Question for DWs about SI swimsuit issue

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Exactly! I should think a sports magazine’s ‘swimsuit issue’ would feature the U.S. women’s Olympic teams for swimming, diving, synchronized swimming - and why not include the men’s teams? If not the olympic swimmers then at least the leading national competitors in the U.S. who will/are competing to earn their spot on the next U.S. team. They’d appreciate the exposure to help secure sponsorships for their olympic bid.

They’d be wearing the stuff they wear to compete, not the bikini stuff (though I admit, the men do tend to compete in those speedos so I’d rather they have lightweight swim robes covering them -** if** men were included at all).

See, wifeandmomoftwo, it’s the intent behind the spread which distinguishes it as porn rather than appropriate photojournalism.

LOL!
I guess each their own. I showed this thread to my dh and he just had to laugh…he did point out that while this may be an issue for some men not all men are pigs.
I still dont consider SI as porn nor do I view art such as David or Rising of Venus as porn.

 

[GAHere]

LOL!
I guess each their own. I showed this thread to my dh and he just had to laugh…he did point out that while this may be an issue for some men not all men are pigs.
I still dont consider SI as porn nor do I view art such as David or Rising of Venus as porn.

Of course not all men are pigs, no one suggested they were.
Nor did anyone here say David and the Rising of Venus is porn.
Art is art.

You consider the SI spread art.
I would usually consider it art, too, if it were exhibited as such in a book - even just a calendar - so long as it’s clear to everyone it’s marketed to that sole intent of the product is to display scantily clothed women in provacative positions.

I object to it being produced as the center spread in a magazine that 11 months of the year focuses on sports. It’s a blatant ‘sex for sales’ marketing strategy much as lingerie, beer and automobile companies use in their campaigns. I just don’t get what a daisy-duke clad big busted curvy blond has to do with the quality/taste of beer or engineering/reliability of an automobile.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t view SI as porn…that is a stretch. But, I will say…it is a ‘near occasion to sin.’ That I would say about it. And not all men struggle with looking at an attractive woman in a bikini…and start objectifying women. Over time, a daily dosage of such things, could lead to sin–absolutely.

I mean…there are women in bikinis at the beach. Should men avoid the beach? There are women who jog in my neighborhood with very little on…ha I even notice! To sum it up, men and women have to learn to coexist with people who are trying to lure them into sin. We can avoid it as much as we can…which is wise. It is wise as St Paul, to flee from immorality. But, like my example of the beach, there will come a time when something immodest will be before you, and one needs to cling to God for the strength to avoid gaping, or staring…basically, the near occasion to sin. Now, if you are really someone who struggles with porn addiction–probably staying away from such instances might be a smart choice.

Speaking from a vantage point of looking at SI myself when my husband was subscribing to it, I didn’t think much about it. I dunno…My husband looked at it with me a few times in the past, but I don’t think that it was something we thought about much. It was usually in the trash a few days after it came, to not clutter up the house, when I was cleaning. I will say that my prayers are with everyone on this forum who struggles with porn…or near occasions to sin because of these types of magazines. I can see the points made by everyone…it turned into quite an interesting thread.

 

[GAHere]

I mean…there are women in bikinis at the beach. Should men avoid the beach? There are women who jog in my neighborhood with very little on…ha I even notice! To sum it up, men and women have to learn to coexist with people who are trying to lure them into sin. We can avoid it as much as we can…which is wise. It is wise as St Paul, to flee from immorality. But, like my example of the beach, there will come a time when something immodest will be before you, and one needs to cling to God for the strength to avoid gaping, or staring…basically, the near occasion to sin.

You raise good points too.

One can choose to go out of their way to go to the beach or stay away. One can’t avoid seeing the joggers passing before their front porch though, so yes, in those times it’s up to each person to avert their eyes if they are of the disposition of struggling with lust and such.

