Thread: Nudity

On another OP some folks are talking about a super hero movie with erotic nudity. Someone else also mentioned Shindler's List. Another mentioned "nonchalant nudity" as contributing to nihilism.

What are differences in nudity anyhow?


How is a "love" scene different from the nudity of Schindler's List, which is different from National Geographic Nudity, which is different from Rodin's The Thinker (or, the Stinker, I like to call him since he looks like he's sitting on the pot)? How about anthropological nudity and missionary slide shows? If we show wild, black jungle/tribal breasts, it is anthropology, if we show European pagan white breasts, its prngry...does this entail racism (white skin is enticing but black isn't)? How about medical nudity, nude models for artists, classical art/sculpture nudity or nudity as a political statement?

What are the various differences and how is a Christian supposed to interact with each kind?

Skin is BAD! Bad skin! Bad!

By the way, that is not me eating popcorn and watching a movie with nudity in it...just interested in where this thread will go, and how it will turn out.

Wasn't one of Noah's sons cursed for seeing something he shouldn't have? Nothing is sacred anymore. The world treats nudity in the worlds way just as it talks in the worlds way. Yes I am guilty. I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell amongst people with unclean lips. But that doesn't justify anything.

nicnap;

By the way, that is not me eating popcorn and watching a movie with nudity in it...just interested in where this thread will go, and how it will turn out.

lol..I'm curious how this will go as well.

Originally Posted by nicnap

By the way, that is not me eating popcorn and watching a movie with nudity in it...just interested in where this thread will go, and how it will turn out.

How about watching National Geographic? Or looking at classical paintings? Or reading a medical manual?

Mason says that as a doctor, the sight of a naked woman means nothing to him. It's the same way with me, due to my advanced age, so I'll not comment.

I will, though, look forward to hearing what the other men here are willing to disclose about themselves.

I have seen some of those national geographic shows with breasts in them, and I don't think they should show that on TV, I was younger and didn't care about the culture, I only cared about the....you know....

Promotes lust. Nothing in Schindler's List would promote lust, for sure as it was of the holocaust. The others of which you speak do stimulate one toward lusting after the flesh, sin! They stimulate the senses and suggest you should be experiencing similar sensations as they portray. Watching National Geo or history shouldnt be doing such unless you truly have a great problem! Besides, I've always had an aversion to the thought of being spectator in someone elses bedroom!

Pictures of naked savages don't offend me because, well, they're savages. Pictures of naked civilized people do irritate me because when civilized people take off their clothes it is to make a point and that point is to indicate either rebellion against morality or to indicate or incite lust.

The nudity in Schindler's List - I'm thinking of the footage he inserted into the movie - was precisely what was needed to make the point of how the Nazis totally violated and stripped the Jews of any human dignity... they literally treated them like vermin. Anything less than seeing this would lessen the point.

Nudity for anatomy purposes is acceptable, but of course, parents should be the ones to say if they want their kids to know human anatomy.

I walk around the house in my underwear like a great hairy beast. I'm not too squeamish.

I walk around the house in my underwear like a great hairy beast. I'm not too squeamish.

What about those of us with only 6 hairs on their chest? Are you trying to make me feel bad?

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Nothing is sacred anymore.

Anymore?

Interestingly, I just finished watching a program on the History Channel about sexuality in ancient Egypt... they were even more vile than we!

Pergamum: have pot, will stir.

Nudity in "art" is society legitimizing what should not be. It is how pornography was spread in China when we were there: porngraphy was banned, 'art' books were not.

To some there may be differences in types of nudity but not so much for me. Most types are likely to cause me to stumble, depending on the individual portrayed. Assuming the person portrayed is an attractive woman, it really doesn't matter if she's deep in the heart of Africa, on a painting, or in a short nudie scene in an otherwise clean movie - I will probably lust and sin in my heart or have the opportunity to do so. That's perhaps not always the case and I am certainly not a raving lustaholic, but it is better for me to be so cautious so that my fight against lust is preventive rather than reactive. The reactive fight is much easier to lose.

(Besides, temptation or no temptation, I want these eyes on my wife only.)

