jim111 Posted May 1, 2013 Author Posted May 1, 2013 Just the example. :) I think it is beautiful and tasteful. WHY? We are fallen and do not need this temptation. Yes, i can look at it without lusting. However I can also choose to look at a girl with a cleavage without lusting too. The reason the church has rules foe these women is because man is tempted by has fallen nature, I don't know how the same rules do not apply to paintings.
Gabriela Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 WHY? We are fallen and do not need this temptation. Yes, i can look at it without lusting. However I can also choose to look at a girl with a cleavage without lusting too. The reason the church has rules foe these women is because man is tempted by has fallen nature, I don't know how the same rules do not apply to paintings. Whoa there, Jimmy boy. "These" women? :annoyed:
Chestertonian Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 How about sleeveless shirts? They okay? I'd hate to have to put the guns away.
PhuturePriest Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Whoa there, Jimmy boy. "These" women? :annoyed: I noted the wording in that, too.
Amppax Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 How about sleeveless shirts? They okay? I'd hate to have to put the guns away. How about chubbies?
Chestertonian Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 How about chubbies? :p Those things look like boxer shorts.
Amppax Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 :P Those things look like boxer shorts. Quite honestly, I'd never be caught dead in a pair. I have some friends who love them, and in general it's an interesting question.
Ice_nine Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 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. Fair enough. I guess my point was is since the reality is that people like to show off their assets it's not wrong to be attracted to that. If a guy who is really ripped is out for a run half-naked I might say to myself "damn that's a beautiful man" and move on with my life. Same as if I'm at the beach or some other context where people are less clad than usual. These discussions always tend to focus on the object of possible lust rather than the person possibly committing lust, and it's nice that the op is looking at this from the male being the object this time, it's usually the womens. I'm of the mind that it's just not as helpful to talk about the "object of desire" over the desirer, because even if we decide definitively what christian men and women should wear (lolthatwillneverhappenamirite?) in every conceivable situation, the world isn't Christian and the world ain't gonna play that way. How do we deal with that other than bitching about how people should cover up more and blah blah blah. Right as that may be, it doesn't solve any practical real-world problems unless you live in an insular Catholic bubble. Asp per the original question? I guess if you're reasonably attractive then yes wear a damn shirt in front of the ladies. Just don't wear a uniform. You do not KNOW what that does to us! ;)
Lil Red Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women? ROFL! funniest thread title ever. :hehe:
Lil Red Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 I would appreciate it if men wore shirts when exercising. especially the ones that need a man bra :pinch:
Lil Red Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Is it wrong for you or other men to be shirtless in the presence of women? No, not at all. Is it wrong for ME to be shirtless in the presence of women? I've spent many sleepless nights pondering this exact question. :hehe: "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"
Lil Red Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 Speedos should be banned. spandex is a privilege, and not a right ;)
arfink Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) 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. First of all, which crucifix in Sagrada Familia? There are at least 3 I know of, and I don't think any of them count as intentionally lustful, unless I'm missing something rather critical here... one of them is quite brutalist and hideous, but not lustful. You'd need to be smoking some serious dope to think lustfully over this: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3365/3257684126_b4a6f016a9_o.jpg (linked because hideous and modernist YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED - CANNOT BE UNSEEN) And secondly, as an artist I can 100% assure you it is possible to make art that is all about sexing it up. No arguments from me there. :P I personally see it as something which cheapens an artist's work and am always deeply disappointed when an artist does it. As for that example you linked there, I think it's in a gray area. For the time, probably pretty scandalous, but then I don't think the artist was trying to make something you were supposed to lust after. The only reason I can say that is in my studies of art history I have been afforded some looks into, uh, period erotica. This is very different from the stuff they made for erotic purposes back then. I can sorta see what you mean by her giving "the come-hither look" and so on. It's definitely there. Would I be comfortable painting such a thing? Probably not. Could it be a legitimate subject matter? I think so. Edited May 1, 2013 by arfink
Ice_nine Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3365/3257684126_b4a6f016a9_o.jpg (linked because hideous and modernist) kill it with fire! :( it made me die a little bit inside.
arfink Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 kill it with fire! :( it made me die a little bit inside. I don't know how anyone could get lustful over that thing. Except maybe an art history professor... the jibblie jibblie jibblieeeees.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 So, is this shirt immodest? I like the tie. Is that you?
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Posted May 1, 2013 WHY? We are fallen and do not need this temptation. Yes, i can look at it without lusting. However I can also choose to look at a girl with a cleavage without lusting too. The reason the church has rules foe these women is because man is tempted by has fallen nature, I don't know how the same rules do not apply to paintings. Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I certainly do not want to embark on a fig-leaf campaign just because some people have issues with lust. It is very well established within Catholic tradition that the human form, including the nude human form, is entirely appropriate within the context of art.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now