Bringing the images into the home is another matter. I do appreciate the magazine making the issue optional for subscribers and commend those men who choose that option, whether they do so for their own benefit or out of respect for their wives and children. Of course, if the wife and kids are immune to the affects of the sexual overrtones in the spread then more power to that house and let the issue arrive annually. I do understand that not all people are affected by images the same way.

 

[Cat]

JMO, but I think the bigger fuss you make about it, the more a man will desire it. Ease up.

It’s the same principle as dieting–you don’t even want the Twinkies until you know you can’t have 'em!

Please don’t put words into my mouth. There are things that the Lord has forbidden, and even if we desire these sinful things, we are held accountable if we give in
to our desire. Sin is sin.

And yes, I believe that many men are addicted to porn, and for men like this, an SI swimsuit issue could be a stepping stone to disaster.

But for many other men, this magazine isn’t an occasion for sin, it’s just a lot of lovely ladies in swimsuits.

If you look at history, men have been looking at pinups since the beginning of “art.” The pinup of Betty Grable that many GIs hung in their footlocker during WWII was considered “racy.” Now it’s just sweet.

When you think about it, for many men, ANY glance at ANY woman can be a “near occasion of sin,” but as a woman, I don’t want to live in a society like many Islamic countries which cover the women from head to toe. I think that although many men will experience a thrill when looking through the SI swimsuit issue, most men will have the continence to control their desires, and merely close the magazine and go kiss their wives. Maybe I’m naive, but I would prefer to think that men are capable of controlling themselves.

One more suggestion–a wise older woman told me a long time ago to “bait my own hook.” I am 50 years old, but I frankly think that I can give those SI bathing beauties a run for their money when it comes to capturing my husband’s attention!

Again, JMO. I’ve never been raped; perhaps if I had, I would have a different perspective on this issue. I sympathize with those women who have husbands who are addicted to porn, and think that they are wise to help their husbands stay away from things like SI. But I still think that for most men and their wives, the SI issue is harmless fun and fantasy.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Of course not all men are pigs, no one suggested they were.

Hmm, read through the thread again…I get the distinct impression that some woman think otherwise.

Nor did anyone here say David and the Rising of Venus** is porn**.
Art is art.

Actually some folks did. Some people see a naked body and automatically say it is PORN

You consider the SI spread art.

WOULD not go that far, but I do not think it is porn.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I don’t view SI as porn…that is a stretch. But, I will say…it is a ‘near occasion to sin.’ That I would say about it. And not all men struggle with looking at an attractive woman in a bikini…and start objectifying women. Over time, a daily dosage of such things, could lead to sin–absolutely.

I mean…there are women in bikinis at the beach. Should men avoid the beach? There are women who jog in my neighborhood with very little on…ha I even notice! To sum it up, men and women have to learn to coexist with people who are trying to lure them into sin. We can avoid it as much as we can…which is wise. It is wise as St Paul, to flee from immorality. But, like my example of the beach, there will come a time when something immodest will be before you, and one needs to cling to God for the strength to avoid gaping, or staring…basically, the near occasion to sin. Now, if you are really someone who struggles with porn addiction–probably staying away from such instances might be a smart choice.

Speaking from a vantage point of looking at SI myself when my husband was subscribing to it, I didn’t think much about it. I dunno…My husband looked at it with me a few times in the past, but I don’t think that it was something we thought about much. It was usually in the trash a few days after it came, to not clutter up the house, when I was cleaning. I will say that my prayers are with everyone on this forum who struggles with porn…or near occasions to sin because of these types of magazines. I can see the points made by everyone…it turned into quite an interesting thread.

Thank you!

 

[shannyk]

Hmm, read through the thread again…I get the distinct impression that some woman think otherwise.

Who? I’ve read the whole thred more than one and did not see anyone say such a thing, nor did I get that impression.I personally think men are gentle, loving, and intelligent people who don’t deserve to have their sexuality used and exploited by women and their spirituality selves trounced on. Honestly, women have gotten far too comfortable with using their sexuality to manipulate men, and sadly, even their husbands.

