Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women?

[jim111]

I think the modesty threads attained consciousness and the result is this guy.

 

I have had concerns about this for a long time, I just could not find any teachings to affirm it.

[carmenchristi]

... stripped to the waste,  or in very tight pantaloons or in very scanty bathing suits. ... They may also be an
occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbor."

 

Either I am an wierdo, or the Canadian bishops do not know the effect that a man in any of the above situations would provoke for a woman... the only temptation of thought or desire that it causes me is to throw him a towel and tell him to cover up because I don't want to see that stuff. Then again, I may not be normal :\

[T-fish]

Does this mean that all crucifixes will now wear a t-shirt?

I'd guess Jesus would wear one saying "Eat my shorts".

[T-fish]

I would say that in a normal, public, everyday context, men should not be running around shirtless or wearing pants that are excessively tight.

That's the only reason I go to the Ballet. I love the Nutcracker and Don Juan. Btw, i'm a femina.

[jim111]

Does this mean that all crucifixes will now wear a t-shirt?

I'd guess Jesus would wear one saying "Eat my shorts".

 

This is the one thing that made me reconsider. However just as the church allows a women to expose he breast when feeding her child. I would argue that Jesus's sickly and abused body prevents it form being a temptation to lust.

Am I right ladies?

[Ice_nine]

isn't some of the greatest art that was sponsored by the Catholic church chock full of naked folk?

 

I think it's a sad commentary that, implied in this debate, we can't look at the human body and see it as something beautiful without drooling over said person. Does appreciation automatically = lust?

 

I am after all just a liberal dope-sucking communist hippie so plz ignore me.

[Nihil Obstat]

isn't some of the greatest art that was sponsored by the Catholic church chock full of naked folk?

I think it's a sad commentary that, implied in this debate, we can't look at the human body and see it as something beautiful without drooling over said person. Does appreciation automatically = lust?

I am after all just a liberal dope-sucking communist hippie so plz ignore me.

Art is essentially as far as one can get from everyday contexts. Nudity in art is fine. In fact some of the very best art ever produced features nudity. But nudity is not appropriate in an everyday context.
Very different concepts.

[T-fish]

Just make sure your "feet" are covered. I doubt anyone will get that.

 

You can't just go by what some Bishop says. They are just humans.

[Gabriela]

This is the one thing that made me reconsider. However just as the church allows a women to expose he breast when feeding her child. I would argue that Jesus's sickly and abused body prevents it form being a temptation to lust.

Am I right ladies?

 

You are right. On the other hand, "art" can be created to deliberately incite lust. Cf. the crucifix of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

 

Or this:

 

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/mary-magdalene-in-the-cave-jules-joseph-lefebvre-.jpg

 

"Mary Magdalene in the Cave"? I don't think so.

[Amppax]

Just make sure your "feet" are covered. I doubt anyone will get that.

 

You can't just go by what some Bishop says. They are just humans.

 

Feet= Genitals.  

 

:winner:

 

:bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap:  :bananarap: 

[Amppax]

To actually contribute something to this thread, I would think in the context of swimming its fine, but in most others it isn't. Personally I don't wear a shirt when swimming, but will put one on ASAP after getting out of the water.   

[Nihil Obstat]

You are right. On the other hand, "art" can be created to deliberately incite lust. Cf. the crucifix of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

Or this:

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/mary-magdalene-in-the-cave-jules-joseph-lefebvre-.jpg

"Mary Magdalene in the Cave"? I don't think so.

I do not think that intentionally incites lust. And I am a pretty red-blooded male.

[Gabriela]

I do not think that intentionally incites lust. And I am a pretty red-blooded male.

 

Well, you're entitled to your own stoopid opinion on this one, Nihil. :-P

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, you're entitled to your own stoopid opinion on this one, Nihil. :-P

Oh, are we trolling and I missed it? :(

[Amppax]

I do not think that intentionally incites lust. And I am a pretty red-blooded male.

 

This.  

[Gabriela]

Oh, are we trolling and I missed it? :(

 

So you disagree with the example. Do you disagree with the principle that art could intentionally incite lust?

[XIX]

I'm really glad this is more of a discussion than a flat-out argument. :)

 

IMHO there's no reason for a guy to go shirtless in mixed company unless maybe (maybe) he is swimming. Whatever, I choose to wear a shirt in public. Because why not.

[Nihil Obstat]

One of my favorite pieces is this one which is quite evocative. But very artistically valuable, influential, tasteful, etc.. The proper context in which the human form as an artistic subject can be appreciated.

[Nihil Obstat]

So you disagree with the example. Do you disagree with the principle that art could intentionally incite lust?

Just the example. :) I think it is beautiful and tasteful.

[Gabriela]

One of my favorite pieces is this one which is quite evocative. But very artistically valuable, influential, tasteful, etc.. The proper context in which the human form as an artistic subject can be appreciated.

 

Well, in that one there's other stuff going on. In the one I posted Mary Magdalene (who was, at the time, widely believed to be a woman of ill repute) takes up 90% of the portrait and is giving "the gaze" to the viewer. She's beautiful, don't get me wrong. But I question the intent of that portrait.