Question for DWs about SI swimsuit issue

[wifeandmomoftwo]

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

The links are not there from my original post, nor are the picturess.

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

Not a problem
**Actually no. This is what I was responding to:
The emphasis is yours.
My statment states not all men are pigs…how does this relate to your comment?? 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.
Did I say men where mentally disturbed or emotionally? Nope.!

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.

So you think that all men should be aroused by the SI issue?

And it was my DH that said not all men where pigs

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

Which parts where those?

 

[rpp]

I am done with this thread. I am simply shocked that on a Catholic forum that someone, a woman no less, would defend the destruction of innocence and promote the abuse and objectification of women.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I am done with this thread. I am simply shocked that on a Catholic forum that someone, a woman no less, would defend the destruction of innocence and promote the abuse and objectification of women.

Lets get something straight RPP…I am not advocating for the destruction of innocence or promoting the abuse of woman by making them objects!

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.
EXCUSE ME!
I dont teach my kids (both boys by the way) that woman 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.

This is your classification, to you SI is porn, to many it is not!
So sorry that I have not fallen in line and agreed with you on this! Of course you know best and we should all follow what you say…so if RPP says SI is porn then it must be porn I :bowdown: to your supreme wisdom…I am going to blind my husband now so he is never able to be tempted again

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?
What I defend is my stance that SI is not porn. Oh wait here is the SEARS catalog section with Bras & Undies…oh no 1/2 naked woman in risky poses…PORN … BURN IT… THROW IT OUT!
And actually it was** MY HUSBAND** that said not all men are pigs:shrug:

 

[whatevergirl]

The one thing I’ll say in thinking about this thread…is that I do remember when the swimsuit issue came…my daughter saw the cover and said to me…‘why do women dress like that?’ I remember saying, that not all women do. She said…‘does daddy read this?’ (this was like 3 years ago maybe?)

I didn’t know what to say. I said, daddy doesn’t really look at those pictures…that magazine comes with the other issues. I said, women really shouldn’t pose like that in magazines…you are right.

Ok…so maybe I forgot that story. In reading these posts, I don’t view it as porn, nor did I in the past…but it can’t be good, if out of the mouth of an 8 yr old, would come the statements above. (I don’t view it as porn, still–but in recalling this, I think that my dd called me to task, when asking me about it…like if I was approving of this, what message would that send to her?) So…this has been an insightful thread. As I have perused it, I can see everyone’s points.

 

[He_Man]

I guess my question would be, what is the point of it? If it is not to ogle women, then what is it?

 

[whatevergirl]

Good question.

I will say though, that back in the 30’s and 40’s…there were pin up girls in garage shops, etc…and no one called them porn? These women were wearing bathing suits…and I even remember hearing about women dressed in a risque way back then, traveling to see the troops, to entertain them? I wasn’t born back then…but I wonder what the general consensus was about that type of thing? It was looked at as more innocent fun, and now the poses perhaps are more provocative, but weren’t the pin ups days back in the 30’s and 40’s sort of along the same lines? Thought about that the other day.

 

[ChangingHeart]

I have some questions that I would like to ask wifeandmomoftwo.

1. Is your husband a devout Catholic?
2. If your husband is a devout Catholic, does he understand that being a devout Catholic means he is called to OBEDIENCE to Christ? (See Romans 6:16-19.)
3. If your husband is a devout Catholic who understands that he is called to obedience, is he familiar with Matthew 5:28?
4. Does your husband look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?

I feel that getting answers to these four questions are relevant to how I intend to proceed with this discussion.

I humbly ask that you all please pray that I may remain charitable in my replies.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I have some questions that I would like to ask wifeandmomoftwo.

1. Is your husband a devout Catholic?

Why? Is that relevant to the topic?
But to answer your question, yes he is.

2. If your husband is a devout Catholic, does he understand that being a devout Catholic means he is called to OBEDIENCE to Christ? (See Romans 6:16-19.)

Yes

3. If your husband is a devout Catholic who understands that he is called to obedience, is he familiar with Matthew 5:28?

Yes

1. Does your husband look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?

Nope

I humbly ask that you all please pray that I may remain charitable in my replies.

Well if you need prayers to remain charitable then perhaps you should put me on IGNORE:thumbsup:

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I have some questions that I would like to ask wifeandmomoftwo.