Actually some folks did. Some people see a naked body and automatically say it is PORN

Again, where was that said?? If anything people pointed out the difference between art and porn. I think this is you assuming where other people are coming from. You are assuming that because people have a problem with SI then they have a problem with all nudity. No one said this was the case.

WOULD not go that far, but I do not think it is porn.

What is it then?? Many people have stated that it’s not porn but no one can define it as anything else…

Here is the thing, everyone here is judging the whole SI thing on their own subjective criteria i.e. “I don’t think it’s porn”, " my husband doesn’t look at it like that", “I can still get my husbands attention so I don’t care”, and “it’s harmless fantasy”. The fact is, no one is looking at it from an objective moral viewpoint. Simply because you don’t have a ‘problem’ with it does not make it moral. As Catholics we are supposed to be looking at things through God’s eyes, we are called to see people the way God sees them, and we are called to reflect Christ in everything we do so that others may see Christ in us and be affected by it. But, it doesn’t seem like many people here are concerned with that, or others and how they are treating themselves and mistreating their God given bodies. And, since we are all part of one spiritual body, no wonder so much of us is sick these days when we have no problems with people objectifying themselves, and calling it ‘harmless fantasy’.

 

[shannyk]

But I still think that for most men and their wives, the SI issue is harmless fun and fantasy.

Please explain how looking at half naked bodies in a magazine full of objectified women is harmless fun.

People here are just not willing to wrap their heads around the big picture here.

Whether or not you or your spouse have a ‘problem’ with looking at SI personally, the harm to someone else has already been done (the women posing, other men who view it and do have problems with it, and the women and people around them).

If everyone or even all the Catholic men, had the courage to decline the swimsuit issue, they might think twice about shooting it to begin with. These are the kinds of small changes we are all called to make in our lives. No one needs to read SI . Not ordering it at all and subscribing to something else that was more inline with Catholic beliefs would be only a tiny sacrifice that could make a big impact.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

You do know that some men DO have issues “art” too, right?

So should we do away with all images of the naked body or semi-naked body since someone may have an issue with it?

Good by David, Venus Rising, good by Rembrandt , Lalique…etc.
I guess while we are at it since some folks cant handle woman at the beach we should make everyone that goes to the beach or pools to wear one of these…LINK and men can go back to wearing these LINK

I mean really where do we draw the line? Should woman not be allowed to leave the house without one of these toohttp://www.pluto.no/doogie/Ga/blekka/ga173/burka.jpg

 

[shannyk]

We went to mass tonight, and I was thinking about the priest’s homily on patience. You know, as husbands and wives, we are called to forgiveness and patience within our marriages. Sometimes, I read posts, that are well intentioned, but by people who have never been married and have really no idea what the challenges are. Not that you can’t read about the challenges, but living it is a whole other ballgame, let me tell ya.

I was telling my husband about this thread tonight at dinner…and we remembered when he got these SI issues. He said…'did you ever have a problem with that swimsuit issue coming? I want you to know, I never cared about that issue." I choose to believe him. I remember during our marriage, there were times when my husband’s eye would roam. I never liked it, and would tell him that I thought it was disrespectful. My husband thinks I’m beautiful, but he at times, earlier in our marriage, went through phases with his eyes roaming, if we went to the beach, for example. Did I care? Sure. Did I think of my husband as ‘just being a man?’ No, I wanted my husband to be what Christ wants all men and women to be. I didn’t make huge deals out of it, but I would always indicate that I found it disrespectful, and he would apologize. And one day…I noticed that he never looked again. I never mentioned it again. It didn’t lead me to mistrust my husband when he went our for a drink with an old college friend for example, but rather admire him that he turned a habit, into a personal journey to strive to do better. And he admired me that I gave him the chance…to set things right with his marriage, with me…and with God.

