# Dare I ask? Nudity in sculpture, what say ye?



## Richard King (Dec 8, 2008)

I wonder what the consensus is here on the PB.
I remember Lady Liberty used to have wardrobe malfunctions in some art and on some money and now this is causing a stir in San Antone:
Is it stir-worthy? 
Offensive or Art? Nude Statue Unveiled Downtown | WOAI.COM: San Antonio News

If this is deemed an inappropriate post please delete it ASAP


----------



## matt01 (Dec 8, 2008)

There is a "group" statue outside one of the hospitals where I grew up, which depicts a whole family naked. I could never figure out what the point of it was...


----------



## Grymir (Dec 9, 2008)

I think it's a little much to influenced by our sex-driven arts. It's more sexy than tastefull. Let's get the real Lady Liberty back.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

I've seen paintings and statues of nursing mothers. The point is not sexuality but human beauty during nursing I guess.


----------



## Nate (Dec 9, 2008)

sans nom said:


> There is a "group" statue outside one of the hospitals where I grew up, which depicts a whole family naked. I could never figure out what the point of it was...



Was that here in Ann Arbor? I walk past the naked family every morning and evening.

RE the OP, I think some nude art is tastefully done, but viewer discretion should be advised. Don't like even "tasteful" art like the naked family where it's virtually impossible for me to block my kids from seeing it.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 9, 2008)

That’s a very interesting question.

It seems that after the fall and the loss of the state of innocence it is no longer

«neutral» if this might be the right word, to watch a nude body.

I don’t find it wrong to watch a statue of Rodin of for instance David of Michelangelo.

But I still find it a very difficult question, concerning art.

Do you think Canaan’s curse by Noah on Genesis 9 has any implication?


----------



## shackleton (Dec 9, 2008)

This proves that the law too can be sexy...

But seriously, it seems like nudity is frowned upon in the bible after the fall. Great pains were taken so that no one would see anyone else' s nudity throughout the Torah. Nudity, outside the marriage relationship, seems to be associated with shame.


----------



## matt01 (Dec 9, 2008)

NateLanning said:


> sans nom said:
> 
> 
> > There is a "group" statue outside one of the hospitals where I grew up, which depicts a whole family naked. I could never figure out what the point of it was...
> ...



It was in Minnesota. Are they all holding hands in Ann Arbor?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Our nakedness is our shame, and not something to be gazed upon outside in the public arena as if it were not shameful.
(Isa 47:3; Rev 3:18)


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

How about said portraits of nursing mothers which show the dignity of the family and the bond between mother and child?



Or portraits and photography of tribals which show the anthropological situation of remote tribes and how they live?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

Also, where would we be without nude art, as that is what helped our understanding of the human anatomy for medical purposes (?) The argument has much to offer on both sides and I'm somewhere in the middle.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

I don't see nursing and nudity as the same thing at all. Nursing is a normal part of life. It is a gift from God that nourishes and enables the mothering bond to strengthen. I appreciate it when mothers show discretion in nursing, but I do not see a problem at all with mothers nursing in public. I know that is seen as weird in the sanitized American culture. 

On the flips side, however, what purpose does a portrait of a nursing mother serve? (Not being argumentative, just curious.)

Portraits of a tribe might be appropriate if done in the proper manner; not like some that National Geographic used to do that sensualised the younger women.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> How about said portraits of nursing mothers which show the dignity of the family and the bond between mother and child?
> 
> 
> 
> Or portraits and photography of tribals which show the anthropological situation of remote tribes and how they live?



You don't need to show a mother nursing to show the dignity of the family. I would also have to ask if you believe that a mother who breast feeds shows more dignity than a woman who bottle feeds.

You can say that tribes are nude without showing pictures of them. So you can still get an understanding without the actual nudity.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 10:18:17 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> Also, where would we be without nude art, as that is what helped our understanding of the human anatomy for medical purposes (?) The argument has much to offer on both sides and I'm somewhere in the middle.



Can you show that the medical field has grown because of public displays of nudity?

There is no reason why the medical field would need anatomy to be displayed publicly.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Can you show that the medical field has grown because of public displays of nudity?
> 
> There is no reason why the medical field would need anatomy to be displayed publicly.



Modeling done in classrooms or for private artists...this is public in a different sense. Others see it. Many of the famous artists of the past have used it for both art and the study of the anatomy. Da Vinci is one that I can think of. Between these artists and eventually the idea of autopsy, which artists also learned from and medical practioners learned from both, we have seen nude art used to our benefit. Now the question is, should we have permitted it in the first place? How do you feel about much religious art (even that that leaves out Christ...er, Thom the Swedish Shepherd)? Do you find any exceptability in it, even if certain portions are covered, the majority is mostly nude.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 9, 2008)

Richard King said:


> *I wonder what the consensus is here on the PB.*
> I remember Lady Liberty used to have wardrobe malfunctions in some art and on some money and now this is causing a stir in San Antone:
> Is it stir-worthy?
> Offensive or Art? Nude Statue Unveiled Downtown | WOAI.COM: San Antonio News
> ...



We need a poll!

I personally don't like seeing nude art because it makes me feel uncomfortable, even if I didn't do anything! So maybe this is a weaker brother issue, where I am weaker in that it makes me feel guilty, whereas others may feel fine. 
I am not guilty, but I feel guilty, when looking at their stumbling blocks of clay.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

No, you cannot have medical textbooks without nude pictures.... I sure wouldn't send my wife to that gyno!


How about breastfeeding in public?

HOw about pics like the naked little girl that had her clothes burned by napalm during the Vietnam war and is running away screaming, does that one sexualize little girls? Or the naked stacks of skinny Jewish corpses stacked like cordwood taken from WWII..

I think that there is a virtue in the raw shock value of some pictures.. and tribal life is also included.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

First, i don't believe that just because something is shocking it excuses us to use it.

Second, there is nothing that i can see that shows that the medical field must learn or perform those things which require nudity to do so in public.

Third, it's not the act of feeding your baby that's the problem in my estimation, it's the uncovering of oneself. A mother can breast feed in public while covering herself.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Second, there is nothing that i can see that shows that the medical field must learn or perform those things which require nudity to do so in public.



How so? And what do you consider "public"?




larryjf said:


> Third, it's not the act of feeding your baby that's the problem in my estimation, it's the uncovering of oneself. A mother can breast feed in public while covering herself.



For quite a few people, to nurse in public IS uncovering oneself, thus why nursing mothers are discriminated against so heavily in today's society (interesting that it's okay to show a whole lot more breast if it's fashion, but heaven forbid a few inches if a child is attached to it!  ) And please, please don't say "have a blanket"...I know few children that tolerate being covered, particularly in humidity and heat.


----------



## Richard King (Dec 9, 2008)

Can I add a poll after having already done the original post?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

Can you add "depends upon context" in the choices?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Second, there is nothing that i can see that shows that the medical field must learn or perform those things which require nudity to do so in public.
> ...


Doctors can learn amongst themselves cloistered from the general population. I can't think of a reason why an auto mechanic seeing a naked woman would help the medical field in any way. So by public i mean open to the general public.




