Nakedness

[Sojourner]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM']1) Is the human body inherently sexual/erotic?  Or is the eroticness of the body a function of some other factor, be it circumstance, environment, mindset or something else?[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
All right, I'm not precisely certain what you're asking, but I think I have an idea. If I go off on a tangent completely unrelated to your intent, let me know ...

OK, so if you're asking if the body has an inherent meaning that's related to genders, I say yes. I further say that the inherent meaning of the body is most fully expressed in the communion of the sexes through the marital embrace. We are a sign of the communion of the Trinity.

The eroticism so rampant in our society (and in societies for hundreds of years) is a twisting of this meaning. It focuses on the sign and not that to which the sign points. That's lust, a result (along with other sins) of the Fall.
[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM']2) When/where is it appropriate to be undressed?[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm assuming you're asking when it's appropriate to be naked with another person. I'd say it's appropriate to be naked in front of your doctor or other medical professional, to be naked in a communal shower/locker situation, and to be naked with your spouse. There may be other times it would be appropriate, but they don't immediately come to mind.
[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM']3) How much of our views on the human body are related to the actuality of the body, rather than culural and social mores?[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think most of our views on the body stem from our cultural and social mores.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:54 AM']Hide your nakedness so that your appearance does not cause others to lust after you.[right][snapback]866265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Al, I get what you're saying here, and I agree with you, but because I'm a nit-picker ...

Nakedness does not [i]cause[/i] lust. Lust is, as you noted, a byproduct of original sin, a distortion of the right and good call to love one another. While it's right and good to cover yourself in order to protect your body from the lustful gaze of another, that nakedness is not in itself a cause of lust. Nakedness is an inherently good thing -- we protect our nakedness precisely because it's a good thing.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:51 AM']Where would I put my cell phone?
[right][snapback]866261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Let's please just not contemplate that question in too much detail ... too late.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 26 2006, 02:56 AM']IT'S NAKED TIME!
[/quote]


Woohoo! I say this at least a couple times a day. Livens things up.

[toledo_jesus]

well, they only became ashamed when they ate from the tree...they were naked in their innocence. None of us are innocent in that way anymore, and so being naked doesn't hold the same meaning for us as it did...That would be my uninformed guess at why we don't run around nude.

[WildCatRupe]

has anyone, in their responses, taken into account our history? that, for thousands of years, humans wore (at most) loincloths, and were often naked, in fully social situations. There are still tribes in austrailia and africa where clothes are worn only when necessary. Jesus himself was baptized, in public, in the middle of the river, totally naked. Up until about two hundred years ago, the female breasts were essentially equivalent to male breasts, and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:23 PM']and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.
[right][snapback]866735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]There is your own answer. As humanity develops so sin seems to as well. Ever since the fall human nature has been stained with concupisence and this has reared its ugly head more today than ever. You correct, for quite some time humans did not hold the same views of the body as we do today, but humanity has perverted its view of its own body and so we clothe ourselves. This is partially not to present an occasion for sin to others who might have a disordered view of sexuality.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Paphnutius

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 03:23 PM']has anyone, in their responses, taken into account our history?  that, for thousands of years, humans wore (at most) loincloths, and were often naked, in fully social situations.  There are still tribes in austrailia and africa where clothes are worn only when necessary.  Jesus himself was baptized, in public, in the middle of the river, totally naked.  Up until about two hundred years ago, the female breasts were essentially equivalent to male breasts, and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.
[right][snapback]866735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
methinks 200 years a bit short a time for when yon dirtypillows were off-limits. Look thee at the Calvinist dress of the 16th century and tell me that they were walking around shirtless.

[homeschoolmom]

It's cold in this thread...

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Jan 26 2006, 04:03 PM']It's cold in this thread...
[right][snapback]866906[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:23 PM']has anyone, in their responses, taken into account our history?  that, for thousands of years, humans wore (at most) loincloths, and were often naked, in fully social situations.  There are still tribes in austrailia and africa where clothes are worn only when necessary.  Jesus himself was baptized, in public, in the middle of the river, totally naked.  Up until about two hundred years ago, the female breasts were essentially equivalent to male breasts, and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.
[right][snapback]866735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This really isn't accurate. Adam and Eve made clothe's (tunics) for themselves immediately after the fall.

