Topic: nudities in a catholic magazine!!! (Read 9182 times)

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #20 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:02:26 PM »

exactly deep thought, you totally got my point, I was talking about coherence and I suddenly found myself pulled into a discussion on what is beautiful and/or desirable in terms of public nudity and the human body

my point is COHERENCE nothing else, by the way, were it for me I'd take any sort of porn totally out of commerce so I guess you are more open minded than I am

Deep Thought · « **Reply #21 on:** April 04, 2006, 08:44:27 PM »

Quote from: howlingmeteore

exactly deep thought, you totally got my point, I was talking about coherence and I suddenly found myself pulled into a discussion on what is beautiful and/or desirable in terms of public nudity and the human body

It's an easy trap to fall into. The question of public nudity/sexuality in the media is generally about that, but THIS case is...

Quote

COHERENCE nothing else, by the way, were it for me I'd take any sort of porn totally out of commerce so I guess you are more open minded than I am

It's not just that I'm open minded, it's that I recognize that I don't have any excuse to NOT be open minded. I don't follow some objective set of moral laws written in a sacred text; my only moral guide is my own conscience! So if someone else is doing something I don't particularly approve of, but there's no practical reason to call it wrong (i.e. it's not harmful to themselves or others), I can't in good conscience refuse to tolerate it.

Heretic · « **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2006, 11:28:04 PM »

they tend to erode our moral understanding of sexuality

Maybe they tend to erode your understanding of it. They support mine.

we have something somewhat obscene appearing in a place it has no right to be, in the publication of a religion that declares lust to be a sin.

What is obscene about a hiney? I found nothing "obscene" about it. And when did this "lust" and "sin" come into play? If a butt causes lust within you, or anyone, then that is their problem. Don't censor images of the human body because you find it obscene or it wells up lust within you. And, of course, this "sin" concept is irrelevant.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #23 on:** April 05, 2006, 04:45:13 AM »

Quote from: Heretic

What is obscene about a hiney? I found nothing "obscene" about it. And when did this "lust" and "sin" come into play? If a butt causes lust within you, or anyone, then that is their problem. Don't censor images of the human body because you find it obscene or it wells up lust within you. And, of course, this "sin" concept is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. The immediate question is of the nudity (however mild the obscenity, 'tis still obscenity) published in a CATHOLIC magazine. It is an issue of consistency, Heretic, above anything else; consistency with the teachings of their own religion. Whether or not you or I believe it is sin is irrelevant. I should think you, as a fellow non-believer, would at least be exasperated enough at such hypocrisy to turn it around and say, "See! They don't even follow their own preachings! Why should I?"

Now I have already stated that I tolerate nudity and obscenity in other contexts. After all, when Monty Python told the joke of the man who chose his own execution method--to be chased off a cliff by beautiful, topless women--that same Monty Python was not claiming chastity and God as their belief. In fact, said Monty Python ruthlessly made fun of both in the same movie (Monty Python's The Meaning of Life). There is no lack of consistency or coherence there, so though I disapprove of obscenity in general I still tolerate it in that instance--where it has every right to be. On the other hand, in a Catholic magazine...

Ah, never mind. If you don't get it by now, you're hopeless.

As for this:

Quote

they tend to erode our moral understanding of sexuality

Maybe they tend to erode your understanding of it. They support mine.

Well, maybe so. I recognize and freely admit that I am somewhat old-fashioned in my ideals (said ideals being that the best relationship is one that includes both faithful monogomy and strong love). But here's the fun part. How do you know that your moral understanding of it has not been simply eroded away completely by the overabundance of such things? In which case, you'd be a walking proof of my point.

In any case, it's pointless to debate THIS now. There's no real answer to it, so we could go on forever. Let me just say, however, that I believe that matters of marriage and sexuality should both be viewed in a way that is neither "ridiculously chaste" nor "obscenely promiscuous." That is to say, we should be neither too loose in our understanding of it (such would be irresponsible at best and disgusting at worst, depending on one's philosophical viewpoint), nor too strict in our regulation of it (which would just be stupid). A happy midpoint is best. That's my opinion.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #24 on:** April 05, 2006, 07:37:17 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

(i.e. it's not harmful to themselves or others), I can't in good conscience refuse to tolerate it.