It's all about the context. The female (or male, I guess, if you're a woman) anatomy can be an object of lust (i.e., p**n, bikini babes, etc.). When the setting does not lend itself to lusting, nudity may (and I mean MAY) be appropriate, assuming that the viewer of such nudity is in the proper frame of mind.
For example, I can perform a pelvic exam on a woman in the ER, and the setting is so clinical businesslike that there is nothing sexy about it whatsoever. In another setting, the same woman may be quite attractive.

Originally Posted by TimV

Mason says that as a doctor, the sight of a naked woman means nothing to him.

Interestingly, a few years ago I had the opportunity to be in the operating room while a young woman had a partial masectomy. She was under, her entire body was covered with the exception of the breast on which the doctor was going to be operating. That breast was the only thing you could see of the woman - even her head was covered - and even the breast was very carefully "framed" by material. I can assure you that in that moment there was NOTHING at all sexy about it. It was almost like they took great pains to "isolate" her breast from her at a psychological level: You could almost forget they were operating on a person and instead focus on a piece of flesh. It was strange.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Pergamum: have pot, will stir.

Nudity in "art" is society legitimizing what should not be. It is how pornography was spread in China when we were there: porngraphy was banned, 'art' books were not.

We as the body of Christ each have our own individual roles to perform; someone has got to be the armpit, I guess!

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 11:41:40 EST-----

P.s. I bet this thread has 1,000 postings by next week! Some claim to be prudes, but an OP titled as "NUDITY" is just too intriguing to pass up!

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Wasn't one of Noah's sons cursed for seeing something he shouldn't have? Nothing is sacred anymore. The world treats nudity in the worlds way just as it talks in the worlds way. Yes I am guilty. I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell amongst people with unclean lips. But that doesn't justify anything.

Not to split hairs, but the sin was in the mockery, not in seeing...


I avoid seeing skin as much as possible for the same reasons though...

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How about watching National Geographic? Or looking at classical paintings? Or reading a medical manual?

I think a lot of it has to do with the culture of the people. While I was in Uganda, women thought nothing of exposing their breast to feed their children; breasts were seen as functional, not sexual.

I tend to agree with Ben about "civilized" societies and nudity.

What is "civilization"? Should we speak of peoples as "civilized" or "uncivilized?" Does this word mean primarily technical/technological superiority? Or is it more?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What is "civilization"? Should we speak of peoples as "civilized" or "uncivilized?" Does this word mean primarily technical/technological superiority? Or is it more?

That is a different thread...

But the answer is YES, we can speak of civilized and uncivilized people.

Where we were at the majority race are called the Coloureds. The Hottentots were more primitive than the Blacks, and literally the whole race was the product of European men and the most primitive women on the planet.

During the German Nama war at the start of the last century the German dead were labelled in three ways: ertrinken for those few who drowned chasing the Nama over the Orange River, gefallen, for those who died in combat, and gestorben, for the majority of the deaths, and that was due to STDs.

When dealing with this subject, the Hottentot Venus, Sara Baartman is an interesting read.

Originally Posted by TimV

Where we were at the majority race are called the Coloureds. The Hottentots were more primitive than the Blacks, and literally the whole race was the product of European men and the most primitive women on the planet.

During the German Nama war at the start of the last century the German dead were labelled in three ways: ertrinken for those few who drowned chasing the Nama over the Orange River, gefallen, for those who died in combat, and gestorben, for the majority of the deaths, and that was due to STDs.

When dealing with this subject, the Hottentot Venus, Sara Baartman is an interesting read.

Hmmm, would my wife think me weird if I bought this book about Hottentot Venuses? Sounds interesting.

Hmmm, would my wife think me weird if I bought this book about Hottentot Venuses? Sounds interesting.

The story is both comical and sad. This Englishman wanted her measurements, but felt taking them by hand would be improper, so he stood her in an open place and used triangulation with surveying tools to get the essential data

That is the reason it is proper to cover the person every where else except the spot you have to uncover to work. So it proves the point, nature itself teaches us we should be covered and we feel better when we are all covered.

If the same woman could walk around in mixed company in a bikini, why do we need to cover her up for an examination more than a bikini would?

