Hey everybody,

Been thinking about this one for a while and thought I'd include the community at Shalomplace to give me further perspective.

We live in a highly sexualized world, from television to magazines, movies to the latest fashion, sexuality and nudity (partial or complete) is all around us. This sexuality and nudity is often crude, vulgar and destructive in its relationship to the human body and human sexuality as created by God.

That said, God created us as sexual beings. He not only created the beauty of the human form but also created male and female to come together in sexual intercourse resulting in shared pleasure and intimacy between partners. God obviously approves of nudity and sex because that is the way he made us. (Of course I accept that sexual intercourse was intended to be enjoyed under the covenant of life long commited marriage).

It is rather interesting to note the development of the relationship between western culture and the naked body and the movement from glory to shame - with Christianity playing a major role.

The Nude has been a prominent player in Art forms, both western and eastern, for centuries. While some look down on this revealing of the naked body, some Christians, like those at Gordon College have adopted another view.

quote:

The figure, i.e. the nude figure... is a soulful being, created we are told in the image of God and imbued with the stretch and celebration of dance, the gravity and reflection of thought, the expression and imagination of spirit. To see the figure in this light is to honor, not to worship it. We come to draw the figure with eyes focused to study, not to lust. We revel in our lines, smudges, colors, clay forms, to render the poetry of all that is human, not to debase it as the pornographer's butcher shop. In fact, we rebel in our prints, pictures, and sculpture against the newsstand rags, which pervert the man or woman that was made with a temple in mind. If as Christians and artists we seek to elevate the nude figure as a metaphor for what it means to truly be alive at a certain time, in a certain place, then we have accomplished a great deal. If, however, we reduce ourselves to the naked body, we are relegated to being the makers of empty vessels without full transcendence, and therefore merely a cold and shivering heap of parts.

I largely agree with this statement but do not know how one draws the line between art and pornography.

I know from experience the addictive dangers of pornography and can easily see the degrading and exploitive nature of the contemporary sex industry. Yet, I still wonder if there is a legitimate place for the naked body in cultural expression, even Christian cultural expression.

What is permited and what is not. What is it about nudity that religion has traditionally condemned, or what is it about being naked in view of others that God restricts because of the fall.

Does the whole revelation of scripture condemn all forms or nudity or is the condemnation of nudity an interpretation of biblical texts like the story of the fall and Noah and Ham.

What is the status of nudity before the fall, after the fall, and after Christ.

Is there a redeemed nudity, are we allowed to enjoy nudity the way we enjoy a beautiful sunset or one of God's animal creations.

What should our attitude be towards great movies that may contain nudity. Are we to stay away from every movie in which nudity may appear even if the overall theme of the movie is God honouring or historically correct?

If we do watch a movie in which there is nudity are we to pretend that the body that we see is anything but a stunning diamond in God's creation. Do we reject the nudity on the basis of it being nudity or is there another way?

I am not saying these questions or the exploration of this subject is without some danger. But I feel to ignore it would be to pretend it isn't an issue in todays world and in the lives of many Christians, my own included.

All very good questions, Jacques, and very relevant. Re. the difference between nudity and pornography, the classical answer is "I know it when I see it, but don't ask me to explain." An individual posing for an artist is one thing; a nude dancer in a bar room quite another.

Because of the fall and the disorder brought to our sexual desires, the sin of lust is an ever-lurking possibility. There is some irony in this regarding nudity, however. When you stop and think about it, women (or men) in the nude look more alike than different when compared to their appearance in clothing. In fact, it seems that some can appear more sexually enticing when dressed a certain way (again, men or women) -- that clothing can be a "teaser," of sorts.

Clearly, in all of this, lust is in the eye of the beholder, which makes it sometimes difficult to objectively draw a line between art and porn. A clear one, however (at least to me) is that showing people having intercourse or other kinds of sexual relations is usually more on the porn side, even when "tastefully" depicted in movies, which is often the case these days.