1. Is your husband a devout Catholic?
   What does this have to do with the OP?
2. If your husband is a devout Catholic, does he understand that being a devout Catholic means he is called to OBEDIENCE to Christ? (See Romans 6:16-19.)
   What does this have to do with the OP?
3. If your husband is a devout Catholic who understands that he is called to obedience, is he familiar with Matthew 5:28?
   What does this have to do with the OP?
4. Does your husband look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?
   NOPE!
   I feel that getting answers to these four questions are relevant to how I intend to proceed with this discussion.

I humbly ask that you all please pray that I may remain charitable in my replies.

I am sorry but how do my answers to these help you in this discussion? What do they have to do with this discussion?
If you need prayers to remain charitable in your posts then perhaps the IGNORE button would be a good option to use:thumbsup:

Now changingheart let me ask you…

1. Is your husband a devout catholic?
2. Does he have issues with porn?
   3.Does he look at the SI swimsuit issue?

 

[whatevergirl]

I have some questions that I would like to ask wifeandmomoftwo.

1. Is your husband a devout Catholic?
2. If your husband is a devout Catholic, does he understand that being a devout Catholic means he is called to OBEDIENCE to Christ? (See Romans 6:16-19.)
3. If your husband is a devout Catholic who understands that he is called to obedience, is he familiar with Matthew 5:28?
4. Does your husband look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?

I feel that getting answers to these four questions are relevant to how I intend to proceed with this discussion.

I humbly ask that you all please pray that I may remain charitable in my replies.

I have nothing to add…I just wanted to say that I admire your attention to being charitable in your replies.

 

[ChangingHeart]

the SI issue is harmless fun and fantasy.

Tell that to all the women who’s marriages have been destroyed over their husband’s porn addiction. Tell that to the children of such marriages, too.

Tell that to the men whose families have been shamed and disgraced by their daughters or sisters appearing in such magazines.

Tell that to the teenage boys whose mothers one appeared in that, only for those boys to get made fun of by their high school friends, “Hey look, I have some sexy pictures of your mom.”

Tell that to all the innocent women who got raped, because some man’s sex drive went on overload after viewing those pictures.

Tell that to all the devout Christian men who are genuinely trying to overcome their pornography addiction that was started with that magazine, yet keep struggling and slipping up, as they are desparately praying for deliverance from lust, yet not quite finding it, yet.

Tell that to the teenage girl who is starving herself and having suicidal thoughts, because she just doesn’t quite look like the women in those magazines.

Tell your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that breaking his commandment in Matthew 5:28 is merely “harmless fun and fantasy.”

 

[ChangingHeart]

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.

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’.

Amen. BRILLIANT points.

I already mentioned Matthew 5:28 (why it is sinful for a man to view such pictures) Romans 14:13 (why it is sinful to post such a picture on a Catholic message board) but also the person being portrayed in such pictures is told not to (1 Timothy 2:9.)

 

[ChangingHeart]

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?

Absolutely! These may not technically fall under the category of “porn,” on the grounds that their main purpose is to sell undergarments to women, and NOT to sexually stimulate men as the SI Swimsuit issue is intended to. Nevertheless, if a man sees them, he can still end up violating Matthew 5:28, so it is best for loving wives and mothers of sons not to bring such things into the house(Romans 14:13.)

If you were on a diet, I’m sure you would not want your husband or children bringing your favorite desserts into the house.

If you were a recovering alcoholic, I’m sure you would not want your husband or sons to bring alcohol into the house.

Well, this is the same, but even more serious, in that desserts or alcohol require the kinesthetic action of consumption, while sexy pictures of women can create sin upon mere visual sight.

 

[ChangingHeart]

Now changingheart let me ask you…

1. Is your husband a devout catholic?
2. Does he have issues with porn?
   3.Does he look at the SI swimsuit issue?

I’m a man, straight, and not married.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Amen. BRILLIANT points.

I already mentioned Matthew 5:28 (why it is sinful for a man to view such pictures)**So all men are drooling dolts that have no self control?**Romans 14:13 (why it is sinful to post such a picture on a Catholic message board) **Getting my Burka, don’t want to be a stumbling block **but also the person being portrayed in such pictures is told not to (1 Timothy 2:9.) Getting rid of the diamond ring/earrings and gold bangels and taking out the burka and no more bathing suits either!