The purpose of me saying all this, is that sometimes, there are instances in a marriage where we are challenged to be chaste minded. Challenged to forgive. Challenged to have mercy. We don’t come before our Lord and Savior as perfect–why do we expect such perfection from our spouses? We should expect for our spouses to strive to achieve holiness…and for us to help our spouses if they are struggling. But, be careful. As a spouse, you can ruin a good thing, if you do not trust your spouse to do the right thing. We can be great mentors, if we just do things in a spirit of encouragement, rather than scolding. Pick your battles wisely, as they say. You alone know your spouse, and if you feel it’s a battle worth waging, then you should choose to wage it. (by battle, I’m exagerating) But, if you don’t ever give your spouse a chance to improve…you’re going to have a very worrisome and exhausting marriage.

I say all this with great love and charity for you all, during this season of Advent.

Whatevergirl,

I’m not sure where anyone was saying anything contrary to this…of course our spouses aren’t perfect and as wives we are not to be gastapo. But, we are supposed to safeguard the spiritual safety of our families, and yes sometimes we have to choose our battles. Trust is essential. I just don’t see why the women who have a problem with their husbands looking at other women are considered insecure. Even you said you did not like your husband glancing at other women (not in magazines). Does this make you insecure? I don’t think so. I think it makes you a normal woman. But, I also think it doesn’t make much difference if the woman is in a magazine or in real life. Of course everyone is going to encounter temptation in some form or another many many times during our lifetimes. We do have to ask God to help us in these situations, and we also have to be willing to make changes ourselves and our behavior. I guess I don’t see how looking at a woman half naked in a magazine helps one to look at a live woman in a more chaste way.

 

[shannyk]

You do know that some men DO have issues “art” too, right?

So should we do away with all images of the naked body or semi-naked body since someone may have an issue with it?

Good by David, Venus Rising, good by Rembrandt , Lalique…etc.
I guess while we are at it since some folks cant handle woman at the beach we should make everyone that goes to the beach or pools to wear one of these…LINK and men can go back to wearing these LINK

I mean really where do we draw the line? Should woman not be allowed to leave the house without one of these toohttp://www.pluto.no/doogie/Ga/blekka/ga173/burka.jpg

I don’t get what you are arguing here. There is a difference, a BIG difference between art and SI issue. I can see that difference clearly. So, who is talking about banning art? Or banning anything for that matter?

A woman’s body is not a walking occasion for sin, it is SACRED and not enough people give it that status. The Islamic garb you pictured is the result of a disordered view of women, just as the SI swimsuit issue is. Muslims see women as walking sin not worthy of respect, and the SI issue shows an image of a woman who’s ONLY good is her body and the pleasure it imparts to another. I don’t know about you, but I think women’s bodies deserve a lot more respect than that.

As for bathing suits, first of all, you don’t need to wear a string bikini to be able to swim. I swim with my 3 kids at least once a week, and we all seem to be able to swim fine in one piece suits and swim trunks. There is really no point to wearing something like Beyonce had on in that pic you posted, other than to get people to look at you. But sure, you can’t tell people what to wear. There is no accounting for taste…

I’m also not sure why it’s OK to laugh at obese peoples bodies anymore than it’s OK to ogle over a SI model…

 

[rpp]

You do know that some men DO have issues “art” too, right?

So should we do away with all images of the naked body or semi-naked body since someone may have an issue with it?

Good by David, Venus Rising, good by Rembrandt , Lalique…etc.
I guess while we are at it since some folks cant handle woman at the beach we should make everyone that goes to the beach or pools to wear one of these…LINK and men can go back to wearing these LINK

I mean really where do we draw the line? Should woman not be allowed to leave the house without one of these toohttp://www.pluto.no/doogie/Ga/blekka/ga173/burka.jpg

Oh brother. Please now you are not only being silly with this response, you are saying something that no one else even suggested. Such arguments and statements do nothing but demonstrate the vacantness of your position. As has been repeatedly stated, there are real differences between art and porn. You are the only one who is suggesting they are the same.