Or why would the same woman who parades around in a bikini or thong bathing suit freak out if someone sees her underwear under her dress or just standing in underwear?

We know it is wrong. And to say its about choice is not a sanctified answer. She chooses to expose in a bikini verses she doesn't choose to expose in her underwear which cover more.
That is a cultural adaptation and convention. It is worldly.

God says we are to cover pudenda. It also seems we are to cover most of our body if we can take any General Equity from the Garden or Israel.

So if I was a missionary about my business witnessing to a naked native, that is one thing. I assume God will give that missionary grace to handle it. And they should be taught eventually to clothe. Not necessarily 1st as a theonomist might do. But as a result of the converted covering, others in the culture may begin to also or not.

But I see no need for him or National Geographic to bring me pictures of the breasts or genitals of these people. I get the point from the modest pictures of them.

Naked statues and paintings are pornia. I don't care if it was Leonardo or Fast Freddie a naked pic is a naked pic. What redeeming value is it to me is it to see the statue of David in all his nakedness verses seeing him as he really was with a robe on. It is perversion. Not an artistic representation.

So in emergencies, fire, medical etc. we deal with the emergency then get them covered as soon as possible.

We do not say it is ok to leave them uncovered because they were accidentally so.

Isn't this obvious!!! Accidental versus intentional is the issue here.

The missionary accidentally sees nudity, National Geo Intentionally shows it. How does this help me culturally to see their parts. The camera shots can remain discreet as they do in many G movies. They do not have to shoot the naked pics or include them in the edited final frames.

National Geographic is the young mans porno.
Now should a woman be able to get a catalog with pics of underwear on bodies in order to buy??? But this at least is not complete nudity so I will leave that to your discretion. But if a man is not intending to buy some for his wife at that moment he has no business in it.
All it can do is tempt the woman and the men. Look how serious a problem models with lots of clothing our to our women's emotional health.

Now the question arises, what if I am the person living in a naked culture and I get converted first, do I clothe and be rejected by my people? Of course yes I obey all of scripture.

The fact this is even a question shows how decadent and worldly as a society we have fallen and as Christians how worldly we have become and desensitized to sin and nudity.

I work with people medically and am careful with their clothing if it is ever absolutely necessary to uncover them and almost always can find a way to avoid it. The kind of health care I provide prevents the necessity of this indecency for the most part. And for birthing we recommend midwives who have a lower incidence of birth problems, birth defects, deaths, vitually no C sections, and almost no episiotomies.
I think birthing is obvious there may be times midwives will see nudity.

By nature I tend to be a flower child and would have us all run naked and free as Adam and Eve.
But I think God showed me that there are flaming swords blocking the way back into Eden.
We are not the innocents who lived that way. After sin, whatever it was, the 1st thing God did was clothe them and the 1st thing they did was clothe themselves.

Stop and think. The first thing that occurred to them after sin was to clothe themselves. And some here would question if we need to cover ourselves??

What does that make you think about our consciences?

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Nothing is sacred anymore.

Anymore?

Interestingly, I just finished watching a program on the History Channel about sexuality in ancient Egypt... they were even more vile than we!

History Channel?

What did you think they are talking about in Lev. 18:3?

Originally Posted by DonP

That is the reason it is proper to cover the person every where else except the spot you have to uncover to work. So it proves the point, nature itself teaches us we should be covered and we feel better when we are all covered.

If the same woman could walk around in mixed company in a bikini, why do we need to cover her up for an examination more than a bikini would?

Or why would the same woman who parades around in a bikini or thong bathing suit freak out if someone sees her underwear under her dress or just standing in underwear?

We know it is wrong. And to say its about choice is not a sanctified answer. She chooses to expose in a bikini verses she doesn't choose to expose in her underwear which cover more.
That is a cultural adaptation and convention. It is worldly.

God says we are to cover pudenda. It also seems we are to cover most of our body if we can take any General Equity from the Garden or Israel.

So if I was a missionary about my business witnessing to a naked native, that is one thing. I assume God will give that missionary grace to handle it. And they should be taught eventually to clothe. Not necessarily 1st as a theonomist might do. But as a result of the converted covering, others in the culture may begin to also or not.

