cmotherofpirl Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1338410775' post='2438070'] I've wanted no part of the actual debate here, but I will say in Europe and other places in the world, people don't really sexualize (or on the flip side, condemn) the body the same way Americans do. But unfortunately, porn ruins a lot for everyone nowadays. It destroys any healthy balance people are able to have about the human form. It saddens me that it renders a lot of good people unable to appreciate things that happen to have some nudity, like classical art. It worries me that porn will render more and more people unable to appreciate things the way they were meant to be appreciated as time goes on and porn grows in abundance. [/quote] the Vatican agrees with you: [url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028888/Vatican-plea-uncover-Virgin-Mary-breast-feeding-baby-Jesus.html"]http://www.dailymail...baby-Jesus.html[/url] Facebook will suspend your account for posting pics like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 La Virgen de la Leche? In all fairness, the Renaissance did incorporate some ideas of sexuality into their paintings. and modernism. and Greek/Roman art. And I just don't like Renaissance art. It killed a perfectly good genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 No actually Mary nursing baby Jesus was common until the Protestant Deformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1338414773' post='2438124'] No actually Mary nursing baby Jesus was common until the Protestant Deformation. [/quote]La Virgen de la Leche is a famous example of this: [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_onB-4lmtWgk/SqPBHZAIfnI/AAAAAAAAIPY/8Ta0UBfG6Ww/s400/La+Virgen+de+la+leche.jpg[/img] I still think that the Renaissance is full of modernist tendencies, but that's really not about sexuality. I just like to complain about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Here's a good icon: [img]http://www.therussianshop.com/russhop/icons/mgalctt.jpg[/img] Edited May 30, 2012 by qfnol31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338415417' post='2438129'] Here's a good icon: [img]http://www.therussianshop.com/russhop/icons/mgalctt.jpg[/img] [/quote] It looks misplaced and a little like a rocket ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I agree with all of you. I wish I myself could appreciate this art, but American-ism has gotten me and I just can't appreciate it the way I should. I think one of the worst things to come out of America is just how much more sexualized things are. We can't even appreciate beautiful Roman and Greek art because of it. I blame pornography for warping our opinions. Oh, and The Man. I'm not sure what The Man has done in terms of ruining art, but it seems to be a popular thing to do, so what the heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338416378' post='2438134'] I agree with all of you. I wish I myself could appreciate this art, but American-ism has gotten me and I just can't appreciate it the way I should. I think one of the worst things to come out of America is just how much more sexualized things are. We can't even appreciate beautiful Roman and Greek art because of it. I blame pornography for warping our opinions. [/quote] Blame the Puritans instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoGrad07 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338415417' post='2438129'] Here's a good icon: [img]http://www.therussianshop.com/russhop/icons/mgalctt.jpg[/img] [/quote] "Good" ... ? My first thought was "terrible nursing position and he has an awful latch!" I do think we over-sexualize the body, but I'm also fully aware of the inclination toward excessive sexuality among young teens. I teach HS freshmen & sophomores ... as a religion teacher I get lots of questions (some of which the kids are too embarrassed to ask so I get notes secretly passed to me!). I try to encourage my students to ask me ANYTHING -- at least then they'll hear something other than main-stream media / culture representations of sexuality. But the things they must be doing / being exposed to in order to ask these questions ... sometimes it's hard to be hopeful for their virtue ... the comments they make and the things they ask ... we should do anything in our power to encourage them to respect sexuality! I absolutely do not think it's [i]prudent[/i] for teenage girls to run around in shorts & sports bras when the guys are practicing on the same field / potentially watching. Our goal should be to minimize the occasion for sin, right? I mean, we're somewhat responsible if we knowingly cause another to sin, right? Well, I'm POSITIVE that my teenage students are inclined to impure thoughts by such sights (& the male equivalent ...). Nor would I think it prudent for me to go running in just shorts & a sports bra, for the same reason. Does this mean I advocate turtle-neck, long-sleeve, ankle-length baggy dresses? Absolutely not! I like VS "intimates" -- I don't think there's anything wrong with embracing and enhancing the beauty of our God-given bodies. "Frumpy" does not equal "modest" (for those of you who know my husband, it may surprise you to hear he does NOT like "frumpy" -- he teases me about being frumpy when I wear my comfy-but-frumpy outfits). There's a big difference between "frumpy" and "modest" ... the argument is about what falls into each category! I'm inclined to err on the side of my neckline being a bit too high rather than a bit too low, my hems being a bit too long rather than a bit too short, and my pantaloons being a bit too loose rather than a bit too tight. Does this mean I don't want shapely clothes that accent the right curves? Not at all -- although at this point there aren't many curves to accent other than the watermelon torpedoe-ing from my abdomen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338407294' post='2437964'] that's it.. when I get home, i am putting the g-string on and posting pics here... [/quote] To which my reaction will be: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYGnKi__cA8[/media] [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?&app=forums&module=extras§ion=legends#"][color="#272727"][/color][/url] Edited May 30, 2012 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie12 Posted May 30, 2012 Author Share Posted May 30, 2012 It's kind of funny how the particular picture above is not sexual in the least bit but I still advert my eyes! I think american culture has tuned the human body into a sexual object even if it's not meant to be sexual at all.I'm not saying everyone should run around naked ( )but I do think American culture has messed with our brains a bit. Now I'm just talking about how people are called "sexy" if they are pretty and another term that is used it "Hot". I think American culture trains people to either be bashful about sexuality or go overboard and become perverts. The proper view of human sexuality in found ( i would presume) in JPII's "Theology of the Body" (I still need to read that!