Most cultures wear, at minimum, loinclothes to cover the genitals, and in most civilized, advanced cultures, much more clothing is worn.

And as far as I know, you were not present at the Baptism of Christ, so we do not know whether He was nude or not (or if women were immediately present - which would be unlikely if the baptism were in the nude).

In cultures where public nudity is indeed common, there is often an elaborate system of rules and taboos governing sexually-related behavior.

And contrary to politically-correct opinon and "noble savage" romanticism, "primitive" societies are not innocents - and should hardly be held up as models for behavior. Many practiced polygamy, human sacrifice, ritual warfare, infanticide, cannibalism, etc.

Neither were societies in the past always more "pure." Pagan societies in the past (such as ancient Greece and Rome) were known for a variety of sexual excess and perversions.

And the bit about breasts is not really true either. No normal man in any culture would consider female breasts no more erotic than male breasts! (Nor would most women). Though they have indeed been overly eroticized (as everything else) in modern culture, human female breasts have always been sexual. (I need not discuss this in detail here.) They have been traditionally covered in western culture (and in other civilized cultures) for well over 200 years!

Concupiscence and sin are part of the fallen human condition, and that is part of why we wear clothes in public.

[Aloysius]

I offer you a Chestertonian insight: we have no idea whether those ancient peoples wore clothes or not! Did you expect their clothes to be made out of stone? The speculation that they didn't wear clothes is equally as likely as the speculation that they had green colored skin.

Just because there are modern day tribes that don't wear many clothes doesn't mean that's how every civilization started out. It could... or maybe those peoples that don't wear many clothes nowadays in their culture never wore many clothes and those peoples that do wear clothes nowadays, well, maybe they wore elaborate clothes in the beginnings of their civilizations... we simply don't know and probably will never know (barring the invention of time travel)

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 26 2006, 12:40 AM']I was pondering this yetserday night.  If God made us in His image, why should we be ashamed when we are nude?  I look forward to whoever can explain this...
[right][snapback]866239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We were naked and unashamed [b][i]before[/i][/b] the fall. Key words...[i]before the fall[/i].

[WildCatRupe]

Adam and Eve made the decision to cover themselves on their own. It doesn't seem to me that God said, "you ate from the tree...now you can't be naked!" but rather that Adam and Eve (which i also understood to be a story to be interpreted, rather than a fact-based historical account) made their own clothes (which God was disappointed with) and then he made them leather clothes because leaves aren't really what you'd call practical or long-lasting. Also....even if Adam and Eve were ashamed of being naked...does that mean we all need to be? is it wrong for me to be unashamed of being naked, as long as its in a manner respectful of the beautiful creation that is the human body, and retains God's gift of sexuality in its proper context. David fought Goliath naked, and that fact is celebrated in a 13-foot statue in the Vatican. If being naked is wrong, or something to be ashamed of, why do we permit, nay ENCOURAGE, the painting of hundreds of naked people all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel??

Timmy

[Sojourner]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 27 2006, 09:23 AM']Adam and Eve made the decision to cover themselves on their own.  It doesn't seem to me that God said, "you ate from the tree...now you can't be naked!"  but rather that Adam and Eve (which i also understood to be a story to be interpreted, rather than a fact-based historical account) made their own clothes (which God was disappointed with) and then he made them leather clothes because leaves aren't really what you'd call practical or long-lasting.  Also....even if Adam and Eve were ashamed of being naked...does that mean we all need to be?  is it wrong for me to be unashamed of being naked, as long as its in a manner respectful of the beautiful creation that is the human body, and retains God's gift of sexuality in its proper context.  David fought Goliath naked, and that fact is celebrated in a 13-foot statue in the Vatican.  If being naked is wrong, or something to be ashamed of, why do we permit, nay ENCOURAGE, the painting of hundreds of naked people all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel??