I don't know about that...they're harming (just like you partially already recognized ) their relashionship with love, they're mixing it up with sex, sex comes after love and from love and not the opposite, so in a way I do think they're hurting themselves

in other cases they might hurt the others just because they get wrong ideas about what reality necessarily is, just to give you an example, my best friend told me he knew a guy who got divorced because his wife did not want to have sex like you see in the r rated movies, he thought it was supposed to be exactly like that, well THAT is a distortion of reality!
Intimacy is about something personal and creative where respect is the first thing, those adult movies don't teach that.
Well I took a looooong turn, what I meant to say is that it's sort of too easy saying :"let him spend his time the way he pleases, he's not going to hurt the others and / or himself" I do believe he's actually mostly likely to do both

ah, one thing just for heretic, excuse me but I have a terribly hard time believing a man can see a hot female bum and not be turned on, if it were true, why didn't peter pan visit me to take me to never land? trust me I was one of his biggest fans

and if that's a sin or not...well that depends on what you do or don't believe.

Heretic · « **Reply #25 on:** April 05, 2006, 11:34:17 PM »

Oh, maybe my bad. I was unaware the catholic teachings included a "Thou shalt not show thy hiney". Does it?

Yeah, I get your point, however if you do not understand mine then you too are hopeless.

Just because I am a fellow unbeliever does not mean I'll jump on your bandwagon, nor should I believe you will jump on mine.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #26 on:** April 06, 2006, 07:15:27 AM »

Quote from: Heretic

Oh, maybe my bad. I was unaware the catholic teachings included a "Thou shalt not show thy hiney". Does it?

Yeah, I get your point, however if you do not understand mine then you too are hopeless.

Just because I am a fellow unbeliever does not mean I'll jump on your bandwagon, nor should I believe you will jump on mine.

Wasn't expecting you to jump on my bandwagon. But when I was in Catholic school some years back, there was definitely something about sexual purity in those lessons. Catholicism (and for that matter a lot of Protestant religions, too) preach modesty and purity in regards to sexual matters. Most or many assume (reasonably, I think) that said purity extends to nudity and, more importantly, looking at nudity in the wrong context. So as Catholicism preaches against such things as this ad (which was admittedly mild in content, though that's beside the point), it should not have appeared in a Catholic magazine. Were I still a Catholic, I'd have written to said magazine a very ticked-off and lengthy letter as to why it should not have been there.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2006, 07:27:30 AM »

Quote from: howlingmeteore

I don't know about that...they're harming (just like you partially already recognized ) their relashionship with love, they're mixing it up with sex, sex comes after love and from love and not the opposite, so in a way I do think they're hurting themselves

Yes, I do partly recognize that. A married man who views pornography on a regular basis is bound to have some problems, in which case I'd advise him to kick the habit ASAP. But on the other hand, this isn't as simple a matter as bullies emotionally harming other children at school. There is no definite "harm" here that is evident in all cases, so I cannot blanket-condemn the whole thing.

Quote

in other cases they might hurt the others just because they get wrong ideas about what reality necessarily is, just to give you an example, my best friend told me he knew a guy who got divorced because his wife did not want to have sex like you see in the r rated movies, he thought it was supposed to be exactly like that, well THAT is a distortion of reality!

Agreed. That man was sadly deluded and should seek mental help pronto.

Quote

Intimacy is about something personal and creative where respect is the first thing, those adult movies don't teach that.

Yes, I believe so too. But many people don't share those opinions nowadays, and their freedoms are not to be infringed upon any more than mine or yours. So the only thing left for us who do believe this to do is... keep on believing it and acting on it.

Quote

Well I took a looooong turn, what I meant to say is that it's sort of too easy saying :"let him spend his time the way he pleases, he's not going to hurt the others and / or himself" I do believe he's actually mostly likely to do both

But those cases are to be dealt with as isolated individual cases. I cannot say "ban it all!" when only part of it is the problem. In any case, I know plenty of people who like "adult" content, even regularly view pornography, but have quite healthy relationships... usually with people who understand or even approve their behavior, but the point is that it isn't always harmful.

Quote

ah, one thing just for heretic, excuse me but I have a terribly hard time believing a man can see a hot female bum and not be turned on, if it were true, why didn't peter pan visit me to take me to never land? trust me I was one of his biggest fans and if that's a sin or not...well that depends on what you do or don't believe.

That is exactly what I was trying to relate to Heretic in my last post to him: the content is only half the question, it's the effect on the viewer that is important. And as this is a CATHOLIC magazine aimed at CATHOLICS, and such things go against said faith's beliefs, the nudity does not belong there. Therefore, those responsible for it are at fault of hypocrisy.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #28 on:** April 07, 2006, 04:28:20 AM »

[quote="Deep Thought

Quote

ah, one thing just for heretic, excuse me but I have a terribly hard time believing a man can see a hot female bum and not be turned on, if it were true, why didn't peter pan visit me to take me to never land? trust me I was one of his biggest fans and if that's a sin or not...well that depends on what you do or don't believe.