LadyFlynt said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Third, it's not the act of feeding your baby that's the problem in my estimation, it's the uncovering of oneself. A mother can breast feed in public while covering herself.
> ...



Why do you consider it discrimination to have a woman cover herself?
I would not say that sensual fashions are appropriate either, so that has little relevance to the discussion at hand.

Perhaps the depravity of man is not fully comprehended here. When a baby is sucking on his mother while nursing some men do become aroused. Breast feeding is not as benign as some make it out to be, but rather does entice some to sinful thoughts.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> First, i don't believe that just because something is shocking it excuses us to use it.
> 
> Second, there is nothing that i can see that shows that the medical field must learn or perform those things which require nudity to do so in public.
> 
> Third, it's not the act of feeding your baby that's the problem in my estimation, it's the uncovering of oneself. A mother can breast feed in public while covering herself.



Yes, define public. 


You don't know much about the medical field or training in medical or midwifery procedures do you? The most beneficial textbooks on gynecology, birthing procedures, and basic examinations all have "dirty" pictures in them, and without them the textbooks would be useless. Should we require an over-18 verification before nurses and pre-med students purchase these helpful tools?

If you are concerned about modesty, one must have nimble fingers indeed for a mom to be totally discreet when undoing clothes, un-hinging the mammary and positioning the babe. It IS usually done as discreetly as possible and yet is a tricky procedure and often fails your modety tests unless we quarantine these troublesome breeders to a backroom.


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 9, 2008)

he beholds said:


> Richard King said:
> 
> 
> > *I wonder what the consensus is here on the PB.*
> ...




Where is my artist friend when I need him? A friend of mine (whom I haven't seen in several years) is a believer and a professional potter and painter. He seemed to have sorted this out in his mind. He used nudity in his artwork, though he never used nude models, and for some reason, his work did not seem to be offensive to me, perhaps because he painted so that the eye was not drawn to the nudity, but to some other focal point. Also, he did not go into gory details when he painted a nude figure. 

Two weekends ago, a friend and I went to the BJU art gallery. There is nudity in some of the art in that gallery, but it not sexually explicite in nature, and as I sit here and think about it, I am hard pressed to remember if there was any nudity in the paintings at all. 

On the other hand, I can remember walking through the Louvre in Paris and being totally offended by the nude paintings. While passing through one gallery I put my head down and walked as fast as I could, because I was bombarded with one explicite nude painting after another. 

It's these experiences that make me wonder what stance to take on the issue.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 9, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > First, i don't believe that just because something is shocking it excuses us to use it.
> ...



I think it is the responsibility of the mother to know if she can be discreet while nursing. If not, she should voluntarily remove herself. There are moms who nurse in the worship service, covered completely, or moms who sit in the side room to do it.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, define public.


In terms of doctors learning, i would say that they should learn at medical school and not on in the public art galleries.



Pergamum said:


> You don't know much about the medical field or training in medical or midwifery procedures do you? The most beneficial textbooks on gynecology, birthing procedures, and basic examinations all have "dirty" pictures in them, and without them the textbooks would be useless. Should we require an over-18 verification before nurses and pre-med students purchase these helpful tools?


I admit that i'm not a medical doctor, nor have i been to medical school. I think most of us on the puritanboard fall into that category. The question before us is not one of medicine but one of religion.
I never condemned medical text books, so i'm not sure why you are defending them as if i have condemned them.




Pergamum said:


> If you are concerned about modesty, one must have nimble fingers indeed for a mom to be totally discreet when undoing clothes, un-hinging the mammary and positioning the babe. It IS usually done as discreetly as possible and yet is a tricky procedure and often fails your modety tests unless we quarantine these troublesome breeders to a backroom.


I have no "test" of modesty.
I'm not sure why you presume that i make no room for mistakes.
A nursing mother accidentally exposing herself is quite different from a nursing mother who simply bears all to feed her baby.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

Valid question = is all nudity pronography? Or is pronography nudity plus something else (lasciviousness or a goal or aim of the piece of art).

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:44:35 EST-----



larryjf said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, define public.
> ...




Your stance has large implications. National Geographic would be 18-plus for its porm,and the sale of medical books using such images would be restricted.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 9, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Valid question = is all nudity pronography? Or is pronography nudity plus something else (lasciviousness or a goal or aim of the piece of art).



All nudity is not p0rnography. Is all public nudity? Still probably not--football players after the game showering in the locker room is not. 

So something else has to be added.

Don't we believe that all things are good--it's what we do with those things that could be bad?


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Your stance has large implications. National Geographic would be 18-plus for its porm,and the sale of medical books using such images would be restricted.



Why would you have problems with that?

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:49:38 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> Valid question = is all nudity pronography? Or is pronography nudity plus something else (lasciviousness or a goal or aim of the piece of art).


I think the question implies an incorrect presumption...that if p0rnography could be removed from nudity then nudity is o.k.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, define public.
> ...




Ha! I will agree with you on this one....


Never go to a plastic surgeon that has Picasso paintings hanging on his walls - especially for nose jobs!

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11:52:04 EST-----

I think nudity has its uses.


----------



## Scynne (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Our nakedness is our shame, and not something to be gazed upon outside in the public arena as if it were not shameful.
> (Isa 47:3; Rev 3:18)



I'm definitely going to have to agree with this statement. I say nudity has no place in art. Some pornographers call their work 'artistic', but it is not justifyable. True, they do their work purely for filling lust, but nakedness is not meant to be viewed outside of marriage, even if making a legitimate statement.
If someone were walking around nude in public, would that be acceptable? How any more so a sculpture or painting?


----------



## shackleton (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Also, where would we be without nude art, as that is what helped our understanding of the human anatomy for medical purposes (?) The argument has much to offer on both sides and I'm somewhere in the middle.



It could be said that this is anecdotal evidence or pragmatic and does not relate to the bible.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 12:13:51 EST-----


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

No, but the same method of art has been used for both the gallery and the medical text. Doctors only? I shouldn't teach my children about human anatomy? I use textbooks for that. I've also been studying midwifery and thankfully have texts for that. Do I leave them laying around for the children? No, but I do observe and guide my children by age appropriateness on what they may read of them. I do the same with art books and art museums. I don't simply say that they are "evil" and avoid at all cost. It is the same of a nursing mother. If a person is TAUGHT that nursing is a NORMAL activity, separate from sexual innuendo, then one is not likely to even think of it in that manner. My son covers his eyes whenever someone kisses publicly, but won't blink or think a thing of it if someone is nursing a wee babe.

Oh and tell me how often a mother, honestly, "let's it all hang out"? That is an exaggeration made by many. Latching on is a also difficult business for many mothers. Many mothers do it as discreetly as possible, but that is not enough to other people. Instead, even if one only sees the back of the child's head and knows what they are doing is enough for them to claim that she is not being discreet. To say they should have to remove themselves from the public so they may feed their child IS discrimination.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> My son covers his eyes whenever someone kisses publicly, but won't blink or think a thing of it if someone is nursing a wee babe.



