say, hey, don’t worry, we’re not lusting, we’re just appreciating your grand design of the feminine, she should be OK with it? Would that make everything right with God? Of course not. Men who keep parroting this grave error sound like they are just trying to come up with excuses to unwrap gifts that don’t belong to them. The parts of a woman’s body that involve sexual reproduction are an exclusive gift to her husband and only her husband. Breasts are also (for a given period of time) a gift to her babies. Men taking pleasure from women they are not married to are trespassing where they have no right to go. It is a huge deal to violate something so Holy between two married people.

I think screwtape must have come up with the idea of some men magically having immunity from concupiscence and so now they can look at naked women just so long as they label certain naked pictures, tasteful and therefore not porn, then they can continue deceiving themselves. Meanwhile what message does this send to women and little girls?

I once walked into a room and on the tv there were completely nude women reading the news. They weren’t doing anything to incite lust. Reading doesn’t meet the definition of porn so does that mean there is nothing wrong with it? Can we all hear the news and enjoy the gentle curves of God’s design? Of course not. A woman is not an art object for men to enjoy even if they aren’t lusting. Unveiling that which should remain veiled until marriage is wrong even if it technically isn’t defined as porn.

The only time someone can look at the naked body of the opposite sex is in marriage. After that exceptions are made if the principle of double effect comes into play ie medical necessity, woman giving birth in elevator alone with man not her husband, forensics etc.

If someone thinks it is fine to use the sense of sight to see a woman unclothed (provided you are not lusting), then I guess you could make the argument that as long as you don’t lust, you can use the sense of touch to feel a woman’s gentle curves in order to appreciate her beauty! Extremely perilous line of thinking.

There have always been Christians promoting nudism throughout the ages and the Church has rightly declared them in error. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but just saying this is what follows from being deceived. It is bad fruit.

To the OP, Bishop Fulton Sheen gave a talk and said, “love of nudity” was one of the signs of the demonic. Perhaps, spend some quiet time after Mass in prayer and talk to Jesus and Mary about it. After the fall, God clothed us for a reason. Don’t let the nudists and naturalists convince you otherwise. They will take you down a dark path. Peace.

The thing he too is that many women don’t exactly help in trying to be concealed. They want to show off and that sometimes really ruins it.

 

[HOTI]

I don’t see how you can look at a naked woman without as you say “lusting”. Maybe it depends on your definition of “lusting”. It kind of leaves me confused.

Thank you for your refreshing honesty. You are confused because you too have heard the lie, that it is OK for a man to look at naked women provided they don’t lust. It simply is not true. It is wrong to look at naked women and men, (yes women like looking at men too) even if they are just reading the news and supposedly not meeting the definition of pornography.

I guess, I am not sure what else you are confused about. Could you please restate it again? Art and so called art, does bring in another level of problems, but according to your original post, I assumed you were talking about nudity in regards to real people via pictures, films etc.

Did you read through the other thread about the female form? And yes, men and women who don’t dress modestly are also going against Church teaching. In a perfect world people who never expose themselves to anyone but their spouse or for extreme circumstances like medical necessity.

 

[HOTI]

I was trying to log in yesterday too and not getting anywhere. The main website was fine. I’d say the site was down for some reason. The sub domain “forum.catholic.com” may have been down.

I saw that in another thread. Thanks.

 

[billcu1]

Thank you for your refreshing honesty. You are confused because you too have heard the lie, that it is OK for a man to look at naked women provided they don’t lust. It simply is not true. It is wrong to look at naked women and men, (yes women like looking at men too) even if they are just reading the news and supposedly not meeting the definition of pornography.

I guess, I am not sure what else you are confused about. Could you please restate it again? Art and so called art, does bring in another level of problems, but according to your original post, I assumed you were talking about nudity in regards to real people via pictures, films etc.

Did you read through the other thread about the female form? And yes, men and women who don’t dress modestly are also going against Church teaching. In a perfect world people who never expose themselves to anyone but their spouse or for extreme circumstances like medical necessity.

