B
Benjinho
Guest
Humor is good, characters are mostly funny and likeableā¦the nudity couldāve been censored and I would still have read it.Why would you want to read a comic that has nudity in it?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
True, one should not mock G-d. However, if one sincerely repents, including for the same sin, does the Church impose a limit on the number of times G-d is capable of forgiving?
E
edwest211
Guest
I agree. I took life drawing at University and it was a waste of time. Learning how to invent the human form and make it appear believable is difficult. It is much better to approach the problem without photos but professional drawings that show how everything works in perspective. No, nudity is not evil, but it is commonly used to exploit women in various media, followed by men. Such exploitation is evil.
A
alphonsus1
Guest
Yes, please read my comment above that you have a relationship with God!
You also have a relationship with your wife. Can you mortal sin against your wife (adultery), an infinite number of times?
Second, St. Alphonsus clearly says that God can abandon you if you despise him by continuing to mortal sin against him. Since mortal sin is irrevocably breaking your relationship with him (each time that you do it), quite like adultery. So potentially, there may be a number of mortal sins beyond which God pardons no more.
St. Alphonsus:
āWe have again the example of Saul, who, after having disobeyed God a second time, was abandoned. He entreated Samuel to interpose before the Lord in his behalf. āBear, I beseech thee, my sin, and return with me, that I may adore the Lord," (1 Kings xv. 25.) But, knowing that God had abandoned Saul, Samuel answered: āI will not return with thee; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee," etc. (v. 26.) Saul, you have abandoned God, and he has abandoned you.ā
You also have a relationship with your wife. Can you mortal sin against your wife (adultery), an infinite number of times?
Second, St. Alphonsus clearly says that God can abandon you if you despise him by continuing to mortal sin against him. Since mortal sin is irrevocably breaking your relationship with him (each time that you do it), quite like adultery. So potentially, there may be a number of mortal sins beyond which God pardons no more.
St. Alphonsus:
āWe have again the example of Saul, who, after having disobeyed God a second time, was abandoned. He entreated Samuel to interpose before the Lord in his behalf. āBear, I beseech thee, my sin, and return with me, that I may adore the Lord," (1 Kings xv. 25.) But, knowing that God had abandoned Saul, Samuel answered: āI will not return with thee; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee," etc. (v. 26.) Saul, you have abandoned God, and he has abandoned you.ā
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
I am genuinely interested to know when you think nudity in art is ok and when you think itās not ok.Nope. The āitās artā excuse does not work.
E
edwest211
Guest
There is sacred art and classical art. In both categories, intent must be the first thing. Ancient statues are historical references, for example. Old masters of sacred art would convey a purpose for any nudity. Today, and for the last 50 years, there has been a marked downward trend in respecting women in particular. Beauty and dignity go together. When a woman is selected to show herself with very little clothing or no clothing, Catholics need to exercise appropriate discretion. Pornographers are the worst offenders. To have oneās view of women changed from one of respect to one of, āHey, itās OKā [to see nude or very scantily clothed women] is not valid. There are lines that cannot be crossed. Human dignity begins with human decency.
Last edited:
C
Cricket13
Guest
It makes sense, the dignity of the person is a big thing to respect. I love art, but I agree there are lines that shouldnāt be cross.
L
LawyersGunsAndMoney
Guest
This is all fine, and I doubt anyone would disagree. But youāre taking a very general rule and applying it (again, simply by fiat, invoking some sort of special authority) to this specific instance without justifying whether its applicable. We donāt know whether the nudity in this comic is intended to be pornographic, or if itās more along the lines of what you call āclassical nudity.āThere is sacred art and classical art. In both categories, intent must be the first thing. Ancient statues are historical references, for example. Old masters of sacred art would convey a purpose for any nudity. Today, and for the last 50 years, there has been a marked downward trend in respecting women in particular. Beauty and dignity go together. When a woman is selected to show herself with very little clothing or no clothing, Catholics need to exercise appropriate discretion. Pornographers are the worst offenders. To have oneās view of women changed from one of respect to one of, āHey, itās OKā [to see nude or very scantily clothed women] is not valid. There are lines that cannot be crossed. Human dignity begins with human decency.
