Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women?

jim111

By jim111
in Catholic Debate Table

 Share

Recommended Posts

Amppax

Amppax

Posted
Posted

:P Those things look like boxer shorts.

 

Quite honestly, I'd never be caught dead in a pair.  I have some friends who love them, and in general it's an interesting question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ice_nine

Ice_nine

Posted
Posted

Art is essentially as far as one can get from everyday contexts. Nudity in art is fine. In fact some of the very best art ever produced features nudity. But nudity is not appropriate in an everyday context.
Very different concepts.

 

Fair enough. I guess my point was is since the reality is that people like to show off their assets it's not wrong to be attracted to that. If a guy who is really ripped is out for a run half-naked I might say to myself "damn that's a beautiful man" and move on with my life. Same as if I'm at the beach or some other context where people are less clad than usual.

 

These discussions always tend to focus on the object of possible lust rather than the person possibly committing lust, and it's nice that the op is looking at this from the male being the object this time, it's usually the womens. I'm of the mind that it's just not as helpful to talk about the "object of desire" over the desirer, because even if we decide definitively what christian men and women should wear (lolthatwillneverhappenamirite?) in every conceivable situation, the world isn't Christian and the world ain't gonna play that way. How do we deal with that other than bitching about

how people should cover up more and blah blah blah. Right as that may be, it doesn't solve any practical real-world problems unless you live in an insular Catholic bubble.

 

 

 

 

Asp per the original question? I guess if you're reasonably attractive then yes wear a damn shirt in front of the ladies. Just don't wear a uniform. You do not KNOW what that does to us! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lil Red

Lil Red

Posted
Posted

Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women?

 

ROFL! funniest thread title ever. :hehe: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lil Red

Lil Red

Posted
Posted

I would appreciate it if men wore shirts when exercising. 

 

especially the ones that need a man bra :pinch: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lil Red

Lil Red

Posted
Posted

Is it wrong for you or other men to be shirtless in the presence of women?
No, not at all.
Is it wrong for ME to be shirtless in the presence of women?
I've spent many sleepless nights pondering this exact question.

 

:hehe:

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
arfink

arfink

Posted
Posted (edited)

You are right. On the other hand, "art" can be created to deliberately incite lust. Cf. the crucifix of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

 

Or this:

 

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/mary-magdalene-in-the-cave-jules-joseph-lefebvre-.jpg

 

"Mary Magdalene in the Cave"? I don't think so.

 

First of all, which crucifix in Sagrada Familia? There are at least 3 I know of, and I don't think any of them count as intentionally lustful, unless I'm missing something rather critical here... one of them is quite brutalist and hideous, but not lustful. You'd need to be smoking some serious dope to think lustfully over this:

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3365/3257684126_b4a6f016a9_o.jpg

(linked because hideous and modernist YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED - CANNOT BE UNSEEN)

 

And secondly, as an artist I can 100% assure you it is possible to make art that is all about sexing it up. No arguments from me there. :P I personally see it as something which cheapens an artist's work and am always deeply disappointed when an artist does it. As for that example you linked there, I think it's in a gray area. For the time, probably pretty scandalous, but then I don't think the artist was trying to make something you were supposed to lust after. The only reason I can say that is in my studies of art history I have been afforded some looks into, uh, period erotica. This is very different from the stuff they made for erotic purposes back then.  I can sorta see what you mean by her giving "the come-hither look" and so on. It's definitely there. Would I be comfortable painting such a thing? Probably not. Could it be a legitimate subject matter? I think so.

Edited by arfink
Link to comment
Share on other sites
arfink

arfink

Posted
Posted

kill it with fire! :( it made me die a little bit inside.

 

I don't know how anyone could get lustful over that thing. Except maybe an art history professor... the jibblie jibblie jibblieeeees.
 

jibblies.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat

Nihil Obstat

Posted
Posted

WHY?

We are fallen and do not need this temptation. Yes, i can look at it without lusting. However I can also choose to look at a girl with a cleavage without lusting too. The reason the church has rules foe these women is because man is tempted by has fallen nature, I don't know how the same rules do not apply to paintings.

Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I certainly do not want to embark on a fig-leaf campaign just because some people have issues with lust.

It is very well established within Catholic tradition that the human form, including the nude human form, is entirely appropriate within the context of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...