Interesting.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 9, 2008)

This is indeed a tough call, my inclination is the same as a few other Brethren who I feel are on the right track, things CHANGED after the fall we do not see a human body in an innocent way or neutral way,within the marriage, the body is "sacred" (for lack of a better term) outside, I cannot say art would cause all to stumble but for some the risk is there. In short, I would say, FAR better to err on the side of caution.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

I think what has been lost in translation here is that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE had to pose for a drawing, for that drawing to be used for medical and anatomy texts, etc. Someone had to be there. Most doctors are not artists...most artists are not doctors. Artists learn at some point. Classrooms are not "private", but rather public in a sense. Same goes for fields like Anthropology that also use artists to capture what is or was and to offer understanding of a subject. It's looked at in that context. Without it, much information would be lost in translation, as is said, "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Oh, and other than their bias on certain issues, I enjoy NG.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

> I agree. If a person is TAUGHT that nursing is a NORMAL activity, separate from sexual innuendo, then one is not likely to even think of it in that manner. . . . To say they should have to remove themselves from the public so they may feed their child IS discrimination.



That is what I was meaning when I referred to our sanitised American culture. We have divorced ourselves from reality in so many ways.


----------



## shackleton (Dec 9, 2008)

There are plenty of pictures on the internet of just "naked women" that are not having sex it is just a different version, though a bit tamer, than out right sex. It still leads to lust and something else I won't mention...

Is it pietistic to not view naked women or men? What does it benefit? That art we are viewing nowadays was just as bad as Playboy at one time it is just that we have become too desensitized to certain things.

Something I find interesting is that violence is movies is considered to be, not that bad, but nudity is verboten. Example, a movie I was watching showed a graphic depiction of a child getting mauled by a wolf but did had a shower scene but did not show the woman naked, (this was in the past). It made me think though that a child being mauled by a wolf has to be more traumatic visually than a woman's naked body.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > My son covers his eyes whenever someone kisses publicly, but won't blink or think a thing of it if someone is nursing a wee babe.
> ...



Because to him, one is sexual and private, the other is a normal function of supporting another human life. He also has watched birthing videos with me. His favorite part is watching a doctor perform the stitches after a c-section. But he will walk out of the room if a Victoria's Secret commercial comes on earlier than it should during a family program. He recognises the difference between appealing to sexuality and non-sexual behaviour.


----------



## shackleton (Dec 9, 2008)

Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.

By that I mean one can make a pragmatic argument about most things.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> His favorite part is watching a doctor perform the stitches after a c-section. But he will walk out of the room if a Victoria's Secret commercial comes on earlier than it should during a family program. He recognises the difference between appealing to sexuality and non-sexual behaviour.



Wow, sounds like you've raised your son well.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> No, but the same method of art has been used for both the gallery and the medical text. Doctors only? I shouldn't teach my children about human anatomy? I use textbooks for that. I've also been studying midwifery and thankfully have texts for that. Do I leave them laying around for the children? No, but I do observe and guide my children by age appropriateness on what they may read of them. I do the same with art books and art museums. I don't simply say that they are "evil" and avoid at all cost. It is the same of a nursing mother. If a person is TAUGHT that nursing is a NORMAL activity, separate from sexual innuendo, then one is not likely to even think of it in that manner. My son covers his eyes whenever someone kisses publicly, but won't blink or think a thing of it if someone is nursing a wee babe.


I must have missed where someone said that medical textbooks should be only for doctors. I posted how doctors should learn...which has little to do with teaching our children... I was speaking of medical school.
I have no problems with a parent teaching their children from medical books.

As far as separating sexual innuendo from nudity...that misses the main point which is that nudity in and of itself is not for public display. It also sets up a false position in our culture...in that people are NOT taught that nursing is normal, rather people are taught all kinds of perversions (not that we have to be taught how to be perverted).



LadyFlynt said:


> Oh and tell me how often a mother, honestly, "let's it all hang out"? That is an exaggeration made by many.


It's not an exaggeration saying that it happens. I don't think anyone made a claim to any statistics on the matter, but it does happen. I have personally known women who have "let it all hang out" while nursing in public...and they got quite a few bystandards to hang around them during the feeding.



LadyFlynt said:


> To say they should have to remove themselves from the public so they may feed their child IS discrimination.



I understand you think that, but why?
Is it discrimination to tell me to remove myself every time i have to urinate? That's also a completely "natural" bodily function.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 12:36:15 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> Because to him, one is sexual and private, the other is a normal function of supporting another human life. He also has watched birthing videos with me. His favorite part is watching a doctor perform the stitches after a c-section. But he will walk out of the room if a Victoria's Secret commercial comes on earlier than it should during a family program. He recognises the difference between appealing to sexuality and non-sexual behaviour.



I think we run into many mistakes when we start judging ethics by what individuals feel is proper in their own minds.
Not knowing the age of your son it's hard to have any real discussion on your personal insight...and i would recommend that we stay away from speaking specifically about your son as that could engender bad feelings depending on where the discussion is led.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 9, 2008)

I'm hearing lots of talk about exceptions, definitions, etc. But has anybody looked at the statue in question? This is an image in a public courtroom that is supposed to reflect the justice system. What does this say about the courts?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I must have missed where someone said that medical textbooks should be only for doctors. I posted how doctors should learn...which has little to do with teaching our children... I was speaking of medical school.
> I have no problems with a parent teaching their children from medical books.
> 
> As far as separating sexual innuendo from nudity...that misses the main point which is that nudity in and of itself is not for public display. It also sets up a false position in our culture...in that people are NOT taught that nursing is normal, rather people are taught all kinds of perversions (not that we have to be taught how to be perverted).



There was the regular mention of Doctors vs public. There still has not been a definition of "public". 

You are correct that people in present day have not been taught properly about feeding a babe...however, the only fix for that is to start re/educating people about it and to make it the "norm" again.



larryjf said:


> It's not an exaggeration saying that it happens. I don't think anyone made a claim to any statistics on the matter, but it does happen. I have personally known women who have "let it all hang out" while nursing in public...and they got quite a few bystandards to hang around them during the feeding.



I can only say that I have never seen this myself. Except in NG and even then, I did not consider it lewd considering the lack of clothing found in certain tribes.



larryjf said:


> I understand you think that, but why?
> Is it discrimination to tell me to remove myself every time i have to urinate? That's also a completely "natural" bodily function.



You cannot compare urniation to breastfeeding. The two are completely different and it is both disgusting and insulting to compare one to the other. Breastfeeding is the way a child eats...just as you eat. Would you eat your meal in a filthy public restroom, sit in a restaurant with your head covered completely with a smothering blanket, or be forced to wait longer than is healthy because it conveniences another? 



larryjf said:


> I think we run into many mistakes when we start judging ethics by what individuals feel is proper in their own minds.
> Not knowing the age of your son it's hard to have any real discussion on your personal insight...and i would recommend that we stay away from speaking specifically about your son as that could engender bad feelings depending on where the discussion is led.



I wasn't judging ethics by it. I was showing that if taught properly, even a child can figure out what apparently many adults refuse to. Personally, it shows a maturity that many should have, but lack in modern society. Only teaching the present and future generations will change that.