āOld art depicting nudity was okay because it wasnāt pornographic, but all new art depicting nudity is per se pornographic because itās newā is not a sound argument. Itās a tautology.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Iāve seen the Virgin Mary breastfeeding the infant Jesus in art. Iāve seen the Statue of David, and the painting of the birth of Venus. This is art and in it the nudity is not meant to shock or titillate, but rather to convey the beauty of man not the depravity of man. Comics by medium do not convey this idea in nudity. From graphic novels to āadultā cartoons the idea is to shock, or titillate, reducing man to a hedonistic creature that is animalistic at best.
And on a side note, I think these ācartoonsā like āFamily Guyā have valuable political points to make. I may vehemently disagree with those points but the medium is one of political and societal conversation that we should dialogue with in our current culture. However, there is something very sinister with the idea of sexualizing cartoons meant to attract and scandalize children. The bright colors, the availability makes it so awkward when skipping though channels when children are in the room why peter Griffin is always nakedā¦
All that aside, with graphic novels or comics NOTHING is by accident. No character is accidentally showing a curve they shouldnāt or a body part that is not purposely drawn in by somebody who wants to expose you to their idea. And that is what is so dangerous and indefensible. The idea is not to lead you to holiness, the idea is to normalize the scandal so that you will be drawn in further. And the younger they can do that the better.
And on a side note, I think these ācartoonsā like āFamily Guyā have valuable political points to make. I may vehemently disagree with those points but the medium is one of political and societal conversation that we should dialogue with in our current culture. However, there is something very sinister with the idea of sexualizing cartoons meant to attract and scandalize children. The bright colors, the availability makes it so awkward when skipping though channels when children are in the room why peter Griffin is always nakedā¦
All that aside, with graphic novels or comics NOTHING is by accident. No character is accidentally showing a curve they shouldnāt or a body part that is not purposely drawn in by somebody who wants to expose you to their idea. And that is what is so dangerous and indefensible. The idea is not to lead you to holiness, the idea is to normalize the scandal so that you will be drawn in further. And the younger they can do that the better.
GospelOfMatthew
New member
Nudity itself isnāt a sin, itās a beautiful and blessed thing. It is only bad when it is viewed lustfully as an object for pleasure instead of a bonding experience with someone else as love and commitment.
The human body is a beautiful thing, if it does not cause you to be tempted, then it is not bad. But lust is real and we should avoid lusting if nudity makes us lust
The human body is a beautiful thing, if it does not cause you to be tempted, then it is not bad. But lust is real and we should avoid lusting if nudity makes us lust
E
edwest211
Guest
Very well said. Family Guy is another example of a cartoon, usually for kids, being used for sexual purposes. Itās disgraceful. Nothing is ever drawn by accident.
L
LawyersGunsAndMoney
Guest
Nothing is sculpted āby accidentā either. Itās not like Alexandros of Antioch was sculpting the Venus de Milo and her top slipped. If you assume something sinister in the deliberate depiction nudity in a comic, you have to make the same assumption of āclassical art.ā Or at least give me some distinguishing principle. Comics are exclusively for kids? That hasnāt been true for decades. Thereās nothing inherently childish about a certain style of drawing, and plenty of graphic novels deal with very adult themes (and by adult I donāt mean sexual, I just mean themes that most kids would find boring or would go over their heads.) Iām not a graphic novel/comic book guy myself, but even I know that there are plenty that are more sophisticated than the old Archie and Jughead stuff.
This whole argument is essentially āwhen nudity was depicted in art before, that wasnāt pornographic, because, you knowā¦it was a long time ago.ā and āwhen nudity is depicted today, itās always pornographic, because itās new and therefore associated with porn.ā Thereās simply no logical thread here.
And note, Iām not saying that porn doesnāt exist or that itās not a problem. Porn is real and porn is bad. Maybe what the OP is describing is actual porn and he needs to avoid it. But we canāt just assume it is and declare it off limits because nudity=porn, unless youāre willing to be consistent and call the Sistine Chapel and the David porn.
