Amppax Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Well, you're entitled to your own stoopid opinion on this one, Nihil. :-P Oh, are we trolling and I missed it? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I do not think that intentionally incites lust. And I am a pretty red-blooded male. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim111 Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted May 1, 2013 Share 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestertonian Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 How about sleeveless shirts? They okay? I'd hate to have to put the guns away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Whoa there, Jimmy boy. "These" women? :annoyed: I noted the wording in that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 How about sleeveless shirts? They okay? I'd hate to have to put the guns away. How about chubbies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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