But I see no need for him or National Geographic to bring e pictures of the breasts or genitals of these people. I get the point from the modest pictures of them.

Naked statues and paintings are pornia. I don't care if it was Leonardo or Fast Freddie a naked pic is a naked pic. What redeeming value is it to me is it to see the statue of David in all his nakedness verses seeing him as he really was with a robe on. It is perversion. Not an artistic representation.

So in emergencies, fire, medical etc. we deal with the emergency then get them covered as soon as possible.

We do not say it is ok to leave them uncovered because they were accidentally so.

Isn't this obvious!!! Accidental versus intentional is the issue here.

The missionary accidentally sees nudity, National Geo Intentionally shows it. How does this help me culturally to see their parts. The camera shots can remain discreet as they do in many G movies. They do not have to shoot the naked pics in the edited final frames.

Now the question arises, what if I am the person living in a naked culture and I get converted first, do I clothe and be rejected by my people? Of course yes I obey all of scripture.

The fact this is even a question shows how decadent and worldly as a society we have fallen and as Christians how worldly we have become and desensitized to sin and nudity.

I work with people medically and am careful with their clothing if it is ever absolutely necessary to uncover them and almost always can find a way to avoid it. The kind of health care I provide prevents the necessity of this indecency for the most part. And for birthing we recommend midwives who have a lower incidence of birth problems, birth defects, deaths, vitually no C sections, and almost no episiotomies.
I think birthing is obvious there may be times midwives will see nudity.

By nature I tend to be a flower child and would have us all run naked and free as Adam and Eve.
But I think God showed me is that there are flaming swords blocking the way back into Eden.
We are not the innocents who lived that way. After sin, whatever it was, the 1st thing God did was clothe them and the 1st thing they did was clothe themselves.

Stop and think. The first thing that occurred to them after sin was to clothe themselves. And some here would question if we need to cover ourselves??

What does that make you think about our consciences?

Does National Geogaphic "intend" to show nudity? Or are they intending to give a realistic record of culture without changing it?

The issue is that the Bible doesn't give a distinction, so I'm not sure that we can. Scripturally-speaking, I think it is shameful for a man to look upon a naked woman who is not his wife, regardless of the context or whether he is tempted or not. There is no NEED to view another person naked for educational or art purposes.

Nakedness in the Bible is always associated with shame. In fact, in Genesis Shem and Japheth took great care that they wouldn't view their own father naked under the circumstance.

"But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness."- Genesis 9:23

Originally Posted by In His Grip

The issue is that the Bible doesn't give a distinction, so I'm not sure that we can. Scripturally-speaking, I think it is shameful for a man to look upon a naked woman who is not his wife, regardless of the context or whether he is tempted or not. There is no NEED to view another person naked for educational or art purposes.

Nakedness in the Bible is always associated with shame. In fact, in Genesis Shem and Japheth took great care that they wouldn't view their own father naked under the circumstance.

"But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness."- Genesis 9:23

I suppose you have all women doctors?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

[

Does National Geogaphic "intend" to show nudity? Or are they intending to give a realistic record of culture without changing it?

Are you saying it is an accident when they show it?

Of course they intend to show nudity.

The question is it legitimate, I say no. I do not need that much reality.

Shall I go to a satanic ritual so I can understand the reality of this bit of unregeneracy?

It is exactly the same. They can show naked backs etc. or say they wear no clothes etc. I don't need to see their genitals to believe them.

I am pro public nursing, but I would think it only right the mom's cover up if they need to do this. There is no need to just let it all hang out uncovered and I would say this is not a sexy thing either to a healthy person.

It isn't about whether someone thinks it is sexy, it is about obedience to God's clear teaching.

And since one may argue that the scripture is not that specific, is only the pudenda meant or the breasts also, I can say I am absolute dogmatic on the genitals, but because God covered them all and nature teaches most of us the breasts too, I go with that. I haven't heard of any Christian women in any culture who thought it was OK to uncover the breasts. Maybe this is because it is what we teach ???