BTW, my son is in Jr High/Highschool and advanced academically. He was considering a medical career, but recently decided against it as engineering is "less messy" and he didn't like the moral controversies that are facing many medical students in their programs. So no, I'm not speaking about a 6yr old. As stated in another post...age appropriateness.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 9, 2008)

Erick Bohndorf also mentioned violence in a movie, and we know how even Tv news 

can be crude or cruel showing a car accident or a war scene. I believe there is a parallel with nudity.

We, in our image, realism and voyeurism obsessed society, amongst many, we also lost a very important moral concept.


In ancient Greece, in Theatre, violent or erotic moments would be performed out of the audience sight, out of Scene.

*Out of Scene *– is the etymological root of the word *OBSCENE*.

Improper for public sight.

Imagine, this when the Greeks were immoral in many ways. And yes there was nudity in sculpture and art.

Even the Olympics were actually only by and for men to watch, but athletes were competing naked.

Yet they had still that concept of decency for general public audience in the Theatre.


Our society lost it. We lost the concept of Obscene – *what a long way down*!


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2008)

shackleton said:


> There are plenty of pictures on the internet of just "naked women" that are not having sex it is just a different version, though a bit tamer, than out right sex. It still leads to lust and something else I won't mention...
> 
> Is it pietistic to not view naked women or men? What does it benefit? That art we are viewing nowadays was just as bad as Playboy at one time it is just that we have become too desensitized to certain things.
> 
> Something I find interesting is that violence is movies is considered to be, not that bad, but nudity is verboten. Example, a movie I was watching showed a graphic depiction of a child getting mauled by a wolf but did had a shower scene but did not show the woman naked, (this was in the past). It made me think though that a child being mauled by a wolf has to be more traumatic visually than a woman's naked body.




VERY IMPORTANT POINT COMING UP!


Many PG films do, in fact show nudity.....NATIVE NUDITY!

This can either be for one of two reasons (or maybe an admixture of both):

(1) Most people recognize that nudity for the purpose of anthropology, some kinds of art, medical purposes and documentary is different than posing nude for arousal,

(i.e. I watched a show on breast cancer and it showed how to do a breast exam.....was I sinning?)


or,


2). There is racism abounding that says that wooly-haired black natives can have their breasts flopping around in jungle documentaries but white women from Hollywood cannot.



So, explain to me why native nudity is okay. I see naked women all the time and it is so very un-sexual. Culture at large assumes a distinction. Why?


----------



## Nate (Dec 9, 2008)

sans nom said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> > sans nom said:
> ...



No, they're not holding hands. But the little boy is sitting on his father's lap, which makes most people viewing it a little uncomfortable.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> You cannot compare urniation to breastfeeding. The two are completely different and it is both disgusting and insulting to compare one to the other. Breastfeeding is the way a child eats...just as you eat. Would you eat your meal in a filthy public restroom, sit in a restaurant with your head covered completely with a smothering blanket, or be forced to wait longer than is healthy because it conveniences another?


If i had to eat naked then i would remove myself from the public forum to do so.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

My youngest child doesn't eat naked. I don't feed him naked. I nurse him. I bring out enough for him to latch on and nurse. Anyone who has ever had a breastfed child would know this. Still is no comparison to urination. Breasts throughout history and cultures (minus our warped, present day America) have been viewed differently than genitalia. In various Polynesian and African cultures, the breasts may be bared but the knees and thighs never. Ever think of why? Because the breasts are for nurturing babes not as explicitly sexual objects.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> My youngest child doesn't eat naked. I don't feed him naked. I nurse him. I bring out enough for him to latch on and nurse. Anyone who has ever had a breastfed child would know this. Still is no comparison to urination. Breasts throughout history and cultures (minus our warped, present day America) have been viewed differently than genitalia. In various Polynesian and African cultures, the breasts may be bared but the knees and thighs never. Ever think of why? Because the breasts are for nurturing babes not as explicitly sexual objects.


We are to pattern our lives after biblical precepts, not the cultural mores of sinful men.

The Scriptures clearly show that breasts are not merely for feeding.
Prov 5:19; Song 7:7-8; Ezek 23:3,21


----------



## shackleton (Dec 9, 2008)

In Europe they do not have all the taboos about nudity that we do, why is that? I am not informed enough to know if they have the prevalence of sex crimes over there that we do here. I wonder if our taboos are related to this difference? 

The same with guns and violence.


----------



## peetred (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> You don't need to show a mother nursing to show the dignity of the family. I would also have to ask if you believe that a mother who breast feeds shows more dignity than a woman who bottle feeds.
> 
> You can say that tribes are nude without showing pictures of them. So you can still get an understanding without the actual nudity.
> .




I agree. I am a nursing mother, and I have no desire whatsoever for others to see my anatomy just b/c I have to nurse my child. People don't have to see nudity to see a mother nursing. Modesty is easy while nursing. Nursing covers and blankets are easy to buy. It is a very feminist idea that women should just let it all hang out and everyone else has to deal with it. There is a reason that it makes people uncomfortable. I feel no shame in covering up and nursing my son in public, but I should feel very shameful to have it all hanging out for the world to see.


----------



## Quickened (Dec 9, 2008)

At first when i read the post i saw no big deal. But after reading some of the posts i started thinking to myself... "Maybe i have no big deal with it but what if it causes someone else to lust?"

I realized that i was thinking about myself right off the bat. But what if i was the artist? It's quite possible that my "art" (whatever that may be) could lead others to sin. Thats something more important to consider in my opinion.


----------



## APuritansMind (Dec 9, 2008)

Joshua said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.
> ...



 Brother!


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Mike,

I love the Matthew Henry quote in your signature. I think i'll use that somewhere.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

> It is a very feminist idea that women should just let it all hang out and everyone else has to deal with it.



Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

I am also a nursing mother, I do not use a blanket or a large bib, I also do not "let it all hang out"...you do not see my breast as I do keep my top on. If anything, a blanket or nursing bib screams "look at me, I'm nursing!" I'm not against those that CHOOSE to use one. But there are those that find them more a nuisance, glaringly announcing something that they wish to do quietly, or simply unhealthy and uncomfortable for the babe. On the other hand, I've known many women that I've walked up to and started chatting with, not even knowing they were nursing at first, because I didn't see anything and it "appeared" the child was sleeping, when in fact the child was nursing.




> We are to pattern our lives after biblical precepts, not the cultural mores of sinful men.



And yet, this is precisely what you are endorsing. Let's pattern our lives after the cultural mores of sinful men here in America. Let's make nursing our children into something shameful.



You are also right that breasts can be sexual...so can hands. But in context, you may use your hand for writing a letter without it being seen in that manner.


----------



## Nate (Dec 9, 2008)

Quickened said:


> At first when i read the post i saw no big deal. But after reading some of the posts i started thinking to myself... "Maybe i have no big deal with it but what if it causes someone else to lust?"
> 
> I realized that i was thinking about myself right off the bat. But what if i was the artist? It's quite possible that my "art" (whatever that may be) could lead others to sin. Thats something more important to consider in my opinion.