Two points...
-------------------

Absolutely. I�ve read your interesting post several times, Jacques.

Another key question is this:
What is the distinction between Erotic and Pornographic?
Clearly the former plays on desire, but, I would argue, with dignity.

Another point:
Many moralists are more prone to want to censor mild sexually oriented material than even the most graphic violence. By and large, modern television programming reflects those priorities. What does this tell us?

These are indeed good questions.

It's interesting to note that nudity is abhorred in all societies around the world, even among hunter-gatherer cultures, who will at least cover their genitals. And that, I think, is they key to it: that nudity is so inextricably linked with sexuality and with sexual desire and arousal. At what point does admiration of the body, even the beauty of the body, become a disordered lust?

The Church teaches that the place of sexual desire -- meaning normal, healthy sexual desire, and not a disordered lust -- is within marriage. Yet it scarcely seems possible that a couple would be attracted enough to each other to get married, and yet not experience even the slightest tinge of sexual interest before that.

More questions than answers!

quote:

At what point does admiration of the body, even the beauty of the body, become a disordered lust?

Perhaps the difficulty in answering this question is the reason why religion and culture has always shunned nudity (one of the reasons anyway).

This article on Christian Naturism is quite interesting. Some of the reasons given for the acceptance of a non-sexual public nudity include:

quote:

...The human body was God's final and greatest earthly creation. Requiring the body to be covered rivals the legalism of the Pharisees. Many people have been deceived into thinking that their clothing keeps them from sin, when in fact, the opposite is true.
Much of the origin of repressive attitudes toward nudity is traced to the political setting of the early church and church-state, and not the teachings of Christ Himself. Modern decency laws forbidding nudity are more relevant to the Victorian era than the Biblical era.
Assuming no intrinsic need (climate, etc.), rather than preventing sin, clothing is worn due to one's own insecurity, pride, feelings of guilt, shame, lack of trust, worthlessness, need to hide, fear of rejection, and of others taking advantage. The amount of clothing in which society dictates we should wear has changed substantially from one era to the next. Christians who cannot comprehend nudity without sexuality may have been deprived of any opportunity to do so in their upbringing...

This next quote is quite relevant to my own family:

quote:

* A child's innocence is lost when a non-naturist parent says to them, in effect, "You are too old to be seen nude in public." (see below) This amounts to passing on to the next generation the same lie which the devil told Adam and Eve.

If parents forbid children to ever be seen nude outside of their own family, generally such a prohibition begins within the months or years leading up to the age of reason. The exact age and circumstances may vary by denomination and culture. Quite the opposite of what Christian naturists believe, non-naturists (whether Christian or not), may feel that if children were to see others nude and be seen nude themselves, that is precisely what would cost them their innocence

We stay on a rather large and open plot of land, my extended family run a business off the property. My niece and nephews have grown up on the property, as have my own kids. As a family (whole extended family) we have been rather open to allowing our kids to play in the nude (as long as it was not offensive to anybody present and we did not feel our kids would not be made vulnarable to sinful adults.

My Niece and Nephews have since that time grown up a little and have been told it is no longer socially acceptable to run around naked. I remember they struggled with this as it was so natural and comfortable to be naked. We have now started the same process with our eldest boy (he is now 3) and he too can't understand why he sometimes has to wear clothes.

Christian naturists seem to feel that even adults can interact in the nude without sexualizing the encounters. Are they being truthfull or perhaps a little (self)deceptive. Looking at the kids in my own family though they certainly may have been quite comfortable growing up nude if that was the socially acceptable thing to do.

Living in Africa (even in the 21st Century), it is still common for Black Africans to be topless in the rural areas, especially during festival times and special occasions. I'm sure this kind of nudity would spark widespread lust if all the woman in America suddenly appeared topless for weddings or religious ceremonies. Therefore it is also valid to ask how much the covering of our bodies has influenced the over-sexualization of the human body in the 21st century. Uncovered breasts used to be commonplace and people didn't give it a second thought, now there exists a multi-billion dollar industry revolving around the filming, photographing and displaying of topless woman??! I once watched a documentary about Aids and sexuality in African culture and there was this old granny sitting topless in her hut telling the reporter how (when she was young) it was always appreciated when an African man would compliment you on you beautiful breasts (which would not have been covered).