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by TimV

Where we were at the majority race are called the Coloureds. The Hottentots were more primitive than the Blacks, and literally the whole race was the product of European men and the most primitive women on the planet.

During the German Nama war at the start of the last century the German dead were labelled in three ways: ertrinken for those few who drowned chasing the Nama over the Orange River, gefallen, for those who died in combat, and gestorben, for the majority of the deaths, and that was due to STDs.

When dealing with this subject, the Hottentot Venus, Sara Baartman is an interesting read.

Hmmm, would my wife think me weird if I bought this book about Hottentot Venuses? Sounds interesting.

She wasn't called "Hottentot Venus" because Europeans found her to be sexually appealling. They were making fun of her, her people, her race, everything. She was a pitiable freak, much like the "Elephant Man."

Originally Posted by DonP

Originally Posted by Pergamum

[

Does National Geogaphic "intend" to show nudity? Or are they intending to give a realistic record of culture without changing it?

Are you saying it is an accident when they show it?

Of course they intend to show nudity.

The question is it legitimate, I say no. I do not need that much reality.

Shall I go to a satanic ritual so I can understand the reality of this bit of unregeneracy?

It is exactly the same. They can show naked backs etc. or say they wear no clothes etc. I don't need to see their genitals to believe them.

I am pro public nursing, but I would think it only right the mom's cover up if they need to do this. There is no need to just let it all hang out uncovered and I would say this is not a sexy thing either to a healthy person.

It isn't about whether someone thinks it is sexy, it is about obedience to God's clear teaching.

And since one may argue that the scripture is not that specific, is only the pudenda meant or the breasts also, I can say I am absolute dogmatic on the genitals, but because God covered them all and nature teaches most of us the breasts too, I go with that. I haven't heard of any Christian women in any culture who thought it was OK to uncover the breasts. Maybe this is because it is what we teach ???

They [National Geographic Magazine] do not intend as their main focus to show nudity. Their main intention is the accurate depiction of local cultures.




This introduces a key point: a hierarchy of good, an ordering of principles.



It seems that the preservation of modesty is good. But many would not lump all nudity into the same degree of sinfulness/propriety. Why? Because they recognize that there are mitigating factors which makes one form of nudity to differ from another.

--For instance, a doctor may believe in the principle of modesty - yet the need for checking a patient is a higher guide.

--An artist might also believe in modesty in general, but when trying to portray beauty, they might reason within themselves that a sculpture can show the human form. Thus we have Rodin's Stinker sculpture.

--An anthropologist or a missionary might believe in modesty, but see that an acurate portrayal of the local culture is a higher good, or they may just be encountering the near impossibility of getting photos without some form of immodesty and decide that some less-than-perfect photos are better than no pics at all.




So, the nudity is not the main focus, other factors play a larger part. So, that is why we in our common sense, recognize a distinction between National Geographic and Playboy.



Interesting anecdote: I got mildly scolded for a tribal pic with native nudity (in the background). This same pastor, 2 weeks later, mentions how good the movie Braveheart was, that had frontal nudity displayed during a "love" scene, i.e., erotic nudity. I found it highly inconsistent to be offended at tribal nudity in the background and yet brag about a movie where nudity was displayed in a romantic/erotic way. Blindspots.

My husband was raised in a third world tribal society.

The men and women wore coverings for modesty. However, they would appear immodest and mostly *nude* in western culture.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by DonP

Originally Posted by Pergamum

[

Does National Geogaphic "intend" to show nudity? Or are they intending to give a realistic record of culture without changing it?

Are you saying it is an accident when they show it?

Of course they intend to show nudity.

The question is it legitimate, I say no. I do not need that much reality.

Shall I go to a satanic ritual so I can understand the reality of this bit of unregeneracy?

It is exactly the same. They can show naked backs etc. or say they wear no clothes etc. I don't need to see their genitals to believe them.

I am pro public nursing, but I would think it only right the mom's cover up if they need to do this. There is no need to just let it all hang out uncovered and I would say this is not a sexy thing either to a healthy person.

It isn't about whether someone thinks it is sexy, it is about obedience to God's clear teaching.