Good point. Maybe a poor guy who is addicted to p0rnography (but is struggling against this sin) and is walking down the street, turns the corner and runs into a sculpture of a nude woman is akin to an alcoholic (struggling against this sin) who is walking down the street, turns the corner and has a man shove a shot of whiskey down his throat. The results would probably be devastating for both men.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 03:55:38 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> If anything, a blanket or nursing bib screams "look at me, I'm nursing!"



Ummm... Are you serious?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 9, 2008)

I agree with ladyflynt, a nursing bib screams "I'm nursing." There is no doubt in anyone's mind when a mother with a small child covers the child's head what is about to happen.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.



What about those generations that urinated in public?
1 Sam 25:22, 2 Ki 9:8.

I'm still not convinced that this is not a good comparison. After all, both are natural and both are needed to survive.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 04:00:57 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> I am also a nursing mother, I do not use a blanket or a large bib, I also do not "let it all hang out"...you do not see my breast as I do keep my top on. If anything, a blanket or nursing bib screams "look at me, I'm nursing!" I'm not against those that CHOOSE to use one. But there are those that find them more a nuisance, glaringly announcing something that they wish to do quietly, or simply unhealthy and uncomfortable for the babe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's not at all what i'm endorsing...that's why i brought Scripture to bear upon my point of view. You brought culture to bear upon yours, and that's why i posted what i did.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

I really can't believe some of the posts I am reading. People are equating nudity in a overt and scandalous fashion with nursing. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. We are not talking about a woman who strips to the waist in the pew and then begins to latch on her child.

And, comparing nursing an infant and urination. Wow.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> I really can't believe some of the posts I am reading. People are equating nudity in a overt and scandalous fashion with nursing. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. We are not talking about a woman who strips to the waste in the pew and then begins to latch on her child.



Then, frankly it's off topic. The OP is clearly asking for comments about public nudity. The breast feeding posts in the thread i presumed to be in the same context.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

Then were you assuming the woman nursing was stripped to the waist?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

Larry, I edited my post while you were posting. Hands can also be sexual. We don't require that hands be covered with a blanket or leave the room when writing a letter. Context is everything. A breast being used for sexual purposes vs a breast being used to nurse a child are two very different contexts. A breast does NOT compare to genitalia and neither does nursing compare to urination.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 04:10:48 EST-----

In a sense it stemmed off of the topic due to breastfeeding in art. Also what types of "nudity" are acceptable...some people consider breastfeeding, even if only the back of the child's head is seen, to be "nudity".

It's like working on the Lord's Day. We need medical personal, military, law enforcement, and firemen on the Lord's Day as much as any other. Are they in sin?

Thus again, context is everything. Can we honestly say that nude art (all forms and in general) are sinful?


----------



## Nate (Dec 9, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I agree with ladyflynt, a nursing bib screams "I'm nursing." There is no doubt in anyone's mind when a mother with a small child covers the child's head what is about to happen.



OK - I agree it's apparent that a child is nursing when a blanket is draped over the mother/child, but I thought that LadyFlynt had argued that nursing was completely "natural" and OK in public (provided the correct level of modesty). Evidently when my children nursed with a small blanket covering them my wife was flamboyantly announcing that my children were hungry. Guess I'll have to have a talk with her when I get home.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.
> ...



Come on. Urinating in public is unsanitary and can cause the spread of disease and even death. 

Breast feeding is not unsanitary, it will not get someone sick, and no one will ever die because someone else was breast feeding.

I say we do not urinate in public anymore because of sanitation reasons. 


And to the idea that someone getting their "jollies" off on seeing someone nursing, just about anything can set someone off. You cannot avoid it.

I realize that we have to attempt to not be a stumbling block to our brothers, but at some point the sinner has to take blame for his own actions. 

An infant's body is (or at least should be) very regimented. They simply can not wait until it is convenient for the mother to feed. On the other hand, the grown man or woman has the will power to avoid his mind from wandering into sin.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 9, 2008)

This is a completely cultural oddity. Calvin or the Puritans and those in the colonial days would not have thought twice about seeing a women topless. It was just normal.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 9, 2008)

Speaking of babies. What about changing their diapers in public? Or what about taking pictures of them with their tooshes exposed? 

Neither of these examples would be considered pornographic by normal people (although there are some sick people who would), but should we play it safe and tell our babies to sit in their feces until we get home? 


I honestly do not think a blanket statement on nudity is possible.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Then were you assuming the woman nursing was stripped to the waist?



No, but certainly nude. I was presuming that, given the context of the thread, the nursing would be done with one breast hanging out in the open...uncovered.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 9, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is a completely cultural oddity. Calvin or the Puritans and those in the colonial days would not have thought twice about seeing a women topless. It was just normal.




Agreed and the same goes for areas in the world today. I had a music minister who was French and he talked about in France how women were topless all the time at beaches and the such. It was not considered sexual. As he put it, "They are just boobs."

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 04:20:06 EST-----



larryjf said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Then were you assuming the woman nursing was stripped to the waist?
> ...




A baby is covering alot of the breast. any nudity that would be present would be brief in nature when the baby is either first latching or is just finishing.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> Larry, I edited my post while you were posting. Hands can also be sexual. We don't require that hands be covered with a blanket or leave the room when writing a letter. Context is everything. A breast being used for sexual purposes vs a breast being used to nurse a child are two very different contexts. A breast does NOT compare to genitalia and neither does nursing compare to urination.


Biblically speaking, hands are not sensual, but breasts are.

You are not really convincing me simply by stating your ideas as a fact.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 04:26:16 EST-----



Chaplainintraining said:


> Come on. Urinating in public is unsanitary and can cause the spread of disease and even death.


If urinating in public could be done sanitarily you would be for it then?



Chaplainintraining said:


> An infant's body is (or at least should be) very regimented. They simply can not wait until it is convenient for the mother to feed. On the other hand, the grown man or woman has the will power to avoid his mind from wandering into sin.



Nobody is asking the infant to make any decisions. It is the mother who would make the decision of covering up while breast feeding.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

NateLanning said:


> OK - I agree it's apparent that a child is nursing when a blanket is draped over the mother/child, but I thought that LadyFlynt had argued that nursing was completely "natural" and OK in public (provided the correct level of modesty). Evidently when my children nursed with a small blanket covering them my wife was flamboyantly announcing that my children were hungry. Guess I'll have to have a talk with her when I get home.



A shirt can be lifted and settled, covering the mother's breast. Not all babes are tolerant of being covered...only one of mine was, the rest would fight it anytime I tried; they liked waving their arms around or looking at me in the face as they nursed. Some women feel more "hidden" with a blanket...others feel more obvious (and some are very obvious...have you seen some nursing bibs? The one time I wore a nursing bib, I had half the church staring at me! THAT was embarrassing! While the mother in the back of the church with no cover, everyone thought her babe was asleep when in fact she was nursing).

My point is, it shouldn't be dictated either way.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is a completely cultural oddity. Calvin or the Puritans and those in the colonial days would not have thought twice about seeing a women topless. It was just normal.



