Nude Art

[EmilyAnn]

On what planet is showing my arms going to incite lust? 

[jim111]

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

 

Explain it then.

[PhuturePriest]

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

 

This is untrue. What if I'm a firefighter and I go into a burning house to save people, and I go into the bathroom and there is a beautiful naked woman passed out in the shower? Should I not pick her up and save her and check for injuries (Which does include touching) simply because that constitutes as lust? Looking is not lust. Entertaining lustful thoughts is lust. Juries have to look at pornographic material all the time for the sake of a case. Should they all look away and discard the evidence simply because it allegedly constitutes as lust to look?

[PhuturePriest]

Explain it then.

 

Again, you really must start making sense. Explain what? Arousal? I'd like to think that as a grown man you don't need arousal to be explained to you.

[EmilyAnn]

This is untrue. What if I'm a firefighter and I go into a burning house to save people, and I go into the bathroom and there is a beautiful naked woman passed out in the shower? Should I not pick her up and save her and check for injuries (Which does include touching) simply because that constitutes as lust? Looking is not lust. Entertaining lustful thoughts is lust. Juries have to look at pornographic material all the time for the sake of a case. Should they all look away and discard the evidence simply because it allegedly constitutes as lust to look?

I made a similar comparison earlier with doctors. Should a doctor deny treatment to a patient because they have to look at their body? Does one assume that any doctor who sees a patient nude is lusting? 

[jim111]

This is untrue. What if I'm a firefighter and I go into a burning house to save people, and I go into the bathroom and there is a beautiful naked woman passed out in the shower? Should I not pick her up and save her and check for injuries (Which does include touching) simply because that constitutes as lust? Looking is not lust. Entertaining lustful thoughts is lust. Juries have to look at pornographic material all the time for the sake of a case. Should they all look away and discard the evidence simply because it allegedly constitutes as lust to look?

 

These are extreme situations, in one of my pasts posts i address this, the same is true for doctors too. However you should still attempt to do this without entertaining your sexual appetite.

[EmilyAnn]

These are extreme situations, in one of my pasts posts i address this, the same is true for doctors too. However you should still attempt to do this without entertaining your sexual appetite.

See, it is possible to look upon a naked person without lust. It just requires one to exercise self control. 

[jim111]

See, it is possible to look upon a naked person without lust. It just requires one to exercise self control. 

 

Yes, but not everyone can, and its very tempting. In a past post future priest said he can't control it but has to look away, I myself am usually the same way. The problem is that original sin caused use to look and see lust instead of the beauty of the body.

[PhuturePriest]

These are extreme situations, in one of my pasts posts i address this, the same is true for doctors too. However you should still attempt to do this without entertaining your sexual appetite.

 

I can look at a naked woman right now and not lust. It's a matter of not entertaining sexual thoughts. The sexual thoughts/actions are what is sinful, not seeing a naked person.

[PhuturePriest]

Yes, but not everyone can, and its very tempting. In a past post future priest said he can't control it but has to look away, I myself am usually the same way. The problem is that original sin caused use to look and see lust instead of the beauty of the body.

 

I never said that. My self-control is excellent.

[arfink]

I should add that having a sexual thought is also not sinful, it's when you ENTERTAIN them that it's sinful. Just as I could say "Don't think about pink elephants!" and the minute you read that you will think about pink elephants without consent of your will. From that point you could choose to continue to think about pink elephants or think about something else.

 

Arousal / thoughts about sex etc. are the same way. Lust is a willful choice.

 

Don't say that what is not sinful is sinful.

Edited May 2, 2013 by arfink

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I can look at a naked woman right now and not lust. It's a matter of not entertaining sexual thoughts. The sexual thoughts/actions are what is sinful, not seeing a naked person.

Oh yeah? I can look TWO naked women right now and not lust. 