And since one may argue that the scripture is not that specific, is only the pudenda meant or the breasts also, I can say I am absolute dogmatic on the genitals, but because God covered them all and nature teaches most of us the breasts too, I go with that. I haven't heard of any Christian women in any culture who thought it was OK to uncover the breasts. Maybe this is because it is what we teach ???

They [National Geographic Magazine] do not intend as their main focus to show nudity. Their main intention is the accurate depiction of local cultures.




This introduces a key point: a hierarchy of good, an ordering of principles.



It seems that the preservation of modesty is good. But many would not lump all nudity into the same degree of sinfulness/propriety. Why? Because they recognize that there are mitigating factors which makes one form of nudity to differ from another.

--For instance, a doctor may believe in the principle of modesty - yet the need for checking a patient is a higher guide.

--An artist might also believe in modesty in general, but when trying to portray beauty, they might reason within themselves that a sculpture can show the human form. Thus we have Rodin's Stinker sculpture.

--An anthropologist or a missionary might believe in modesty, but see that an acurate portrayal of the local culture is a higher good, or they may just be encountering the near impossibility of getting photos without some form of immodesty and decide that some less-than-perfect photos are better than no pics at all.




So, the nudity is not the main focus, other factors play a larger part. So, that is why we in our common sense, recognize a distinction between National Geographic and Playboy.



Interesting anecdote: I got mildly scolded for a tribal pic with native nudity (in the background). This same pastor, 2 weeks later, mentions how good the movie Braveheart was, that had frontal nudity displayed during a "love" scene, i.e., erotic nudity. I found it highly inconsistent to be offended at tribal nudity in the background and yet brag about a movie where nudity was displayed in a romantic/erotic way. Blindspots.

There is no hierarchy of good !

Yes I think this is what most men say, the Playboy I got was for the articles, those incidental pics of naked women I hardly noticed.

Not.

But the articles were of more good than the pics were bad! Ridiculous. This applies only to accidental and unavoidable.
Should I let a woman die rather than pull her out of a fire because her clothes are ripped off? No of course not. The higher good could apply here in a sense.

But there is no higher good, it is about what is sin. Intentionally doing something not necessary. Not saving a life when I could would be a violation of a command also.
What command do you break by not looking at art or National Geo??

Man that is liberal thinking. You need to be careful. I a more concerned about you for that than looking at nudity.
There is no need for a sculptor or painter or cameraman to show immodesty.

I wanted you to see their bare feet int eh jungle but couldn't avoid his dangle?? Come on. No need. What for? Why do we need to see it? Maybe a missionary training video to see if you can handle seeing it?

No. No No justifying it.

Originally Posted by DonP

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by DonP

Are you saying it is an accident when they show it?

Of course they intend to show nudity.

The question is it legitimate, I say no. I do not need that much reality.

Shall I go to a satanic ritual so I can understand the reality of this bit of unregeneracy?

It is exactly the same. They can show naked backs etc. or say they wear no clothes etc. I don't need to see their genitals to believe them.

I am pro public nursing, but I would think it only right the mom's cover up if they need to do this. There is no need to just let it all hang out uncovered and I would say this is not a sexy thing either to a healthy person.

It isn't about whether someone thinks it is sexy, it is about obedience to God's clear teaching.

And since one may argue that the scripture is not that specific, is only the pudenda meant or the breasts also, I can say I am absolute dogmatic on the genitals, but because God covered them all and nature teaches most of us the breasts too, I go with that. I haven't heard of any Christian women in any culture who thought it was OK to uncover the breasts. Maybe this is because it is what we teach ???

They [National Geographic Magazine] do not intend as their main focus to show nudity. Their main intention is the accurate depiction of local cultures.




This introduces a key point: a hierarchy of good, an ordering of principles.



It seems that the preservation of modesty is good. But many would not lump all nudity into the same degree of sinfulness/propriety. Why? Because they recognize that there are mitigating factors which makes one form of nudity to differ from another.

--For instance, a doctor may believe in the principle of modesty - yet the need for checking a patient is a higher guide.

--An artist might also believe in modesty in general, but when trying to portray beauty, they might reason within themselves that a sculpture can show the human form. Thus we have Rodin's Stinker sculpture.