Is that true about the Puritans? Where can i read up on that?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 9, 2008)

But the mother's decision affects the child's well being. The child cannot stop being hungry, but the grown man can stop lusting.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> But the mother's decision affects the child's well being. The child cannot stop being hungry, but the grown man can stop lusting.



Nobody is saying that a child should go hungry...just that the mother should cover her breast when she feeds the child.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

Larry, let me know when you've had the great joy of fighting with a nursing infant on keeping a blanket over them. I've been there, many times...in order to keep the child latched, and my breast NOT exposed, I've had to leave off the blanket. I've exposed more breast when I've fought to keep a blanket on, thus defeating the purpose.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> But the mother's decision affects the child's well being. The child cannot stop being hungry, but the grown man can stop lusting.



If a grown man can stop lusting then i guess we can all presume that you have stopped lusting? You don't struggle with it?

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 04:32:29 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> Larry, let me know when you've had the great joy of fighting with a nursing infant on keeping a blanket over them. I've been there, many times...in order to keep the child latched, and my breast NOT exposed, I've had to leave off the blanket.



It seems that words keep getting put in my mouth by others.
I never said a woman needed a blanket. I am simply arguing that a woman should feed her infant while covering her breast. My problem is only with nursing with exposed breast.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > But the mother's decision affects the child's well being. The child cannot stop being hungry, but the grown man can stop lusting.
> ...




And her shirt generally accomplishes that goal. Just many people tend to think that if they can see the child's head and "know" they are nursing, then you might as well be nude.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



Then we are agreed. I don't ever recall saying that a shirt covering the breast wasn't enough.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > This is a completely cultural oddity. Calvin or the Puritans and those in the colonial days would not have thought twice about seeing a women topless. It was just normal.
> ...



May not have been totally topless, but they certainly showed more breast to nurse than we do today.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

LadyFlynt said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



I would still like to read up on what you all are referencing.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > But the mother's decision affects the child's well being. The child cannot stop being hungry, but the grown man can stop lusting.
> ...




Seeing a grown woman breast feeding is no where near a temptation to lust at all. 

and yes men can learn to stop lusting. If they say they can't, they are just trying to find an excuse to blame someone else.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

If one looks at the garments that were worn in the colonial days and before it is fairly obvious that more breast and even torso were exposed during the feeding of infants. I have a friend who reenacts that period. In order to remain on good terms with modern societal norms regarding nursing his wife was unable to construct garments in a correct fashion and instead went farby on the construction.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 9, 2008)

I will look. 

But my first advice is to study up on the clothing they wore. Then figure out how a nursing mother would nurse. It's also known that they didn't go hide in the bedroom (most families didn't have a private bedroom) and they didn't cover with a blanket. They say, they nursed. Or in some areas, they wore their babes and they nursed.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Seeing a grown woman breast feeding is no where near a temptation to lust at all.


I understand that it may not be a temptation to you, but there is a particular perversion where men lust after lactating breasts...even if babies are attached to them.



Chaplainintraining said:


> and yes men can learn to stop lusting. If they say they can't, they are just trying to find an excuse to blame someone else.


Let's not talk about some generic group of men here...
Have you have learned to stop lusting?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 9, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > This is a completely cultural oddity. Calvin or the Puritans and those in the colonial days would not have thought twice about seeing a women topless. It was just normal.
> ...



I actually wrote a paper on this for a class in college. This is a book I referenced.

Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn, eds., Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture c. 1540–1660.


----------



## shackleton (Dec 9, 2008)

Somehow a question about nudity became a thread about breast feeding. I don't even see the connection. All the women I have seen breast feeding had their boobs and their kid covered with a blanket or they went to a private room. I don't see that God ever equated breast feeding to be in the same ball park as nakedness. 

Does the Torah have any stipulations about breast feeding? I don't think it is the same thing. It is comparing apples and oranges, pardon the pun.


----------



## staythecourse (Dec 9, 2008)

To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

That is my first impression regarding nudity in art but Calvin writes that it's not proper. He's a better man than me so I believe it's better advice


----------



## larryjf (Dec 9, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.
> 
> That is my first impression regarding nudity in art but Calvin writes that it's not proper. He's a better man than me so I believe it's better advice



I don't think that passage fits the context of this thread.
Yes, to the pure all things are pure...but that's a reference against Judaizers, which has nothing to do with God's moral commands.


----------



## peetred (Dec 9, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.



I nurse my child in various places as the ones mentioned above, and I can still do so very discreetly with a cover. To say that those women didn't cover with a blanket is just silly. You don't know either way.



LadyFlynt said:


> I am also a nursing mother, I do not use a blanket or a large bib, I also do not "let it all hang out"...you do not see my breast as I do keep my top on. If anything, a blanket or nursing bib screams "look at me, I'm nursing!" I'm not against those that CHOOSE to use one. But there are those that find them more a nuisance, glaringly announcing something that they wish to do quietly, or simply unhealthy and uncomfortable for the babe. On the other hand, I've known many women that I've walked up to and started chatting with, not even knowing they were nursing at first, because I didn't see anything and it "appeared" the child was sleeping, when in fact the child was nursing.



Granted, there are SOME women who can nurse discreetly in public without showing everything off. I am not one of them (at least not without a cover). It's physically impossible for several reasons. It is the same for many women. 

A.) I wasn't accusing any nursing mother on this board of "letting it all hang out".

B.) It IS a very feminist idea that we should just let it all show and not worry about what other people think when breasts are shown in public. I know b/c I was once immersed in the current breastfeeding cultured that is such. 

Women have every right to breastfeed in public which is great. However, I think that Christian women should think twice about the issue of modesty when they are nursing. To say that somehow breasts become UN-sexual when an infant is attached to them is just silly. We must recognize that although some men will be able to make that distinction and disconnect, MOST will not.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 9, 2008)

Everyone on this thread who hasn't done so needs to read Joyce's _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_, where there is a conversation about the question of nudity.

When it comes to perverts, perhaps there are times where we need to say, "let him that is filthy be filthy still"; and for ourselves, let us try to be the kind of men who can set a nursing mother at her ease.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 9, 2008)

There is certainly nudity that cannot under any circumstances be seductive: one need only watch a movie such as Schindler's List and I think any foundation of disagreement is swept away. The nudity you see in that film I think is incapable of seducing or causing lust. 

Who says we can't separate sexual "revealing" from nonsexual?


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 9, 2008)

peetred said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 9, 2008)

We are to be modest and chaste, always and in everything. That being said, a mother breastfeeding simply is not sexually revealing. I've never encountered another male in whom that wells up a fountain of lust. Rather, it is more prone to make the men uncomfortable and unsure of how to respond (it truly is one of the least sexually suggestive things I can imagine). The biggest charge that can be laid against it is that it causes awkwardness among men. To which I reply, "we just need to get used to it." Don't know if many share that thought or not. Oh well.