It just amazes me how sexual our culture is and yet it was not always like this in history. A sign of the growing sinfulness of humanity or the long term effects of sewing on figleaves??

From Jacques: My Niece and Nephews have since that time grown up a little and have been told it is no longer socially acceptable to run around naked. I remember they struggled with this as it was so natural and comfortable to be naked. We have now started the same process with our eldest boy (he is now 3) and he too can't understand why he sometimes has to wear clothes.

Christian naturists seem to feel that even adults can interact in the nude without sexualizing the encounters. Are they being truthfull or perhaps a little (self)deceptive. Looking at the kids in my own family though they certainly may have been quite comfortable growing up nude if that was the socially acceptable thing to do.

Very interesting! Yes, shame is "taught" as another active thread has emphasized so poignantly. And surely a culture spreads a "lust virus" as well. Would it be possible to raise children so they'd never know shame or lust? That's difficult to answer, as the two are so pervasive in pretty much every culture.

My Scripture reading this morning came from Matthew 5:27-30

"You have heard that it was said 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart..."

It raised some questions for me regarding this discussion.

Is there religious/Christian agreement on the nature and definition of lust? What is the difference between lust and attraction and the relationship between the two?

Is all sexual attraction lustful?...in which case women who dress prevocatively and stir up sexual energies in men are causing them to sin (and men to woman). And yet attraction to the opposite sex is part of our evolutionary heritage and necessary for the survival of the species (atleast that is the way I see it), so there must be a difference between sexual attraction which may occur often and lust which is sinful.

Even when fully clothed a beautiful woman will be noticed as such. If her beauty extends beyond facial feautures to a good figure the effect will be amplified. Her presence will begin to have a biological effect on men. Are we to spiritually (or physically) flagellate those biological reaction (which certainly has often been the approach in Christian history) or are we to examine this relationship between attraction, appreciation (for created beauty) and lust more carefully.

Jacques, I understand "committing adultery in the heart" to mean willingly consenting to and indulging fantasies which, if acted out, would constitute adulterous behavior.

You ask: Is all sexual attraction lustful?

I don't think so, as these attractions generally seem to come naturally and unbidden. What one does with them after they are noticed is a moral issue, however.

One thing to keep in mind in the midst of this:

Aversion is just a different form of attachment.
And thus there is no freedom to be gained in that way.

Permit me to give a classic example:

quote:

Tanzan and Ekido were walking together down a muddy road in the rain. Coming around a bend in the road, they arrived at a small, swift stream, where a lovely young girl in full dress kimono stood crying.

"Why are you crying?" asked Tanzan.

In between tears, the girl explained that she was due at a wedding in a village on the far side of the stream, but to cross the stream meant to ruin her kimono and, needless to say, her entrance.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan. With that, he hoisted the girl on his back, waded across the stream and deposited her on the far side, high, dry and happy. She went off to the wedding, there presumably to catch the bouquet and/or get drunk. Tanzan and Ekido continued on down the road.

Ekido held his tongue until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he could no longer restrain himself. "We monks don't go near women," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It's dangerous and our order forbids it. Yet you carried that girl across the stream. Why did you carry that girl?"

"I left the girl at the stream," replied Tanzan. "Why do you carry her still?"

HP, that old Buddhist parable does a nice job of pointing out the nature of attachments, but it doesn't really speak to the issue of porn vs. artistic nudity. I thought your point above about dignity was a good one, only that's difficult to objectify, as are many other things about this topic. Some pretty good distinctions between porn and erotica are made on the site linked below:
- http://www.dianarussell.com/pornintro.html

That is indeed an excellent, intelligent set of definitions. She avoids a lot of pitfalls and overly general definitions. This leaves a pretty large available space for non-pornographic erotica.