Perhaps the real problem here is that YOU do not understand what porn is, perhaps because it does not affect you. Perhaps you cannot understand the difference between porn and art because you yourself do not understand the difference.

You stated that such images can “fun”. The Church clearly teaches that your “fun” images are intrinsically wrong because their intent is to provoke a sexual response.

What is worse, you appear to think, though I may have misunderstood your innuendo, that men who look at porn are somehow emotionally or mentally disturbed. That is not normally the case. Rather it is a reflection of the differences between men and women. Men are aroused in very different ways than women are. In fact the arousal patterns of men and women are not even similar. Men are far more influenced by visual images that women. Women are more affected emotions, feelings of closeness and security, which are not exactly turn-ons for most men.

I think the reality is that you do not appear understand the problem because you do seem to to personally relate to it. However, just because porn does not seem to affect you does not give you license to tacitly promote it or even tolerate.

 

[whatevergirl]

Whatevergirl,

I’m not sure where anyone was saying anything contrary to this…of course our spouses aren’t perfect and as wives we are not to be gastapo. But, we are supposed to safeguard the spiritual safety of our families, and yes sometimes we have to choose our battles. Trust is essential. I just don’t see why the women who have a problem with their husbands looking at other women are considered insecure. Even you said you did not like your husband glancing at other women (not in magazines). Does this make you insecure? I don’t think so. I think it makes you a normal woman. But, I also think it doesn’t make much difference if the woman is in a magazine or in real life. Of course everyone is going to encounter temptation in some form or another many many times during our lifetimes. We do have to ask God to help us in these situations, and we also have to be willing to make changes ourselves and our behavior. I guess I don’t see how looking at a woman half naked in a magazine helps one to look at a live woman in a more chaste way.

Hi shanny;
I think we agree with the principles, and in theory. I also believe that as spouses, we have a ‘job’ if you will, to keep one another chaste. But, I also have to give my husband a chance to be chaste…and to not jump in front of every target that I view as being a stumbling block. I don’t see that as helping him, but rather not allowing him to think for himself. I really do understand your sentiments, and they are mine too. Perhaps, we just use different measures to come to the same results. I think that perhaps is where we differ…my tactics on helping my husband to be chaste are perhaps different, but my motivation could be the same as yours.

 

[whatevergirl]

And this may seem trite…but Sears catalog…and many department store catalogs have bra sections…where women are posing in under garments…do we throw these away also? I think my husband would feel insulted, if I threw away everything that came in the mail…that could possibly be seen as a temptation for him. He doesn’t care or know what comes in the mail half the time…but he is not sifting through, looking at VS catlogs for example, and might be offended if I threw it out BECAUSE I thought he would be tempted to sin. I don’t care to look at them either, frankly…so they go in the trash. He doesn’t want to be mothered, and doesn’t feel it is necessary–If he had a problem, in the past with it–he could see the need…but I think we have to be careful not to insult our spouses’ intelligence by assuming that they can’t avert their eyes and not pay attention to such things. Although a poster here said that men are aroused differently than women…it doesn’t mean that they can’t control themselves, and are drawn to every women wearing hardly anything in a magazine. Again, my husband, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t look at SI swimsuit issues…if he were single, maybe he might have…but perhaps he knew it would disrespect me. I think there is a great joy when a spouse can come to this conclusion on his own.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[He_Man]

I’d never bring that into my house for two reasons.

One, seeing scantily clad women can only lead to bad thoughts for people. I don’t need that hassle. Same reason I don’t want Victoria’s Secret catalogues laying around. it is inappropriate. I figure, anything that I wouldn’t want out if Jesus came over for dinner gets tossed.

Also, and more importantly, I’d want my wife (fiance right now, technically) to realize she is numero uno at all times. Even though we are completely faithful to each other, I wouldn’t enjoy watching her flip through a hard bodied magazine for women. Whether or not I am being unfaithful is irrelevant to that fact that I wouldn’t want to hirt her. She’s my wife, my number one.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’d never bring that into my house for two reasons.