But, since this thread was actually about nude art -- I don't know. Hey, I'm a guy and I'm still perfectly able to admit that Michaelangelo's "David" is simply a beautiful piece of art. Is it something we should celebrate in art or not, though? I really don't know.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 10:16:28 EST-----

(Side story: I remember reading a news article a few years ago during a cleaning/restoring of the Sistine Chapel. One of the workers began work on a painting of Mary (I think?) and, upon stripping away built-up material, he was shocked to discover he actually pulled off clothing, and revealed her to be bare-breasted nursing an infant. Apparently at some point in forgotten history, someone in the chapel thought Michaelangelo's work to be inappropriate and gave her some extra clothing with his paint brush. Needless to say, the renovators were quite surprised by their discovery).


----------



## AThornquist (Dec 10, 2008)

I just don't understand the point of nude art the vast majority of the time. Besides, if it is a statue of a woman or something, I really don't need that sort of thing on my mind. I struggle to remain pure as it is!


----------



## Rocketeer (Dec 10, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> (Side story: I remember reading a news article a few years ago during a cleaning/restoring of the Sistine Chapel. One of the workers began work on a painting of Mary (I think?) and, upon stripping away built-up material, he was shocked to discover he actually pulled off clothing, and revealed her to be bare-breasted nursing an infant. Apparently at some point in forgotten history, someone in the chapel thought Michaelangelo's work to be inappropriate and gave her some extra clothing with his paint brush. Needless to say, the renovators were quite surprised by their discovery).



When I was in the Sistine Chapel, the guide told us of the great restaurations sponsored by Kodak. Now the enormous paintings about the last judgment contains tons of nudity, but someone had apparently thought it was inappropriate. He had all the nudity covered everywhere in the entire painting (hundreds and hundreds of humans). It was a different kind of paint, and it all came off easily. Ironically, the nude parts that had been covered by the newer paint were least damaged. 

That said, breastfeeding is indeed one of the most unsexual activities a woman can perform, and even if it were not so, the needs of the babe override the awkwardness or depravity of man (whatever be the case).

On the original image mentioned by the OP: I think it hardly represents justice. There is one thing that I do not quite understand, though: why does any sculpture or painting need to contain so much nudity? Excepting Adam and Eve before the fall, all the persons anciently pictured wore clothes - why depict them naked, then, even in Renaissance art?


----------



## discipulo (Dec 10, 2008)

Certainly there is a lot of futile «art» and Nudity in Art poses a very difficult question.

But I still believe myself that some nude art is beautiful and decent

while some non nude art is terribly offensive to human dignity – to men and women created in the image of God. 


Francis Schaeffer books: Escape from Reason . The God Who is there . and

How should We then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

deal extensively with the subject - and on pages – 25, 68, 73, 75 of How we should...

Schaeffer places portraits of nude Art – for the sake of his argument and comments



So I pose a practical exercise in discernment - pictures attached

*How would you see, compare and qualify morally?* 

if you think you should, of course, please note these are contemporary related works!


Auguste Rodin - The Kiss - 1904 – one of my favourite sculptures 


Pablo Picasso - Les Demoiselles d'Avignon – 1907 - also on page 187 of Schaeffer's book


In my personal opinion, Picasso, too often tremendously overrated, is bad art, but above all while being

less realistic, less explicit in anatomy, less graphic, is actually grossly obscene and deeply offensive to God’s creation.

My personal belief is that Rodin isn’t.


Definitely it is not an easy matter…


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing a grown woman breast feeding is no where near a temptation to lust at all.
> ...



Little kids are a perversion for some men as well. Should I not take my little girl into the men's restroom when she needs to go "potty?"


I have the free will to choose to stop lusting. Numerous times I am successful, but I am not perfect.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 10, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Little kids are a perversion for some men as well. Should I not take my little girl into the men's restroom when she needs to go "potty?"
> 
> 
> I have the free will to choose to stop lusting. Numerous times I am successful, but I am not perfect.



The Bible doesn't portray children as sensual...it does portray breasts that way.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 10, 2008)

I think it would be best if women just walked around in a suit of this type:


----------



## Rocketeer (Dec 10, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I think it would be best if women just walked around in a suit of this type:



Oh? If we're going down that path, what about this? It's uncomfortable and unrevealing, so I think it qualifies.






http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/s...ooper_armour.jpg/95px-Stormtrooper_armour.jpg


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 10, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.
> 
> By that I mean one can make a pragmatic argument about most things.



What is wrong with something being practical? Doctrine is not impractical is it?

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 08:20:46 EST-----

Rocketeer, we can see the shape of that Starship Trooper's fanny, thus, said immodest uniform must go and be exchanged for something more flowing and not so revealing, like the Emperor Palpatine's robes.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 08:26:25 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of pictures on the internet of just "naked women" that are not having sex it is just a different version, though a bit tamer, than out right sex. It still leads to lust and something else I won't mention...
> ...



Bumping this point so that it can be answered:

Is it racism that we can have magazines full of bare-breasted black women in tribal situations and not consider it p0rnography (most people anyways), but bare-breasted white women get censored.


Or, does society recognize that there is a non-sexual nudity that can be displayed without censorship, such that in some news magazines breasts are displayed when talking about breast cancer, breastfeeding or corpses are displayed nude if a tragedy happens? 

Is the world wiser than us when it comes to making the important distinctions whereas we only see black and white? Or is the world racist and thinks that only white "civilized" breasts are sexual?


----------



## Rocketeer (Dec 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.
> ...



There is a difference between being practical and being pragmatic. In the words of Wikipedia: "In ordinary usage, *pragmatism* refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal."

Is this something we should do with regard to God, his Law and his Word?



Pergamum said:


> Rocketeer, we can see the shape of that Starship Trooper's fanny, thus, said immodest uniform must go and be exchanged for something more flowing and not so revealing, like the Emperor Palpatine's robes.



I beg pardon. Is this one better?


----------



## he beholds (Dec 10, 2008)

discipulo said:


> So I pose a practical exercise in discernment - pictures attached
> 
> *How would you see, compare and qualify morally?*
> 
> ...


I agree that Picasso's is more obscene, and I think it's because it looks to be created for the voyeur. The scenario itself _looks_ indecent--it may not be indecent, as there might be a legitimate reason these women are all standing around, but it at the very least hints at indecency. 
The Rodin one, while it is depicting intimacy, does not seem to be aimed at the voyeur in my opinion. The act shown is not indecent--or if it is (like if it's an unmarried couple), it doesn't _look_ to be indecent.

But it could still make some people uncomfortable. I think what's part of the problem is the intent--which others have mentioned. In our culture, women are so objectified that a female-only piece makes _me_ think that the artist had other motives, or at least the person choosing to display the work. 

My favorite artist is Marc Chagall. He has a lot of random semi-topless women, and some of the pictures may seem indecent, but usually I am not offended by them.







LawrenceU said:


> peetred said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...


----------



## discipulo (Dec 10, 2008)

Quoting Richard who started this amazing debate:

*«Dare I ask? Nudity in sculpture, what say ye? 

Offensive or Art? Nude Statue Unveiled Downtown…»*

Hey, I thought the thread was about nudity in Art.