This whole argument is essentially āwhen nudity was depicted in art before, that wasnāt pornographic, because, you knowā¦it was a long time ago.ā and āwhen nudity is depicted today, itās always pornographic, because itās new and therefore associated with porn.ā Thereās simply no logical thread here.
And note, Iām not saying that porn doesnāt exist or that itās not a problem. Porn is real and porn is bad. Maybe what the OP is describing is actual porn and he needs to avoid it. But we canāt just assume it is and declare it off limits because nudity=porn, unless youāre willing to be consistent and call the Sistine Chapel and the David porn.
Last edited:
J
John10
Guest
I think you are playing with fire. Not everything is a sin, but I believe there is already more than enough that we need to watch out for. Why go voluntarily looking for more and exposing ourselves to a dangerous situation ?
Lust is specially difficult to overcome once you give it a chance to start. If this comic book is creating in your mind lust thoughts I would throw it away immediately.
God Bless
Lust is specially difficult to overcome once you give it a chance to start. If this comic book is creating in your mind lust thoughts I would throw it away immediately.
God Bless
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Nah. It isnāt.
Generally it is good to stay away from the near occasion of sin but if youāre watching or reading something and it comes out of nowhere then it isnāt a sin as long as your mind doesnāt fall further.
Generally it is good to stay away from the near occasion of sin but if youāre watching or reading something and it comes out of nowhere then it isnāt a sin as long as your mind doesnāt fall further.
L
Londoner
Guest
I think I agree up to a point. The problem is that thereās going to be a significant grey area between classical/sacred art and pornography that is exploitative or degrading. For example, in 2017 the BP Portrait Award was won by an artist called Benjamin Sullivan for a painting of his wife breastfeeding their daughter. Itās not classical/sacred art, but itās also clearly not pornographic, exploitative, or degrading. Itās certainly decent and dignified. I guess that one is in a way quite easy, so not so much of a grey area.
If weāre focusing on painters within the last 50 years who are known for their nudes I suppose Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud are obvious examples to consider. I basically donāt like Freud and donāt even know why he is so highly rated as an artist. Francis Bacon I find very interesting. Iām not sure that I could bring myself to say that either artist is immoral in his portrayal of nudes. Obviously Lucien Freud remains very controversial with many people accusing him of being a misogynist. On the other hand, his nudes of male models look just the same as his female nudes, and his female models apparently liked him and his work.
If weāre focusing on painters within the last 50 years who are known for their nudes I suppose Francis Bacon and Lucien Freud are obvious examples to consider. I basically donāt like Freud and donāt even know why he is so highly rated as an artist. Francis Bacon I find very interesting. Iām not sure that I could bring myself to say that either artist is immoral in his portrayal of nudes. Obviously Lucien Freud remains very controversial with many people accusing him of being a misogynist. On the other hand, his nudes of male models look just the same as his female nudes, and his female models apparently liked him and his work.
E
edwest211
Guest
Very much with the hair splitting. There are no grey areas. To say there are is to assume no standards exist. I would never buy a painting of a woman breastfeeding. It would be boring and common.
I work in the media. Exploitation and degrading is its current form. It needs to be rejected and replaced by what is truly beautiful.
I work in the media. Exploitation and degrading is its current form. It needs to be rejected and replaced by what is truly beautiful.
GospelOfMatthew
New member
The question becomes, was the nudity used as an element of art to enhance the story or was it used as an eye-catcher? We see this in many movies where the nudity is not needed but used just to gain an audience
E
edwest211
Guest
That is an example of exploitation.
B
Benjinho
Guest
I would say, objectively speaking, it was intended as an eye catcher, but I didnāt really see it that way or even enjoy it/stare at it.The question becomes, was the nudity used as an element of art to enhance the story or was it used as an eye-catcher? We see this in many movies where the nudity is not needed but used just to gain an audience
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Nothing is drawn by accident.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.