Cultural perception
I work as a freelance copywriter. Some years ago the project team that I was part of was evaluating photographs of a model showing various jackets. The catalogue was to be sent to, amongst other places, Russia and the Far East.

Almost everyone agreed which photographs were best. Then came howls of protest from a Chinese member of the team. Showing a model with an open mouth was out of the question! It would be seen as pornographic.

Live models
At the university I took a BA with majors in Studio Art and Mathematics. As part of this training, and in other contexts, I have had well over 1000 hours of drawing from live models.

A particularly excellent teacher (Richard Gayton) at the California College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland, which I attended one summer, strived to ensure that we had a broad range of models. Here was a world-class swimmer and a ballet dancer, but also men and women 70 years of age, a woman 8 months pregnant, overweight men and women. Caucasians, Asians, African-Americans, etc. That was unusual, but particularly valuable.

On one occasion a female model realized a student did a modeling himself, so she invited him to pose with her. That was very interesting, and unproblematic.

In addition to life drawing, I also took a class in portraits and hands from him. In all of these classes, Mr Gayton gave us thorough instruction in artistic anatomy.

I have had many conversations with models, and also taken turns posing with a member of my class in private, when we were working on projects. No problem.

Interestingly, in a class context, students would usually wait until the model is robed before approaching during a break, unless the model clearly chooses to remain nude. I think this has to do with the preference for equality.

The Parable
The parable speaks to the concept of lust and attachment, not porn vs. artistic nudity.

It might also be worthwhile to consider concrete examples of artistic nudity, and of erotic imagery that is not pornographic.

I really liked the definition of pornography given by Russell. But I would have thought that a relatively large amount of pornography was non-violent or not portraying abuse or degradation or its' encouragement..but I may be wrong on that (especially the degradation). But that also leaves quite a large grey area in terms of what then is considered abuse or degrading and what is not.

In fact depending on different peoples own likes or dislikes regarding sex, different people would class the same image as both erotic and pornographic. I'm sure it would be rather difficult to find unanimous agreement even amongst a group of 10 or even 5...unless the images were so clearly abusive/degrading that one would have to be completely morally debased not to consider them abusive. But in a discussion like this I think the question being considered is more closely related to cases in which it is not clear rather than when it is very clear.

Also, As Heartprayer says, (if we accept Russell's definition) that leave a pretty large space for non-pornographic erotica.

My question is, What would be the purpose of viewing something erotic? And also, by erotic do we mean images specifically encouraging sexual stimulation of the viewer...which may not necassarily be the purpose of all nude images (though the result may be the same).

Regarding concrete examples I have a couple of questions. The first stems Phil from your description of Adultery...And the reason I ask is because (especially in Protestant Christianity) all sexual impulses are considered sinful - atleast that the way it is often taught and grey areas are not cleared up very well...

If a woman chooses to dress in a way that would be considered revealing e.g. low cut tops, tight pants/short skirts etc. and a man both looked at and enjoyed what he saw without carrying the visual enjoyment (and the stirring of sexual energies that would accompany such an encounter) into a desire to engage the woman sexually (whether physically or only in the mind), then this would not be considered lust or the adultery spoken of by Jesus?

And second...regarding erotic vs pornographic. It follows on from my question regarding the purpose of erotica, but I am wondering then if erotica was used (say in the form of erotic literature or even film) as a tool for sexual encounter between husband and wife in a Christian marriage would it be different from using pornography in the same way? But perhaps I should wait on a defining purpose of erotica as different from pornography??

Erotica - a celebration
----------------------------

Jacques,
Ok, I�ll try a stab at this one.

In the eyes of the beholder, erotica is a celebration of beauty, desire or sexuality.

Whether one considers that healthy or unhealthy is another issue -- and it is the crux of the matter. It is also largely an individual choice.

