Question for DWs about SI swimsuit issue

[wifeandmomoftwo]

as per the CCC
2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

In the above context I dont understand “how” SI swimsuit can be considered porn.

 

[reganq]

Wow, what a heated thread.

To answer the OP, not only would it bother me if DH touched the issue with the intent of looking at it, I would be DEEPLY disappointed and hurt. Same goes with the question originally posted on the VS “fashion show” thread.

It amazes me how many women are OK with their husbands viewing such filth. These images not only cheapen women (something else that deeply offends me), but they damage the biochemistry in men’s brains. They cause men to need that same type/amount of stimulation to be aroused by their wives. And so, trashy behavior becomes the expectation.

If women feel that their relationships are chaste, ask your DH to give up such things voluntarily for a time. Yes, that includes all major league sports (the ads/cheerleaders are porn there, too.) See how big of a battle there is. I am blessed with a DH who switches to EWTN during commercials and averts his eyes when they show the scantily clad cheerleaders. He knows how hurtful and degrading our society has become towards women. Thankfully, he is doing his part to not contribute to the problem.

Now, if that makes me a prude or an insecure wife (which I most definitely am NOT), so be it. It is high time for women to take a stand and expect much more of our husbands.

I do have a question for those who are OK with the swimsuit issue and have children. How do you explain such “literature” to your children? If a child were to see such a thing laying around the house, how would you explain that daddy likes to look at other women who happen to be more than half-naked? Just something to ponder.

 

[shannyk]

Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.

I guess you didn’t read this first line that you bolded…viewing the female body is for MEN a sexual act. Taking that outside of marriage is disordered. Am man viewing a woman that is not his wife in the nude or near nude or in sexual poses, IS a sexual act taken outside of the intimacy marriage. Like CH stated, foreplay begins with a visual image for men. We women don’t seem to get this…We see it ‘no big deal’ in the case of SI, but then in the lingerie thread, talk about how we use lingerie to don our bodies in a way that will lead a man to think we are ‘in the mood’. Are we really so naive to think that a scantily clad woman that is not US won’t bring about the same reaction Why would it be appropriate for any woman beside a wife to use her body to entice her husband??

BTW I hope you will remove those images you posted for the sake of any men that might view them on this board and find them stumbling blocks…I think we all knew what kind of images we were talking about without you having to post them

 

[shannyk]

Now, if that makes me a prude or an insecure wife (which I most definitely am NOT), so be it. It is high time for women to take a stand and expect much more of our husbands.

Thank you!

You know, I’ve come to realize though that most people, sadly, don’t want or think they need a real marriage anymore. I don’t even know if anyone cares what a real marriage is beyond sharing a house and a bed ‘licitly’…

 

[ack]

BTW I hope you will remove those images you posted for the sake of any men that might view them on this board and find them stumbling blocks…I think we all knew what kind of images we were talking about without you having to post them

I’m a man, and I agree. It’s almost seems like wifeandmomoftwo is *trying *to tempt the men on this forum into lust. Talk about un-Christian.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

BTW I hope you will remove those images you posted for the sake of any men that might view them on this board and find them stumbling blocks…I think we all knew what kind of images we were talking about without you having to post them

Sure I will tell the mods to remove the statue of David picture and the one of Venus Rising.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I’m a man, and I agree. It’s almost seems like wifeandmomoftwo is *trying *to tempt the men on this forum into lust. Talk about un-Christian.

sorry which pictures bother you? The ones actually showing naked men and woman or the ones showing woman in a bathing suit??
And I wasnt attmepting to tempt anybody, GEEZ. I was trying to understand what shanny views as porn. IF she sees SI as porn then David and Venus Rising must be hard core to her standards

 

[whatevergirl]

Um…think there are some misunderstandings here. I for one would not want my husband to enjoy looking at such things–and he used to subscribe, and he didn’t pay them much attention. Do I think some men struggle with these issues, yes…I do. I am not saying that they couldn’t serve as stumbling blocks. But, I am also of the opinion that want my husband to come to his own moral conclusions. I don’t need to run to the garbage every time a questionable magazine shows up in the mail, such as VS catalog, or Sears catalog, that shows women in bras, for example. At some point, you need to trust that your spouse can think for himself.

If he can’t…then seek counseling because throwing away magazines isn’t going to cure the problem. It is not a bad thing to do, certainly…but if you want your spouse to really learn how to be pure, you need to be supportive, and allow him to journey through his struggles, and to get counseling if he needs it.

And the charity on this thread is slowly shrinking. There is no reason to name call or be rude and mean spirited, just because someone does not agree with your way of thinking. You can make your point, without hurting your fellow brother or sister in Christ.