Timmy
[right][snapback]867422[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This and many other topics are discussed in John Paul 2's Theology of the Body.

A good place to start with this is with [url="http://www.christopherwest.com"]Christopher West[/url]; he's got some articles online, and if you do a google search for Theology of the Body you'll find a ton of resources. CW and many others have books, articles, and CDs on this topic that will answer all of the questions you've asked better than I could.

The [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/32"]apologetics section[/url] here also has lots of good information.

[sraf]

Well, Adam and Eve's equivalents today are the wee little babies that can be completely nude in front of company and perfectly happy. Up to a certain point (around age 4? 5-ish), little children are comfortable with being naked around each other and adults - whatever their parents might say. It's around the age of reason or later (when First Communion is traditionally made) that we start to become shy about our bodies.

*AHEM* And another well-accepted situation when nudity is acceptable in public is breastfeeding.

[curtins]

what does the church say about nudists?

[benedictaj]

I LOVE the Theology of the Body, I fully second someones suggestion that you start off with Christopher West - he really knows his stuff. Then try to read the real thing!
[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 06:14 PM']1) Is the human body inherently sexual/erotic?  Or is the eroticness of the body a function of some other factor, be it circumstance, environment, mindset or something else?

2) When/where is it appropriate to be undressed?

3) How much of our views on the human body are related to the actuality of the body, rather than culural and social mores?
[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just thought I'd mention this.
Eroticism isn't all bad. Our late Holy Father makes a careful distinction between natural eroticism "eros" and what we (in this grossly oversexed society) now consider eroticism to be. There is a fine difference.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='sraf' date='Jan 27 2006, 11:44 PM']
*AHEM* And another well-accepted situation when nudity is acceptable in public is breastfeeding.
[right][snapback]868275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, that's more 'partial nudity'...and I doubt you'll see too many women remove their entire shirt to feed a baby. They seem to try to be pretty discreet & modest, the times I've noticed. I don't think this falls into the category of 'nudity'.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Jan 28 2006, 12:01 PM']Well, that's more 'partial nudity'...and I doubt you'll see too many women remove their entire shirt to feed a baby.  They seem to try to be pretty discreet & modest, the times I've noticed.  I don't think this falls into the category of 'nudity'.
[right][snapback]868538[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is correct. Nursing a baby does not fall into a category of nudity and many state legislatures, including my own, have had to define that so that nursing moms don't get arrested for it. (which is really sad that women could get arrested for feeding their kids ,but that's a whole other rant)

[WildCatRupe]

[quote name='sraf' date='Jan 27 2006, 09:44 PM']Well, Adam and Eve's equivalents today are the wee little babies that can be completely nude in front of company and perfectly happy. Up to a certain point (around age 4? 5-ish), little children are comfortable with being naked around each other and adults - whatever their parents might say.  It's around the age of reason or later (when First Communion is traditionally made) that we start to become shy about our bodies.

*AHEM* And another well-accepted situation when nudity is acceptable in public is breastfeeding.
[right][snapback]868275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Do these children actually become more shy about being naked, or is it rather that they better take instructions from their parents, so that when they are told, "you need to keep your clothes on," they do so? ive spoken with some nudists who say that, if chidren are taught that there are certain times that they can be naked and certain times to be clothed, they live with that the same way that children start wearing clothes all the time in more typical households.

Timmy

[sraf]

Well, it's likely that the second option - taking instructions from parents - is probably more likely, so there's still the fact that around whatever age that is, children are able to obey and understand.
Definitely around adolescence children become shy about their bodies - growing and changing in a lot of areas does make one a bit self-aware. Adolescence coincides with puberty, or sexual maturation. Interesting, huh?

I did misspeak, breastfeeding is only partial nudity, but it is still undressing to a degree. And some nutcases still think it's worth an arrest in public places. *wrinkles nose in disdain at aforesaid nutcases*