One, seeing scantily clad women can only lead to bad thoughts for people. I don’t need that hassle. Same reason I don’t want Victoria’s Secret catalogues laying around. it is inappropriate. I figure, anything that I wouldn’t want out if Jesus came over for dinner gets tossed.

Also, and more importantly, I’d want my wife (fiance right now, technically) to realize she is numero uno at all times. Even though we are completely faithful to each other, I wouldn’t enjoy watching her flip through a hard bodied magazine for women. Whether or not I am being unfaithful is irrelevant to that fact that I wouldn’t want to hirt her. She’s my wife, my number one.

This is a beautifully stated post.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Oh brother. Please now you are not only being silly with this response, you are saying something that no one else even suggested. Such arguments and statements do nothing but demonstrate the vacantness of your position. As has been repeatedly stated, there are real differences between art and porn. You are the only one who is suggesting they are the same.

Actually no I am not…by the mods removal of the pictures of David and Venus rising and communications i have had with some folks…ART is an issue for many just as SI is an issue for some.

Perhaps the real problem here is that YOU do not understand what porn is, perhaps because it does not affect you. Perhaps you cannot understand the difference between porn and art because you yourself do not understand the difference.

Actually I do know the difference between art and porn. Perhaps the REAL problem is that YOU dont understand that ART for some people is just as big a problem as SI is!

You stated that such images can “fun”. The Church clearly teaches that your “fun” images are intrinsically wrong because their intent is to provoke a sexual response.

**Um, That was not me… **

What is worse, you appear to think, though I may have misunderstood your innuendo, that men who look at porn are somehow emotionally or mentally disturbed.

Are you confusing posters?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I don’t get what you are arguing here. There is a difference, a BIG difference between art and SI issue. I can see that difference clearly. So, who is talking about banning art? Or banning anything for that matter?

While you and I can see the difference between art and porn, some men cant!
So where do we draw the line??? Do we throw out the JCPenney catalog because it has woman in bras and undies? Do we get rid of art that depicts naked/or 1/2 dressed men and woman??
See you and I may not have an issue with “art” some men might & do and shouldnt we take away all temptation for them?? Isnt that what you are advocating for here in regards to the SI issue??

 

[rpp]

Actually no I am not…by the mods removal of the pictures of David and Venus rising and communications i have had with some folks…ART is an issue for many just as SI is an issue for some.

The mod did not remove them. The links in your post are still there.

**

Actually I do know the difference between art and porn. Perhaps the REAL problem is that YOU dont understand that ART for some people is just as big a problem as SI is!

**
It is true that some people do have problems. However, the intent of artistic images is not to provoke sexual arousal. That is the intent of porn and the images in the SI Swimsuit issue.

**

Um, That was not me…

**
Whoops. My mistake. Sorry. That was Cat.
**

Are you confusing posters?

**Actually no. This is what I was responding to:

LOL!
I guess each their own. I showed this thread to my dh and he just had to laugh…he did point out that while this may be an issue for some men not all men are pigs.
I still dont consider SI as porn nor do I view art such as David or Rising of Venus as porn.

The emphasis is yours.

So a man is a pig if he is aroused by images intended to provoke sexual arousal? I would say that is wrong. I would say a man is normal. I would be concerned about a man who is not aroused by images intended to arouse.

It is interesting that you chose not to respond to the more substantive portions of my earlier post. Why not?

But it is clear from your post that you think it is okay to let the culture teach men, especially young men, that women are nothing but sex objects. You seem to think that it is fine for them to introduce men to porn with photos of women wearing swimsuits, that are not even legal in many locales and are often partially removed, posing in provocative positions. You seem to think that this is fine and you actually defend it. Sadly, that is not how men learn to respect women. And you are the one who says men are pigs?

You must realize that in defending porn, you are taking a position that goes against Church teaching. That is quite unfortunate.