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I’m a man, straight, and not married.

All righty then…my faux pas sorry!

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Absolutely! These may not technically fall under the category of “porn,” on the grounds that their main purpose is to sell undergarments to women, and NOT to sexually stimulate men as the SI Swimsuit issue is intended to. Nevertheless, if a man sees them, he can still end up violating Matthew 5:28, so it is best for loving wives and mothers of sons not to bring such things into the house(Romans 14:13.)

.

So where do we stop? Sears is out, as are many other dept. store catalogues…so should we paint clothes on nudes in paintings? restore the fig leafs to naked statues?
If as you say everything is an occasion for sin then are men even allowed out of the house? Shouldn’t we keep them under lock and key for their own salvation (excluding holy days of obligation and Mass)?

 

[ChangingHeart]

So where do we stop? Sears is out, as are many other dept. store catalogues…so should we paint clothes on nudes in paintings? restore the fig leafs to naked statues?
If as you say everything is an occasion for sin then are men even allowed out of the house? Shouldn’t we keep them under lock and key for their own salvation (excluding holy days of obligation and Mass)?

1 Corinthians 5:10. Don’t bring sexually provocative PHOTOGRAPHS into your homes. Don’t post it on a Catholic message board, either. There is a difference between photographs of real women, and paintings or statues.

If your husband or sons outright tell you that paintings or statues are a problem to them, then avoid those too, but that would be abnormal.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

1 Corinthians 5:10. Don’t bring sexually provocative PHOTOGRAPHS into your homes. Don’t post it on a Catholic message board, either:rolleyes: Are Venus and David gone again??. There is a difference between photographs of real women, and paintings or statues.

And yes I agree there is a difference between pics of woman and paintings/statues some men dont and have issues with both forms:shrug:

If your husband or sons outright tell you that paintings or statues are a problem to them, then avoid those too, but that would be abnormal.

Well thank goodness this is not an issue for any of us

 

[ChangingHeart]

“So all men are drooling dolts that have no self control?”

Picture your favorite dessert. Say that you were told that you could eat it, but you weren’t allowed to enjoy the taste of it, and that furthermore you were not allowed to hold your nose, or eat something really sweet before it to numb the taste of it. Would the fact that you tasted it make you a “drooling dolt that has no self control?”

Say something that smelled really really good passed by your way, but you were told that you weren’t allowed to smell it. Would the fact that you smelled it make you a “drooling dolt with no self control?”

Say there was some song that was being blasted throughout your workplace, and that you were told that you weren’t allowed to listen to it. Would the fact that you heard it make you a “drooling dolt that has no self control?”

Well, guess what? Men are VISUALLY stimulated. It does NOT make us drooling dolts with no self-control. It makes us MEN.

You need to understand(and I realize that you don’t) that regardless of what your husband may have mislead you to believe, it is a NORMAL and NATURAL reaction for a man to be turned on by a photograph of a sexy woman. It is also a sin for a man to look at such a woman lustfully(Matthew 5:28.) Therefore, it is imperative that men do NOT look at such images.

If your husband chooses to avoid such images, then he is being a wise and honorable man. If his love for you and God is so strong that such images have no impact on him, and he therefore doesn’t look at them, then you should thank God for being married to such a wonderful man.

If, on the other hand, your husband goes out of his way to look at such images, and then tells you, “Don’t worry, baby. These images mean nothing to me. Only pigs or drooling dolts with no self control would be turned on by these pictures,” and you believe him, then you are very gullible.

You have already shown an extreme level of naivity(sp?) in this area, by posting a picture of a woman in a bikini on a Catholic message board. That action in and of itself PROVES that you don’t know what you are talking about on this issue, which is understandable, in that many women who can’t personally relate to the impact that such imagery has on men just don’t get it, and seem like they won’t get it, no matter how much we explain it to them, so I wonder if it is even worth my time to type this all out.

Also, if you take issue with 1 Timothy 2:9, since you don’t feel that it conforms to modern mainstream American fashion trends, then you need to reevaluate where the center of your moral compass is. I quoted three different Scriptures for you, and you still failed to see what I’m saying. I hope I clarified it, now.