That is exactly what I was trying to relate to Heretic in my last post to him: the content is only half the question, it's the effect on the viewer that is important. And as this is a CATHOLIC magazine aimed at CATHOLICS, and such things go against said faith's beliefs, the nudity does not belong there. Therefore, those responsible for it are at fault of hypocrisy.[/quote]
well...honestly I don't think ANYONE really can't understand what we're both saying, in italy we say that there's no better deaf than he who does not wish to hear and I believe this is the case, I say we stop making useless efforts, whoever does not want to see the thing fine, but please , just pleaseeeee don't insult my intellingence by telling me that a nice butt does not turn you on...about porn, well deepthought I just respect your idea but I can't agree on it

Deep Thought · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2006, 04:55:52 AM »

Quote from: howlingmeteore

about porn, well deepthought I just respect your idea but I can't agree on it

I neither expect you to nor ask you to, so that's all right with me. One way or the other, it's probably an irrational idea anyway.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #30 on:** April 07, 2006, 12:21:31 PM »

*interesting*

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #31 on:** April 07, 2006, 05:32:57 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

Quote from: howlingmeteore
about porn, well deepthought I just respect your idea but I can't agree on it

I neither expect you to nor ask you to, so that's all right with me. One way or the other, it's probably an irrational idea anyway.

what do you mean by irrational idea ? I do have my own rationality as to why I don't think like you...

Deep Thought · « **Reply #32 on:** April 07, 2006, 08:26:35 PM »

Quote from: howlingmeteore

what do you mean by irrational idea ? I do have my own rationality as to why I don't think like you...

Um... I meant that my idea is probably irrational. I didn't say yours was... (or am I misunderstanding that last post?)

JustLiz · « **Reply #33 on:** April 07, 2006, 09:33:43 PM »

Deep Thought -

Why do you think your idea is irrational?

Consider that, IF people were to adopt the terribly old-fashioned ideals of virginity until marriage, marital fidelity and marriage for life, in just one generation...

STD's would disappear from the face of the earth

Abortion would become mostly unneccessary

The current teenage pregnancy crisis would end

All problems children have caused by divorce would disappear

And so on and so on...

If pornography were eliminated, these people who, having saved themselves for their spouse and lacking someone to compare their spouse to, would possibly (probably?) be much more satisfied and content with their marriage.

Happier marriages, lower abortion rates, medical savings from no STD's, happier more secure children. Why is such an ideal irrational?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #34 on:** April 08, 2006, 08:04:08 AM »

Quote from: JustLiz

Deep Thought -

Why do you think your idea is irrational?

Consider that, IF people were to adopt the terribly old-fashioned ideals of virginity until marriage, marital fidelity and marriage for life, in just one generation...

STD's would disappear from the face of the earth

Abortion would become mostly unneccessary

The current teenage pregnancy crisis would end

All problems children have caused by divorce would disappear

And so on and so on...

If pornography were eliminated, these people who, having saved themselves for their spouse and lacking someone to compare their spouse to, would possibly (probably?) be much more satisfied and content with their marriage.

Happier marriages, lower abortion rates, medical savings from no STD's, happier more secure children. Why is such an ideal irrational?

Because human beings are apparently to strongly driven by their sexual urges to reasonably expect such a thing to happen. Some can pull off the "virginity 'til marriage" thing (I know I can, and still am), but there are many who just can't, either because they lack the strength of will, they lack the moral fiber, or they lack reason to care about it enough to abstain.

But the idea I was saying was probably irrational was my own moral understanding of sexuality. I've known it's probably irrational for a long time. That hasn't stopped me from being wholly convinced of it...

JustLiz · « **Reply #35 on:** April 08, 2006, 09:28:25 AM »

Quote

Because human beings are apparently to strongly driven by their sexual urges to reasonably expect such a thing to happen.

Mirriam Websters defines rational as

1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

It seems to me what you are describing is not rational behavior. Actually, it is the opposite of rational. If a person knows that an illicit encounter may result in an STD - possibly a fatal one - an unwanted pregnancy, and so on yet engages in the encounter anyway because they are too strongly driven by their sexual urges, they most certainly cannot be described as acting rationally.

Quote

Some can pull off the "virginity 'til marriage" thing (I know I can, and still am), but there are many who just can't, either because they lack the strength of will, they lack the moral fiber, or they lack reason to care about it enough to abstain.

Good for you!
I also notice none of your reasons given involved "they've made a reasonable rational decision that death and premature parenting are things they want in their life. They've made a well-thought out conscious decision to play Russian Roulette with their future. I applaud their reasoning and rationality!"
Yet you call your conscious decision to avoid these things (probably) irrational. Interesting.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #36 on:** April 08, 2006, 12:24:02 PM »

Quote from: JustLiz

It seems to me what you are describing is not rational behavior. Actually, it is the opposite of rational. If a person knows that an illicit encounter may result in an STD - possibly a fatal one - an unwanted pregnancy, and so on yet engages in the encounter anyway because they are too strongly driven by their sexual urges, they most certainly cannot be described as acting rationally.