--An anthropologist or a missionary might believe in modesty, but see that an acurate portrayal of the local culture is a higher good, or they may just be encountering the near impossibility of getting photos without some form of immodesty and decide that some less-than-perfect photos are better than no pics at all.




So, the nudity is not the main focus, other factors play a larger part. So, that is why we in our common sense, recognize a distinction between National Geographic and Playboy.



Interesting anecdote: I got mildly scolded for a tribal pic with native nudity (in the background). This same pastor, 2 weeks later, mentions how good the movie Braveheart was, that had frontal nudity displayed during a "love" scene, i.e., erotic nudity. I found it highly inconsistent to be offended at tribal nudity in the background and yet brag about a movie where nudity was displayed in a romantic/erotic way. Blindspots.

There is no hierarchy of good !

Yes I think this is what most men say, the Playboy I got was for the articles, those incidental pics of naked women I hardly noticed.

Not.

But the articles were of more good than the pics were bad! Ridiculous. This applies only to accidental and unavoidable.
Should I let a woman die rather than pull her out of a fire because her clothes are ripped off? No of course not. The higher good could apply here in a sense.

But there is no higher good, it is about what is sin. Intentionally doing something not necessary. Not saving a life when I could would be a violation of a command also.
What command do you break by not looking at art or National Geo??

Man that is liberal thinking. You need to be careful. I a more concerned about you for that than looking at nudity.
There is no need for a sculptor or painter or cameraman to show immodesty.

I wanted you to see their bare feet int eh jungle but couldn't avoid his dangle?? Come on. No need. What for? Why do we need to see it? Maybe a missionary training video to see if you can handle seeing it?

No. No No justifying it.

This OP is about differences in forms of nudity.

You might believe that all nudity is sinful, but you can at least admit that there are degrees of appropriateness, right?

If you think both Playboy and National Geographic both are sinful, at least you should be able to admit that one is more inappropriate than the other. Playboy si focused on the nudity, National Geographic is focused on the culture, with nudity as being incidental.

Interesting anecdote: I got mildly scolded for a tribal pic with native nudity (in the background). This same pastor, 2 weeks later, mentions how good the movie Braveheart was, that had frontal nudity displayed during a "love" scene, i.e., erotic nudity. I found it highly inconsistent to be offended at tribal nudity in the background and yet brag about a movie where nudity was displayed in a romantic/erotic way. Blindspots.

Interesting anecdote, but isn't it possible that he edits Braveheart? I have seen Braveheart several times and enjoy the film, but I have always filtered out the language, fast-forwarded through the sex scenes, and turned my head at some of the more gory parts. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I suppose you have all women doctors?

Perg,

With all due respect, this is not about me or my preferences......its about what God has already said in His Word! And one thing I noted in most of the responses above (with the exception of Don and a few others) is that no one has referred to Scripture! It has all been based on individual experiences and personal views on the matter rather than God's Word! So, my question to you is, why did you place this thread in the "Law of God" category? Are you sincerely interested in what God's Word has to say on this subject or are you more interested in hearing people's opinions and experiences? If its the former, then I gave you my humble opinion of what God clearly teaches in His Word. If its the latter, then you may want to move this thread to more a appropriate category.

Originally Posted by Hamalas

Interesting anecdote: I got mildly scolded for a tribal pic with native nudity (in the background). This same pastor, 2 weeks later, mentions how good the movie Braveheart was, that had frontal nudity displayed during a "love" scene, i.e., erotic nudity. I found it highly inconsistent to be offended at tribal nudity in the background and yet brag about a movie where nudity was displayed in a romantic/erotic way. Blindspots.

Interesting anecdote, but isn't it possible that he edits Braveheart? I have seen Braveheart several times and enjoy the film, but I have always filtered out the language, fast-forwarded through the sex scenes, and turned my head at some of the more gory parts. Just a thought.

No, because a few minutes later he made a comment about how it was a shame that the movie had a few "bad parts". But evidently he could enjoy the movie even with those bad parts, but my picture was evidently altogether bad because it had an out-of-focus tribal boob in the background.