I am reminded of the following exchange some years ago:
Q: "Khrishnamurti, what about... uhm, ...what about sex?"
A: "Either do it or don�t do it. But get on with it."

The Protestant aversion for (most) things sexual -- to which you yourself refer -- may be likened to Ekido in the story above. I am not alone in this view. In my opinion many Christian leaders, televangelists in particular, have an over focus on sexual matters. Not least homosexuality. These issues don�t deserve anywhere near the attention they presently receive!

Were vociferous Christian/other religious leaders and partakers in the public debate to invest an equal amount of energy into the need for ethical business practices, then the world would be a better place.
In fact, it may well be possible that the Global Financial Crisis could have been avoided.

One final thought, if I may. You and other posters have talked a lot about lust. Well, an alternative spelling of lust is this:
P-A-S-S-I-O-N.

Heartprayer:

quote:

One final thought, if I may. You and other posters have talked a lot about lust. Well, an alternative spelling of lust is this:
P-A-S-S-I-O-N.

I don't know heartprayer. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with someone being passionate...but that just does not seem to be the same as lustful.

Perhaps they have the same meaning in certain contexts, I just don't know if that is true in cases of references to sex/nudity/pornography/erotica

I mean, what would it mean for Jesus to say we should not look at woman with passion or passionately?

Heartprayer:

quote:

In the eyes of the beholder, erotica is a celebration of beauty, desire or sexuality.

Whether one considers that healthy or unhealthy is another issue -- and it is the crux of the matter. It is also largely an individual choice.

Okay, I understand now what is meant by pornography (as per Russell) and Erotica (as per Heartprayer) and can certainly see that there is a difference between the two.

As to healthy or unhealthy...i'm not sure...If I knew God had no problem with it, then why not! There is a time and a season for the celebration of all things, why not beauty, desire and sexuality. But again, if one were to accept the validity of Erotica what place would we allow for it within Christian culture. For example would we accept a Priest who owned a collection of erotic art. Or a married couple who read Erotic literature to each other or would we be comfortable taking a young adult church group to watch an erotic film?

Heartprayer:

quote:

It might also be worthwhile to consider concrete examples of artistic nudity, and of erotic imagery that is not pornographic.

Did you have anything in mind?

But still, I'm not really sure what God thinks of Erotica vs Pornography and whether He would agree with us that there is an important difference between the two?!?

What I do know, for me anyway, is that I would love for there to be an "Old Testament type" LAW that could clearly mark out the lines, rules and regulations governing nudity, beauty, sex, desire and sexuality and my relationship with these areas. But then, we no longer live under the law, but under Grace and by the Spirit. The problem for me is that without a clear cut LAW I have to trust my own deceitful heart on these matters. Now with subject matter like this, that has the power to stir up powerful energies and P-A-S-S-I-O-N-S, it is usually harder for me to hear God's voice. I am not saying that I don't want to hear God's ruling on these matters, but that these matters generate quite a lot of noise (note i'm not saying bad noise) that tends to drown out other voices. And why shouldn't it...I mean if human beings in their beauty, sexuality and form are made in the image of God then you would expect that their celebration would cause erruptions in our inner worlds.

A personal choice: avoiding distractions
--------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
The problem for me is that without a clear cut LAW I have to trust my own deceitful heart on these matters. Now with subject matter like this, that has the power to stir up powerful energies and P-A-S-S-I-O-N-S, it is usually harder for me to hear God's voice.

Yes, I would think it is wise to listen to your Heart.
For is it not in its depths that you can hear the will of God?

I think the issue is simple:
If you find that something distracts you from your Path, then it may be wise to stay away from it. However, that is a Personal choice, and not necessarily an expression of a Universality. Someone else may experience it differently.

And all the better if our choice really does take the form of a choice, and not an Aversion in which we invest too much energy.

I think you may have misunderstood me a little HeartPrayer...I was actually saying that I do not hear clearly on this matter and that perhaps the reason for my not hearing clearly is because of the nature of the subject...Though this is only a guess.