Exactly. Yet many do so anyway. 'Tis a sign of immaturity, but half or more of human beings tend to be immature (I myself know more immature individuals than mature ones, and most of those immature people are my age or older... which is sad).

Quote

Good for you!
I also notice none of your reasons given involved "they've made a reasonable rational decision that death and premature parenting are things they want in their life. They've made a well-thought out conscious decision to play Russian Roulette with their future. I applaud their reasoning and rationality!"
Yet you call your conscious decision to avoid these things (probably) irrational. Interesting.

Not that in its entirety. That is part of it, but it is my way of looking at things that is somewhat irrational. Perhaps because of growing up on far too many love stories (I was a fan of Disney movies as a small child, among other things), I've developed a firm belief in love, and thus don't have any desire to engage in sexual activity outside the bounds of a firmly established emotional connection. (Whether or not that connection involves marriage I will leave for the future to decide, because I don't place much value on a ring and the potentially empty words, "I do." That said, a marriage in which both partners are sincerely in love is a beautiful thing.)

There is a large amount of practicality involved in my abstinence, but the other part (the romantic part of my reasoning) extends my abstinence to chastity: one could reasonably and rationally engage in sexual activity if precautions are taken, but even that is something I wouldn't do unless I had that connection I was talking about.

Said connection, when looking at things via pure materialism and practicality, is neither necessary nor wholly important. It's a personal characteristic of mine, and perhaps of others, but it is not entirely rational.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #37 on:** April 08, 2006, 06:20:42 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

Quote from: JustLiz
: one could reasonably and rationally engage in sexual activity if precautions are taken, but even that is something I wouldn't do unless I had that connection I was talking about.

Said connection, when looking at things via pure materialism and practicality, is neither necessary nor wholly important. It's a personal characteristic of mine, and perhaps of others, but it is not entirely rational.

precautions don't always work, neither do they protect the people involved from spoiling love and their connection to and with it.
Marriage might seem empty but think about it, it bounds, and if the people want to get a divorce there are many material and legal questions to resolve, you can't just say "good bye" so nobody will bound him- or her self so much, unless they're in love, nobody will commit if they don't think the person is worth it ,no matter what, sorry I don't see the emptyness for the mere fact you are changing your status out of love, if it were so much out of significance, why are so many people so terrified of it ?
by the way, deepthout, I don't think your idea is necessarily irrational, we all have our faults and fall into one pitfall or another
one more thing, honestly the idea of a person not being able to control themself and that's it sounds like another romantic passionate fairy tale to me, to tell you the truth, when I first met my husband the way I was attracted to him almost scared me but we married three years later, so everybody can, don't let the others tell you otherwise that's the very excuse not to establish limits for oneself , period

Deep Thought · « **Reply #38 on:** April 08, 2006, 09:33:24 PM »

Quote from: howlingmeteore

precautions don't always work,

But they work enough of the time to make using them reasonable, which was my point.

Quote

Marriage might seem empty

Marriage is only as much as the people involved in it make it. There are plenty of problem couples out there who don't really love each other, their are marriages of convenience, and there are marriages that just died out at some point. Those are empty marriages. What really gives marriage meaning is that those involved in it mean it. And that, by the way, is why I relegate marriage to the backburner. If a couple truly loves each other, and their relationship works, but neither of them particularly likes the idea of marriage, then why should they be nagged by everyone they know to tie the knot? Marriage is not the important point; 'tis only a public, outward affirmation of that which is inward. That affirmation is good, but not necessary. If the couple shows each other how they feel, there's no need for the ceremony. A meaningful marriage is beautiful, but it's not the marriage that makes it mean something. It's the love.

howlingmeteore · « **Reply #39 on:** April 08, 2006, 09:40:52 PM »

well , of course it's the love, I notice however that you're putting the words "marriage" and "public" together...sais who ?????
you can marry in total privacy , so that nobody knows you have a spouse, or you can have the pleasure to share it with everybody, what matters is commitment and honestly, I don't think those people who don't want to marry love each other so much, trust me, I thought like you did till I met my husband, I even suffered because of "love " but I would have married none of those guys

when you meet the right person marriage does not scare you!!!!! and those who are, maybe they are with the wrong person, at least that was my personal experience, I should have known since those times I did not want to marry that I didn't love the guy(s) I thought I loved .
If you don't love you don't commit, obviously even commitments can shipwreck
about contraception, yes it works most of the times, it saved my husband and I from having kids when we're not ready yet, however, hadn't it worked, the baby would have had a mom and a dad, not two pals living with their own folks.

Author Topic: nudities in a catholic magazine!!! (Read 9182 times)