 

[ack]

sorry which pictures bother you? The ones actually showing naked men and woman or the ones showing woman in a bathing suit??
And I wasnt attmepting to tempt anybody, GEEZ. I was trying to understand what shanny views as porn. IF she sees SI as porn then David and Venus Rising must be hard core to her standards

Ok. I apologize for saying that you were trying to tempt people. It’s just that when you posted a full-screen picture of a women provocatively posing in a bikini (without even hiding it behind a link), it irritated me that you didn’t think of those who would be tempted by such images.

I don’t find the “naked” artwork to be provocative or tempting, because it’s just art, and wasn’t designed to evoke a sexual reaction in the viewer.

The provocative swimsuit picture was obviously tempting because the woman is dressing and posing to evoke a sexual reaction in men.

FYI, I don’t find a trip to the beach tempting…if the woman in the swimsuit you posted was actually at the beach, it would be easy enough to ignore her, because she would just be sunbathing and not trying to attract my attention. But a provocative photo of the same woman is borderline porn.

 

[ack]

You, as a wife, on the other hand, have EVERY RIGHT to ban any erotic imagery from your home. In fact, as Catholic women, you don’t merely have the right, but you also have the OBLIGATION to do this. This is BY NO MEANS being insecure, but merely asserting your GOD GIVEN rights as a wife. That does NOT make you “bossy,” “controlling,” or any other negative label like that.

The difference that you’re missing is the fact that the wife in this scenario was throwing away her husband’s magazines without asking or telling him.

Asking your husband to stop looking at the swimsuit issue is respectful. Throwing away the swimsuit issue without asking him is controlling.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

The SI swimsuit issue photos bothered me.

OK fair enough.

I don’t find the “naked” artwork to be provocative or tempting, because it’s just art, and wasn’t designed to evoke a sexual reaction in the viewer.

See some folks might disagree with you. I actually agree with you.

The provocative swimsuit picture was obviously tempting because the woman is dressing and posing to evoke a sexual reaction in men.

She was dressing in a bathing suit and even my dh did not see anything sexual in the pose. But ok, I guess you are more sensitve to this than my dh.

FYI, I don’t find a trip to the beach tempting…if the woman in the swimsuit you posted was actually at the beach, it would be easy enough to ignore her, because she would just be sunbathing and not trying to attract my attention. But a provocative photo of the same woman is borderline porn.

LOL! Man I have been to the beach many times and when I see woman wearing bathing suites like i had posted it was not for the sole purpose of sunbathing…but to attract your (mens) attention.
So the SI is borderline porn, ok.

 

[ack]

Reread my post, I added a paragraph

LOL! Man I have been to the beach many times and when I see woman wearing bathing suites like i had posted it was not for the sole purpose of sunbathing…but to attract your (mens) attention.
So the SI is borderline porn, ok.

It’s also easier to avoid looking on the beach, because they’re actual people, and not just images on your computer screen (or in your magazine)…

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Ok. I apologize for saying that you were trying to tempt people. It’s just that when you posted a full-screen picture of a women provocatively posing in a bikini (without even hiding it behind a link), it irritated me that you didn’t think of those who would be tempted by such images.
.

No need, I have accused of worse
I understand your irritation and I am sorry that I did not link to them instead of posting them. My error was that I did not (still dont) view them as porn, but I should of realized that some men would be or could be tempted. So I am sorry.

Reread my post, I added a paragraph

See above

It’s also easier to avoid looking on the beach, because they’re actual people, and not just images on your computer screen (or in your magazine)…

OK, if you say so. I guess I can see your point I mean so many folks on the beach wear stuff that they really should not like this…
What obese men should NOT wear at the beach

What obese woman should NOT wear at the beach

 

[deb1]

as per the CCC 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

In the above context I dont understand “how” SI swimsuit can be considered porn.

I don’t know if this will help. I am a female, of course. My sister sent me photos of well built, firemen without their shirts on. I asked her not to send those to me again. Yes, the men were attractive and I certainly don’t see anything wrong with the human form. But the images were meant to entice, arouse a woman. Some women might only want to view these as aesthetic works-maybe. I couldn’t, so I decided that it was better to offend my sister then to risk lusting over some photo of a guy.

The same is true of men. Yes, the women are beautiful but no one can look at the photos and doubt that sexuality is a big selling point. There are some men who might be able to view these photos with no sexual arousal but this would be very, very rare.

Husbands and wives are supposed to help one another to heaven. Lusting after a woman, even if there is no physical involvement, is a sin. It does not help my husband, if I don’t understand the temptations that he might need help with. It would be hard for most men to avoid lusting over extremely beautiful, young women with perfect hair, bodies, makeup and photoed under perfect conditions wearing very little clothing.