I guess it’s ok to discuss nursing mothers in shopping malls or costume decency…

by of what I’ve seen so far, I’m sure we will come up with a Christian Burka model pretty soon. 

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 08:47:28 EST-----

and for Marc Chagall marriage was very central in his painting


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 10, 2008)

Rocketeer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > shackleton said:
> ...



Nope you can see the eyes!!!


----------



## nicnap (Dec 10, 2008)

shackleton said:


> Does the Torah have any stipulations about breast feeding? I don't think it is the same thing. It is comparing apples and oranges, pardon the pun.



 I about spit out my drink.... 

Sorry, in this thread, that was particularly funny.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 10, 2008)

maybe with a pair of shades will do


----------



## SRoper (Dec 10, 2008)

If nudity in art is sometimes acceptable, then it must be acceptable to pose nude in front of an artist or photographer, correct? Are we really willing to put ourselves or our loved ones in that situation?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 10, 2008)

Medical books have pictures (foto) of nude models for examination and teaching purposes. 

I remember a particularly graphic series of photographs about delivering a breech baby.

I would think that this could done without sin if the purpose was medical, especially if the Christian had a disorder that needed to be studied. I just photographed a guy's scrotum that swelled up the size of a cantaloupe due to worm infestation....is that somehow "dirty"?


Again, nudity has its purposes. Nudity, plus sexuality = smut.... but there are some cases of non-sexualized nudity, though care should be taken.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 10, 2008)

Absolutely, for a medical purpose and medical teaching - classes or books – nude photographs 

or even real patients present may be examined without any wrong motivations – as to the aspect of it.

Probably in Sculpture or Painting we may give some benefit that some artists, or just regular people

walking by the Louvre or in the Sistine Chapel, may do the same out of artistry alone, so to speak.

But if in the medical field that is absolutely necessary to properly form health care professionals.

Definitely it is not the case with Art.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 10, 2008)

Again, many in the medical field are not artists...artists provide a service to the medical field...artists have to learn somewhere and it's generally in a classroom. Someone poses in that classroom. They have to also be able to learn to draw a healthy body as well as a sick one. Patients don't happen for student artists. Photography didn't always exist and not all texts contain photography.


----------



## peetred (Dec 10, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> peetred said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...


----------



## kvanlaan (Dec 12, 2008)

OK, maybe this is a little  but I have to throw it in here. I worked for years with Koreans and can tell you that before foreign influence/pop culture was brought to bear on them, Korean society was about as traditional/puritanical (in terms of outward appearances) as they come, as they were so Confucian. Once Western influence came on the scene, the game was up, and now many 'artistes' race each other to see who can be more 'progressive' in their depiction of whatever story they are trying to tell. 

Before I ramble too long, I want to get to my point (because I really did have one!) I have a book on an American's travel through China and Korea in a Dodge Touring car and he took photos of just about anything that moved. One of the photos is of a young mother walking down the road. Breasts? Uncovered. A long, long skirt, almost to the ankles, but breasts completely uncovered. I've seen the same in China but an old woman trying to deal with the heat of the day. 

Our culture has issues.


----------



## Rocketeer (Dec 12, 2008)

kvanlaan said:


> Our culture has issues.


----------



## Richard King (Dec 12, 2008)

This has been interesting. 

I don't think the human form automatically evokes sexual excitement but there is no denying the potential is there.
I guess the real danger in any artistic image is admiring the creation rather than the creator.

At any rate...
I try to stay abreast of these TOPics and I appreciate the feedback and exposure to all of the thinking here.
I hope this discussion hasn't caused any cleavage between the posters. 
It has at times been uplifting. 
Cross my heart.


----------



## he beholds (Dec 12, 2008)

Oh wait a minute...you did that on purpose. OOPS. haha...got me!


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 13, 2008)

*REAL LIFE RECENT SCENARIO:*



Here is something that happened this week that has a close relationship to this thread. I am still processing it mentally.


I send out prayer letters and I always try to make these prayer letters very visually rich and I add many pictures. One picture is worth more than a thousand words because people just simply cannot believe the conditions here. Despite describing the tribal conditions in grreat detail I had one person ask me why the tribal group I work with just don't get jobs and buy clothes and food at the store (ha, yes a whole week downriver I guess, where other peoples' magic is more powerful). And so a few pictures have quite an effect to show the daily life of the people here.



Tribal life is not usually clothed and so to take the varying views on this issue into acount I now make it a practice not to show adult native nudity. While this severely limits my stock of photos and many of my very best pictures of groups of tribals interacting in daily village life cannot be shown, I have decided that limiting such pictures would reduce any offense given - something I now feel bound to do.


However, like a bonehead this week, I sent out a tribal photo and made sure it had no native nudity of adults. But, all kids under 10 are nude and this just doesn't register with me. 

Not that I try to cater to what moves people the most but some of the pictures of the sick women and neglected children are often the most moving and best display the urgent needs of this place. How else do you show the sad condition of a population wheremore than half of the population dies before age 15, 60% of the people have filiarisis in their blood, about 80% have chronic malaria, more than half are malnourished and there is wide-scale warfare, the occasional withc-killing and the regular abondonement of babies born into holes and covered up and left to die. Some shock value has a spiritual purpose, but I try to limit now pictures of native nudity, despite the need to paint the dire situation very raw and accurately.


So, I no longer add pictures of tribal adults that may be seemed offensive (and usually suceed) but I added a picture of naked jungle kids (there is no such thing as clothed jungle kids in some areas here) to my prayer letter and have received "advice" against this in the future.

So, in the future I need to be more careful. I feel like a moron and I hope that the majority of people that received this newsletter were not offended. I had no idea what the email reply was even talking about and I remember thinking, "What could possibly be offensive?" so this was a shock and I guess a very good lesson for me that, despite my own views, I need to be sensitive to the needs or weaknesses of other - especially in the West where children are increasingluy being exploited and childhood is being sexualized (barbie, bikinis for 6 year olds, make-up for 8 year old girls, etc).

YIKES, I FEEL LIKE SUCH A MORON!


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 13, 2008)

Perg, it sounds like you have quite the time where you are: sometime when you're here again, you'll have to hold a week long "story-time" of what you've been doing, so as many PBer's as can get to where you are can hear all about it.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 13, 2008)

Pergamum, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If people can't deal with the realities of your life, then they need not to come visit you, but can hopefully still pray and contribute, while being thankful (as I am) that someone less squeamish is going to the desperate locations and disputing the dominion of darkness in those areas. 

As far as pictures go, perhaps you could include a link to a website that has photos with the note that images may be disturbing (though I think it would be good to add that the images are not nearly so disturbing as the reality, and that _ignoring_ the reality is no way to change it).


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 13, 2008)

Good ideas. I am all for a few PB get-togethers and will be travelling much next year..to Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, MN, and Wisconsin, PA, Virginia, Georgia and everywhere in between. Where do you live and maybe we could meet up.

Yes, I also thought about picture links. I think I do need to "cater" to folks in the churches, and conform to their standards of what is offensive or not - but I do feel a need to push them out of their comfort zones sometimes and regret that I cannot share some of the most telling pictures of the society.


----------