Well what exactly is it with this talk of pictures in the Sistine Chapel? And other art? Nudity there they say isn’t sin to look at. That confuses me. I’m just not pure enough to know myself I guess. Few are. Surely looking at a woman walking down the street half naked is going to at least diminish culpability to an extent. I don’t think (philosophically speaking) that sexual attraction is “Beauty”. It’s, well…sexual attraction. Beauty like truth I think is absolute. Not depending on who is looking. Those looking are confused.

HTH some.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your refreshing honesty. You are confused because you too have heard the lie, that it is OK for a man to look at naked women provided they don’t lust. It simply is not true. It is wrong to look at naked women and men, (yes women like looking at men too) even if they are just reading the news and supposedly not meeting the definition of pornography.

I guess, I am not sure what else you are confused about. Could you please restate it again? Art and so called art, does bring in another level of problems, but according to your original post, I assumed you were talking about nudity in regards to real people via pictures, films etc.

Did you read through the other thread about the female form? And yes, men and women who don’t dress modestly are also going against Church teaching. In a perfect world people who never expose themselves to anyone but their spouse or for extreme circumstances like medical necessity.

You are right. It is a lie to not look at a real nude, photo or film without lusting. These latter two depictions are there exactly for that purpose.

Speaking as an artist who took Life Drawing at University, it was a mistake. The human body has a variety of shapes, and understanding the muscle and bone underneath the skin is a better approach. One can buy a desk mannequin, use a desk lamp, and get more information about how to draw the basic form without the distraction of nudity.

One has to realize that over the decades, the falsely labeled “soft porn” has made its way into movies, and TV, with some more explicit material, but with carefully/strategic covering to hide a few parts. Those scenes are planned. It’s no accident that the camera is positioned a certain way. I think people who don’t realize that should. It’s not there to get a neutral reaction from the viewer.

I can’t go to a beach. I don’t want to see a bunch of women walking around in what qualifies as underwear, or a little less. Calling a bikini a swimsuit does not change the fact that underwear covers as much skin. And clothing that is too tight is designed for what purpose? A woman I know actually told me the following: “If I had legs like that, I’d wear mini-skirts every day.” If God gives a woman beauty, there are other, modest ways to show it, and trust me, men will notice more than her beauty if she chooses to dress modestly. Modesty is attractive because what a real relationships needs is more than the outward appearance.

Ed

 

[HOTI]

You are right. It is a lie to not look at a real nude, photo or film without lusting. These latter two depictions are there exactly for that purpose.

Speaking as an artist who took Life Drawing at University, it was a mistake. The human body has a variety of shapes, and understanding the muscle and bone underneath the skin is a better approach. One can buy a desk mannequin, use a desk lamp, and get more information about how to draw the basic form without the distraction of nudity.

One has to realize that over the decades, the falsely labeled “soft porn” has made its way into movies, and TV, with some more explicit material, but with carefully/strategic covering to hide a few parts. Those scenes are planned. It’s no accident that the camera is positioned a certain way. I think people who don’t realize that should. It’s not there to get a neutral reaction from the viewer.

I can’t go to a beach. I don’t want to see a bunch of women walking around in what qualifies as underwear, or a little less. Calling a bikini a swimsuit does not change the fact that underwear covers as much skin. And clothing that is too tight is designed for what purpose? A woman I know actually told me the following: “If I had legs like that, I’d wear mini-skirts every day.” If God gives a woman beauty, there are other, modest ways to show it, and trust me, men will notice more than her beauty if she chooses to dress modestly. Modesty is attractive because what a real relationships needs is more than the outward appearance.

Ed

I am working my way up to starting a thread on Life Drawing classes. I read through the older threads and those that defend it have very poor arguments. It’s odd how many Catholics here will say it is wrong to look at Playboy, but take that same model and put her in an art class and magically it becomes acceptable to Jesus and Mary.