More than that I was making reference to my need for clearcut rules and regulations to govern my actions, but this is not the way of the Spirit...At least that is the way I see it.

I think life is more grey than black and white and my mind likes black and white much more than grey because it is safer. So I ask questions like when, where, how, what, why in order to form the imaginary lines that will me help walk safely...some people also like the lines and they help me to draw them but others like to tell me my lines are my own creations and that life is not a set of rules but a set of relationships in which the rules are there to help us love and be loved in a hole and holy way

You see if I am honest I would like for there to be a permissable celebration of beauty, passion and desire...but I would not like to create my own permission just because I would like for something to be permissible. And that is one of the major thrusts of my enquiry.

Am I to understand that for you Heartprayer, Pornography would be wrong, but Erotica not? and how would you draw the distinctions?

No, I cannot presume to say what is right or wrong for you.

I do not think anyone else can give you a truly meaningful answer to what would constitute a permissible celebration for you.

You have to take full responsibility for that one yourself �� even though you are "not hearing clearly". Externalising this into "a set of rules" is not the answer; that�s merely a surrogate for taking responsibility. Our imperfect "hearing" is part of the human condition, so we have to do our best!

The issue of right and wrong in this regard is very different from trying to draw some sort of general (or concrete) distinction between erotica and pornography, or artistic and non-artistic nude portrayals.

Good exchange, gents.

Jacques wrote: Regarding concrete examples I have a couple of questions. The first stems Phil from your description of Adultery...And the reason I ask is because (especially in Protestant Christianity) all sexual impulses are considered sinful - atleast that the way it is often taught and grey areas are not cleared up very well...

I don't think all of Protestantism views sexual desire as sinful, Jacques. The mainline traditions (Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, even Baptist) view the desire itself as natural and so morally neutral. It's how the desire is expressed relationally (including in one's fantasies) that's moral or not. The immoral possibilities are:
a. Fornication - sex out of wedlock.
b. Masturbation (including oral sex, here)
c. Adultery - cheating on one's marriage partner.

In all three cases, the acts involved are easy enough to define, and so the thoughts and fantasies leading up to them can be evaluated on the basis of how close they lead us to acting out, including here, giving full consent to fantasies where we act out.

I mean, what would it mean for Jesus to say we should not look at woman with passion or passionately?

I think the actual translation is lustfully, or committing adultery in the heart. Lust, we might say, then, is passion oriented toward fornication, masturbation or adultery. Porn would be lust-inducing material. As you and HP have noted, however, there's a lot of subjectivity about that. For teenaged boys, women dressed in Elizabethan clothing are a catalyst for lust.

Following up my post above, check out this story about a young woman auctioning her virginity. Seems the bids are going high, but what's curious about it is that she's got no lust involved; it's all about money (sure, there's still sin involved). Now those men bidding . . .

Well, at least she's getting in some good, very short-term research . . . . . . Sheesh.

OTOH, not the best thing to have on your resume as a fledgling counselor.

I've read somewhere (will look for a link) that teenagers who have sex are more prone to depression. You got to wonder about this young girl - hardly an adult - who is willing to share something so intimate with someone who will treat her as an "it." Sex is so powerful. In spite of her denials, to not feel that it is powerful and precious isn't a good sign - or at least to fear the experience - to have some anxiety about it. And to give up your virginity to someone you don't love - or at least fantasize loving - that just doesn't sound like a shrewd 22 year old business woman putting herself through school. And whatever this disposition might be called, it runs in her family.

Wonder if the faculty about to give her a degree in the helping professions have any pause? I mean, how left-wing can you really get on an issue like this?

The latest research on teen sex and depression shows that what makes a girl, in particular, vulnerable, is when the boy drops her after the hook-up.

Phil:

In a way, this could be a worse sin than sex motivated by sheer lust. And if sex- or her virginity- isn't such a big deal to her, why hasn't she lost "it" by now? Was she watching her sister rake in the money and holding out until she could cash in too?