 

[deb1]

And the charity on this thread is slowly shrinking. There is no reason to name call or be rude and mean spirited, just because someone does not agree with your way of thinking. You can make your point, without hurting your fellow brother or sister in Christ.

I think that this is a good reminder.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

And the charity on this thread is slowly shrinking. There is no reason to name call or be rude and mean spirited, just because someone does not agree with your way of thinking. You can make your point, without hurting your fellow brother or sister in Christ.

 

[whatevergirl]

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.

 

[GAHere]

So if I have a book that has pics of works of art that show naked men and woman is that porn too?

It took me a while to recognize the crossing of the line between art and pornography for the swimsuit issue. I was having a conversation with an old colleague of mine, a Catholic man, married, happily, with a child, and all-in-all an honorable man. He loves cars and auto racing but is not into other sports. He goes out of his way to purchase the swimsuit issue. I asked him why, because I know he doesn’t follow the articles since he doesn’t care about the sports. He answered it was for the shots of the gorgeous women. He answered so non-chalantly that it disturbed me for weeks afterward. That’s when I started thinking about the SI issue.

Since that conversation, others I’ve had with him allude to what I came to see as a disorder which is affecting his marriage. His wife recently lost weight and he joked about buying her sexy lingerie but she would never wear it because she was uncomfortable with it. It struck me then that the SI issue is eating away at that marriage. The man is my long-time friend. The wife, I’ve never met, but I really feel bad for her and I’ve scolded my friend for being such a pig when it comes to that stuff (really, that’s what it is). He just doesn’t see it.

Here’s the thing that finally clinched it for me. It’s a sports magazine first and foremost. There are many, many beautiful women participating in professional sports but **they **aren’t the center of the spread. They should be. And they should be featured in their respective uniforms/attire for the sport they’re in. I’ve seen some of them in the swimsuit issue, but they are posed in provocative ways which have nothing to do with their profession and everything to do with getting men to see them as sex objects. Personally, the women of the sport who do participate in the photo spread destroy whatever progress they made to be taken seriously in the industry with that one shot.

So, if you have books which show works of art, including nudes, in your home, fine. It’s presented as art and intended to be read as art. But Sports Illustrated is a magazine about sports and the swimsuit issue photo spread does not depict a single sport, let alone women in that sport wearing the clothes they would normally wear participating in the event. THAT’s the line the magazine crosses which makes their spread porn.

 

[Naztakuan]

It took me a while to recognize the crossing of the line between art and pornography for the swimsuit issue. I was having a conversation with an old colleague of mine, a Catholic man, married, happily, with a child, and all-in-all an honorable man. He loves cars and auto racing but is not into other sports. He goes out of his way to purchase the swimsuit issue. I asked him why, because I know he doesn’t follow the articles since he doesn’t care about the sports. He answered it was for the shots of the gorgeous women. He answered so non-chalantly that it disturbed me for weeks afterward. That’s when I started thinking about the SI issue.

Since that conversation, others I’ve had with him allude to what I came to see as a disorder which is affecting his marriage. His wife recently lost weight and he joked about buying her sexy lingerie but she would never wear it because she was uncomfortable with it. It struck me then that the SI issue is eating away at that marriage. The man is my long-time friend. The wife, I’ve never met, but I really feel bad for her and I’ve scolded my friend for being such a pig when it comes to that stuff (really, that’s what it is). He just doesn’t see it.

Here’s the thing that finally clinched it for me. It’s a sports magazine first and foremost. There are many, many beautiful women participating in professional sports but **they **aren’t the center of the spread. They should be. And they should be featured in their respective uniforms/attire for the sport they’re in. I’ve seen some of them in the swimsuit issue, but they are posed in provocative ways which have nothing to do with their profession and everything to do with getting men to see them as sex objects. Personally, the women of the sport who do participate in the photo spread destroy whatever progress they made to be taken seriously in the industry with that one shot.

So, if you have books which show works of art, including nudes, in your home, fine. It’s presented as art and intended to be read as art. But Sports Illustrated is a magazine about sports and the swimsuit issue photo spread does not depict a single sport, let alone women in that sport wearing the clothes they would normally wear participating in the event. THAT’s the line the magazine crosses which makes their spread porn.

Yeah and last time I checked Beyonce was NOT an athelete.
And athletic swimmers don’t usually wear bikinis…right?

 

[GAHere]

Yeah and last time I checked Beyonce was NOT an athelete.
And athletic swimmers don’t usually wear bikinis…right?

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.