[PhuturePriest]

I should add that having a sexual thought is also not sinful, it's when you ENTERTAIN them that it's sinful. Just as I could say "Don't think about pink elephants!" and the minute you read that you will think about pink elephants without consent of your will. From that point you could choose to continue to think about pink elephants or think about something else.

 

Arousal / thoughts about sex etc. are the same way. Lust is a willful choice.

 

Don't say that what is not sinful is sinful.

 

It's kind of like when you are sent a death ray in the mail. It's not a sin that you got the death ray. It's only a sin when you run out of your own stuff to destroy and you start targeting other peoples' stuff.

[jim111]

I never said that. My self-control is excellent.

 

 

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.

[jim111]

I should add that having a sexual thought is also not sinful, it's when you ENTERTAIN them that it's sinful. Just as I could say "Don't think about pink elephants!" and the minute you read that you will think about pink elephants without consent of your will. From that point you could choose to continue to think about pink elephants or think about something else.

 

Arousal / thoughts about sex etc. are the same way. Lust is a willful choice.

 

Don't say that what is not sinful is sinful.

 

Would you agree there are some cases where one must look away in order to not be tempted. In some cases with some people they must look away, or nature will take over beyond their control.

[Chestertonian]

Why is this acceptable, or is it?

 

If it causes you to sin, then it's not acceptable and you should avoid it.

[PhuturePriest]

 

 

There's nothing about that that says I can't control myself. Getting sexually aroused and not being able to handle getting sexual aroused are two very, very different things.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I thought original sin made it very potentially sinful to look upon the opposite sex when they are naked. Yes it is possible to not, but it is an unnecessary occasion for sin.

 

Peace to you brother in christ...

I don't think it is an infallible matter of faith and morals. It is a personal matter, if viewing nude photography or other forms of nude art causes you to sin than you need to avoid it. Just as some can't walk into a bar without getting blind rotten drunk, and causing a rukus. Such a person needs to avoid bars. Also i don't believe nude art should be classed as pornographic. There is nude art out there that is neither pornographic or erotica. But i do understand that we have been swamped with pornography and erotica. Did you know playboy own's something like over 40% of the porn industry world wide, bad playboy. I look at a nude photography sites monthly gallery once every now and than, and not all the models are what one would say to be pop sexy. And what about the word sexy, i hate that word but enjoy nude photographs. Oh also if i start getting lustful at the nude photos i switch it off.

 

Not to be afraid of breasts i think is important, how many people in this schism against the womens body can't stomach a women breast feeding in public, how sad, i think we have gone to far, but this was satans aim at us with pornography to eventually hate the womens figure. And how many women are afraid to breast feed in public when there baby is hungry ? Well not many in my city breastfeed in public anymore.

 

Also i think if your married you shouldn't really be looking at nude photography, yet 1 nude photograph or other type of nude art framed that you and your partner have decided is the best nude photo or other art you have seen, could be quiet tastefully hung up on a wall and should not be the cause of a fall, again if it is don't do it. I have a friend that has a artful photo of a women breast feeding an infant on his wall, and he has a girlfriend, 5 years strong. And actually i think she got him to put up another nude drawing. 1 or 2 is tasteful every wall covered with nude art may be distasteful. And if i'm correct the art work is a breast feeding madonna originating from somewhere in south america. For me It is a beautiful thought that our Lord also fed off the breast of the holy mother, and shouldn't be a cause to lust.

 

Onward christian souls.

Jesus iz Lord.

God is Good, God is Love.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Thats all just my personal opinion though. My mum has just stated to me that my dads parents wouldn't let my mum breast feed me in there loungeroom, she had to go into a seperate room.

[jim111]

Thats all just my personal opinion though. My mum has just stated to me that my dads parents wouldn't let my mum breast feed me in there loungeroom, she had to go into a seperate room.

 

It think there is nothing wrong with breast feeding. As long as the breast are covered, I would say its a good thing and has the opposite effects of scandal by showing that breasts are for feeding babies. That should be the first thing one thinks of when they hear the word breasts, but our society is perverted.