Our culture pushes a cancer that is eating us and ravaging our families. The best thing anyone can do is to get rid of their TV and put some kind of porn block on their devices. There are Christians who will say it is wrong to watch porn, but then go and watch a HBO program with porn in it, but that somehow is fine, because they are only watching for the story. Every time we silently accept these programs we are feeding the tumor.

I do think though that it is possible to see a naked person and not have any feelings of arousal, but even still the right thing to do is to avert our eyes, not just so we don’t potentially fall into sin, but also because it would be a violation towards the other person whether they willingly want you to look at them or not. Someone posted before something about the analogy of the part of the Temple where only the Priest can go. I am too tired to look it up, but maybe someone else will remember.

Peace.

 

[HOTI]

“Signs of Demonic”, what exactly do you mean there? Do you mean being tempted?

It means if you have a love of nudity it is not coming from God. It is not Holy. Do you think the saints would ever go join a nudist colony? We have Christians today who do just that because a little voice whispered in their ear, “it’s OK, the body is beautiful, no one is here to lust… just do it, it is liberating”…

And while it is true the body is good, that voice is leading one away from the light towards darkness. In the Bible, almost every time nudity was mentioned it was associated with something negative.

I have to sign off for now. Hope this is helping.

 

[Sky_River]

This line of thinking is dangerous. Deacon, forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comment. I probably am, as this topic hits a nerve. … but just in case, I am not, well get ready for my rant.

The OP is not talking about the Sistine chapel, he is talking about someone’s wife, mother, sister or daughter. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is fine to look at naked women provided you are “appreciating the beauty of her gentle curves”. I hope this is not what you are implying. Men don’t get to violate the rules of modesty just because they tell themselves they are not lusting. Is it OK for a group of grown men to walk in on someone’s daughter or wife while showering? As long as they say, hey, don’t worry, we’re not lusting, we’re just appreciating your grand design of the feminine, she should be OK with it? Would that make everything right with God? Of course not. Men who keep parroting this grave error sound like they are just trying to come up with excuses to unwrap gifts that don’t belong to them. The parts of a woman’s body that involve sexual reproduction are an exclusive gift to her husband and only her husband. Breasts are also (for a given period of time) a gift to her babies. Men taking pleasure from women they are not married to are trespassing where they have no right to go. It is a huge deal to violate something so Holy between two married people.

I think screwtape must have come up with the idea of some men magically having immunity from concupiscence and so now they can look at naked women just so long as they label certain naked pictures, tasteful and therefore not porn, then they can continue deceiving themselves. Meanwhile what message does this send to women and little girls?

I once walked into a room and on the tv there were completely nude women reading the news. They weren’t doing anything to incite lust. Reading doesn’t meet the definition of porn so does that mean there is nothing wrong with it? Can we all hear the news and enjoy the gentle curves of God’s design? Of course not. A woman is not an art object for men to enjoy even if they aren’t lusting. Unveiling that which should remain veiled until marriage is wrong even if it technically isn’t defined as porn.

The only time someone can look at the naked body of the opposite sex is in marriage. After that exceptions are made if the principle of double effect comes into play ie medical necessity, woman giving birth in elevator alone with man not her husband, forensics etc.

If someone thinks it is fine to use the sense of sight to see a woman unclothed (provided you are not lusting), then I guess you could make the argument that as long as you don’t lust, you can use the sense of touch to feel a woman’s gentle curves in order to appreciate her beauty! Extremely perilous line of thinking.

There have always been Christians promoting nudism throughout the ages and the Church has rightly declared them in error. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but just saying this is what follows from being deceived. It is bad fruit.

To the OP, Bishop Fulton Sheen gave a talk and said, “love of nudity” was one of the signs of the demonic. Perhaps, spend some quiet time after Mass in prayer and talk to Jesus and Mary about it. After the fall, God clothed us for a reason. Don’t let the nudists and naturalists convince you otherwise. They will take you down a dark path. Peace.

What do you mean by holy?