Nude Art

[EmilyAnn]

I think you have lust and attraction confused. 

[jim111]

I think you have lust and attraction confused. 

Are you saying nude pictures cause attraction and not  lust?

[EmilyAnn]

Are you saying nude pictures cause attraction and not  lust?

No, that's not what I said at all. Don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that your posts indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between attraction and lust. 

[Basilisa Marie]

One can be aroused but not lustful.  

 

And one can see a painting of a naked human without being aroused. 

[jim111]

One can be aroused but not lustful.  

 

 

 

By there wife, yes, by anyone else it is not ordered toward generation and sinful

And one can see a painting of a naked human without being aroused.

 

Yes, in theory there is nothing wrong with naked Art. The problem is our enhanced sexual appetite caused by original sin. One can also see a naked woman without being aroused. It is however sinful for women to just walk around naked in public.

[Nihil Obstat]

Read it. Just for the sake of all the work you put in. Golly, how many books have you written? And why aren't you a Church Scholar yet??? :smile3:

 

Oh goodness, I did not write that. Dietrich von Hildebrand did. I just transcribed it yesterday.

 

 

Lust: The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.  new advent

 

sexual arousal - the arousal of sexual desires in preparation for sexual behavior. Dictionary

 

 

 

If the painting is causing arousal it is an inordinate craving and therefore lustful.

 

 

 

One can be aroused but not lustful.  

 

And one can see a painting of a naked human without being aroused. 

 

 

Yes, what Basil said. Lust is sinful, arousal and attraction are not. And I would say that we are more properly talking about attraction as opposed to arousal, because I do not become physically aroused by looking at a painting with a nude subject.

[jim111]

Define sexual arousal. I claim, with the exception of with ones wife, to purposely allow oneself to get sexually aroused is sinful. One can also be attracted to to a another without arousal.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

You just defined it yourself a couple posts ago.

[jim111]

You just defined it yourself a couple posts ago.

 

based on what i said, one can not be aroused by art without lusting.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[PhuturePriest]

Define sexual arousal. I claim, with the exception of with ones wife, to purposely allow oneself to get sexually aroused is sinful. One can also be attracted to to a another without arousal.

 

I don't know about you, but I get sexually aroused without purposefully allowing myself to do so. You don't generally get to control sexual arousal, and when you are or are not aroused. Looking at a picture and getting aroused is not sinful. Looking at a picture with the purpose of getting aroused is. There's a difference.

[Nihil Obstat]

based on what i said, one can not be aroused by art without lusting.

That certainly does not follow from your definition.

[Nihil Obstat]

based on what i said, one can not be aroused by art without lusting.

That certainly does not follow from your definition.

[Nihil Obstat]

Besides, as I said, we are more properly talking about attraction, not arousal.

[jim111]

That certainly does not follow from your definition.

 

The purpose of sexual arousal, is to get people to have sex, so they may have children. To be aroused for any other reason is lustful.

[jim111]

Besides, as I said, we are more properly talking about attraction, not arousal.

 

define the difference

[arfink]

I don't know about you, but I get sexually aroused without purposefully allowing myself to do so. You don't generally get to control sexual arousal, and when you are or are not aroused. Looking at a picture and getting aroused is not sinful. Looking at a picture with the purpose of getting aroused is. There's a difference.

 

Good on ya kid. :)

 

FP is exactly right. Arousal is not something under your direct control at all times, just as heartbeat isn't always under your control. What you DO with it is entirely another matter, and that is where lust comes in.

 

For example, it has often happened to me (and probably to every man and woman on the planet) that you will experience arousal unintentionally. Oftentimes in the most inconvenient of circumstances besides. :hehe: But the point is that you can then make a choice. You can tell your body "No, not now, not here, not in this way," and go on your way, or you can indulge in a sinful behavior. That is where lust happens.

[arfink]

The purpose of sexual arousal, is to get people to have sex, so they may have children. To be aroused for any other reason is lustful.

 

You really don't understand how arousal works, do you? :hehe:

[Nihil Obstat]

define the difference

I am starting work. You will have to exercise common sense.

[jim111]

Good on ya kid. :)

 

FP is exactly right. Arousal is not something under your direct control at all times, just as heartbeat isn't always under your control. What you DO with it is entirely another matter, and that is where lust comes in.

 

For example, it has often happened to me (and probably to every man and woman on the planet) that you will experience arousal unintentionally. Oftentimes in the most inconvenient of circumstances besides. :hehe: But the point is that you can then make a choice. You can tell your body "No, not now, not here, not in this way," and go on your way, or you can indulge in a sinful behavior. That is where lust happens.

I would agree and have had this experience, but one must attempt to look away for it to not be lust

[jim111]

I am starting work. You will have to exercise common sense.

I am asking you to explain cause your statement is false, not because I don't understand.

          The Church teaches us that there are three degrees of decency regarding the parts of the human body. Some parts are considered honest for show in public, some less honest, and other dishonest. Some moralists used to employ a more rigorous language, qualifying these parts as not-shameful, semi-shameful and shameful. The honest or not-shameful parts are the face, hands and feet; the less honest or semi-shameful are the lower neck, back, legs and arms; the dishonest or shameless are the reproductive organs and their proximities. The criterion that establishes this classification is the degree of incentive toward the sensual passions that the mentioned parts arouse.

 

Common sense says that if a body part is considered shameful, it is because it causes arousal, not just attraction You claim art is different so it does not cause lust. What causes lust is not the substance, but what we see. Yes a painting is less likely to cause lust because it less real then a human being, however it has enough similarities to be recognized as a body part. Just like Thomas Aquinas explains how man is created in the image of God. Biology has caused mans sexual passions to be triggered upon seeing these body parts. There fore these parts do cause lust. maybe you can look at them, without effecting your sexual appetite. Then for you it is not a sin, but it is a temptation for most men. If my senses are dulled from looking at bare breasted women, it does not mean these women may walk around society bare breasted.