Nudity

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

lol..I'm curious how this will go as well.
 
nicnap said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

What about those of us with only 6 hairs on their chest? Are you trying to make me feel bad?
 
Pergamum: have pot, will stir. :lol:

Nudity in "art" is society legitimizing what should not be. It is how p0rnography 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.
 
TimV said:
Mason says that as a doctor, the sight of a naked woman means nothing to him.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kvanlaan said:
Pergamum: have pot, will stir. :lol:

Nudity in "art" is society legitimizing what should not be. It is how p0rnography was spread in China when we were there: porngraphy was banned, 'art' books were not.
Click to expand...

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

-----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!
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Pergamum said:
How about watching National Geographic? Or looking at classical paintings? Or reading a medical manual?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Pergamum said:
What is "civilization"? Should we speak of peoples as "civilized" or "uncivilized?" Does this word mean primarily technical/technological superiority? Or is it more?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TimV said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 :lol:
 
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?
 
DonP said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top