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1338420402' post='2438187'] To which my reaction will be: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYGnKi__cA8[/media] [/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yKSFxGhb9c[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 [quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1338420444' post='2438190'] It's kind of funny how the particular picture above is not sexual in the least bit but I still advert my eyes! I think american culture has tuned the human body into a sexual object even if it's not meant to be sexual at all.I'm not saying everyone should run around naked ( )but I do think American culture has messed with our brains a bit. Now I'm just talking about how people are called "sexy" if they are pretty and another term that is used it "Hot". I think American culture trains people to either be bashful about sexuality or go overboard and become perverts. The proper view of human sexuality in found ( i would presume) in JPII's "Theology of the Body" (I still need to read that!). [/quote]Unfortunately true (and why those of us who breastfeed in public come under attack with some seeing it as sexual and inappropriate, but that's a whole different thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneLine Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Hmmmmm.... well, it's probably not practical for us to all dress like Llamas, tempting though it might be in cold weather. If I were a guy llama, I'd find that lady to my left darn attractive! What is appropriate to wear (on or off the beach) depends, I think, on the situation and the people..... I spent a memorable summer working in a residental treatment center for children aged 6 to 13 who had experienced trauma of the kinds none of us want to EVER think of ANY child being exposed to. You don't want to know some of the stuff that upset those kids... it didn't take much. When I went for my initial interview, I was told to wear pantaloons, closed lace-up shoes, and a loose fitting top. I was to dress DOWN for the interview. I did as I was told, and found the rest of the staff wearing a similar 'uniform', and that would BE my uniform for the next six months. The reason became clear during our training before we started working with the kids. During the training, we got 'the lecture'. It was interesting, from the standpoint of a Catholic woman who had had this delivered many times to the girls in Catholic school, to hear it delivered in a non-sectarian social services setting, and aimed AT THE MEN in the group. We were reminded that we needed to watch our clothing and how we moved around these kids. These children had had their innocence taken away from them very young, and that it didn't take much to 'turn them on.' Even when the kids were playing with the water slide, they would ALWAYS wear t-shirts over swimsuits... and usually they also had capri-length pantz OVER the swimsuits UNDER the t-shirts... .because they could NOT have any exposure to ANYTHING or it caused huge trauma problems for them. We were told that WE were to have at least short sleeves on at all times, and that any shorts we wore -- especially reitereated to the male couselors -- were to come to our knees, and that NONE of us were to cross our legs. Why? Because these kids had problems. Again, it didnt' take much to turn them on. Now, this discussion is about swimwear around normal people. And it has also moved into appropriate clothing in general. I thank God that while I dress modestly, I'm not uncomfortable with sleeveless blouses, and occasionally flashing a leg or top of a knee (horrors). I'm comfortable in clothes that fit, including pantaloons and blouses. I'm not uncomfortable with an attractive nightgown or underclothing. BUT ... if I were to be going back to that school, I'd be back in the baggies... because I wouldn't want to do anything to cause those kids more problems. And sometimes I think in similar ways when I am just planning to go into a situation where I think someone might be offended or unexpectly 'turned on.' Or scandalized. In other words, I try to be respectful of others. However.... we all have responsiblity for [i]ourselves[/i] in the regular world... if someone knows s/he has a problem, don't go to the beach or the pool, don't open a thread like this one. Learn to use your eyelids in the way they were intended -- to keep out stuff you need to keep out of them. And... think about getting some help if you're getting turned on to easily and too quickly. A little fun is one thing... getting obsessive is something else again. There really is help out there for this...., Edited May 31, 2012 by AnneLine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='TheoGrad07' timestamp='1338417908' post='2438159'] "Good" ... ? My first thought was "terrible nursing position and he has an awful latch!" I do think we over-sexualize the body, but I'm also fully aware of the inclination toward excessive sexuality among young teens. I teach HS freshmen & sophomores ... as a religion teacher I get lots of questions (some of which the kids are too embarrassed to ask so I get notes secretly passed to me!). I try to encourage my students to ask me ANYTHING -- at least then they'll hear something other than main-stream media / culture representations of sexuality. But the things they must be doing / being exposed to in order to ask these questions ... sometimes it's hard to be hopeful for their virtue ... the comments they make and the things they ask ... we should do anything in our power to encourage them to respect sexuality! I absolutely do not think it's [i]prudent[/i] for teenage girls to run around in shorts & sports bras when the guys are practicing on the same field / potentially watching. Our goal should be to minimize the occasion for sin, right? I mean, we're somewhat responsible if we knowingly cause another to sin, right? Well, I'm POSITIVE that my teenage students are inclined to impure thoughts by such sights (& the male equivalent ...). Nor would I think it prudent for me to go running in just shorts & a sports bra, for the same reason. Does this mean I advocate turtle-neck, long-sleeve, ankle-length baggy dresses? Absolutely not! I like VS "intimates" -- I don't think there's anything wrong with embracing and enhancing the beauty of our God-given bodies. "Frumpy" does not equal "modest" (for those of you who know my husband, it may surprise you to hear he does NOT like "frumpy" -- he teases me about being frumpy when I wear my comfy-but-frumpy outfits). There's a big difference between "frumpy" and "modest" ... the argument is about what falls into each category! I'm inclined to err on the side of my neckline being a bit too high rather than a bit too low, my hems being a bit too long rather than a bit too short, and my pantaloons being a bit too loose rather than a bit too tight. Does this mean I don't want shapely clothes that accent the right curves? Not at all -- although at this point there aren't many curves to accent other than the watermelon torpedoe-ing from my abdomen! [/quote] Oh, cruel fate. It seems I have run out of my positive votes for the day. As soon as I can I will go back and give this the rightful like it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts