Nude Art

[arfink]

I don't know about you, but I get sexually aroused without purposefully allowing myself to do so. You don't generally get to control sexual arousal, and when you are or are not aroused. Looking at a picture and getting aroused is not sinful. Looking at a picture with the purpose of getting aroused is. There's a difference.

 

Good on ya kid. :)

 

FP is exactly right. Arousal is not something under your direct control at all times, just as heartbeat isn't always under your control. What you DO with it is entirely another matter, and that is where lust comes in.

 

For example, it has often happened to me (and probably to every man and woman on the planet) that you will experience arousal unintentionally. Oftentimes in the most inconvenient of circumstances besides. :hehe: But the point is that you can then make a choice. You can tell your body "No, not now, not here, not in this way," and go on your way, or you can indulge in a sinful behavior. That is where lust happens.

[arfink]

The purpose of sexual arousal, is to get people to have sex, so they may have children. To be aroused for any other reason is lustful.

 

You really don't understand how arousal works, do you? :hehe:

[Nihil Obstat]

define the difference

I am starting work. You will have to exercise common sense.

[jim111]

Good on ya kid. :)

 

FP is exactly right. Arousal is not something under your direct control at all times, just as heartbeat isn't always under your control. What you DO with it is entirely another matter, and that is where lust comes in.

 

For example, it has often happened to me (and probably to every man and woman on the planet) that you will experience arousal unintentionally. Oftentimes in the most inconvenient of circumstances besides. :hehe: But the point is that you can then make a choice. You can tell your body "No, not now, not here, not in this way," and go on your way, or you can indulge in a sinful behavior. That is where lust happens.

I would agree and have had this experience, but one must attempt to look away for it to not be lust

[jim111]

I am starting work. You will have to exercise common sense.

I am asking you to explain cause your statement is false, not because I don't understand.

          The Church teaches us that there are three degrees of decency regarding the parts of the human body. Some parts are considered honest for show in public, some less honest, and other dishonest. Some moralists used to employ a more rigorous language, qualifying these parts as not-shameful, semi-shameful and shameful. The honest or not-shameful parts are the face, hands and feet; the less honest or semi-shameful are the lower neck, back, legs and arms; the dishonest or shameless are the reproductive organs and their proximities. The criterion that establishes this classification is the degree of incentive toward the sensual passions that the mentioned parts arouse.

 

Common sense says that if a body part is considered shameful, it is because it causes arousal, not just attraction You claim art is different so it does not cause lust. What causes lust is not the substance, but what we see. Yes a painting is less likely to cause lust because it less real then a human being, however it has enough similarities to be recognized as a body part. Just like Thomas Aquinas explains how man is created in the image of God. Biology has caused mans sexual passions to be triggered upon seeing these body parts. There fore these parts do cause lust. maybe you can look at them, without effecting your sexual appetite. Then for you it is not a sin, but it is a temptation for most men. If my senses are dulled from looking at bare breasted women, it does not mean these women may walk around society bare breasted.

[EmilyAnn]

On what planet is showing my arms going to incite lust? 

[jim111]

You really don't understand how arousal works, do you? :hehe:

 

Explain it then.

[PhuturePriest]

I would agree and have had this experience, but one must attempt to look away for it to not be lust

 

This is untrue. What if I'm a firefighter and I go into a burning house to save people, and I go into the bathroom and there is a beautiful naked woman passed out in the shower? Should I not pick her up and save her and check for injuries (Which does include touching) simply because that constitutes as lust? Looking is not lust. Entertaining lustful thoughts is lust. Juries have to look at pornographic material all the time for the sake of a case. Should they all look away and discard the evidence simply because it allegedly constitutes as lust to look?

[PhuturePriest]

Explain it then.

 

Again, you really must start making sense. Explain what? Arousal? I'd like to think that as a grown man you don't need arousal to be explained to you.

[EmilyAnn]

This is untrue. What if I'm a firefighter and I go into a burning house to save people, and I go into the bathroom and there is a beautiful naked woman passed out in the shower? Should I not pick her up and save her and check for injuries (Which does include touching) simply because that constitutes as lust? Looking is not lust. Entertaining lustful thoughts is lust. Juries have to look at pornographic material all the time for the sake of a case. Should they all look away and discard the evidence simply because it allegedly constitutes as lust to look?

I made a similar comparison earlier with doctors. Should a doctor deny treatment to a patient because they have to look at their body? Does one assume that any doctor who sees a patient nude is lusting? 

[jim111]

This is untrue. What if I'm a firefighter and I go into a burning house to save people, and I go into the bathroom and there is a beautiful naked woman passed out in the shower? Should I not pick her up and save her and check for injuries (Which does include touching) simply because that constitutes as lust? Looking is not lust. Entertaining lustful thoughts is lust. Juries have to look at pornographic material all the time for the sake of a case. Should they all look away and discard the evidence simply because it allegedly constitutes as lust to look?

 

These are extreme situations, in one of my pasts posts i address this, the same is true for doctors too. However you should still attempt to do this without entertaining your sexual appetite.

[EmilyAnn]

These are extreme situations, in one of my pasts posts i address this, the same is true for doctors too. However you should still attempt to do this without entertaining your sexual appetite.

See, it is possible to look upon a naked person without lust. It just requires one to exercise self control. 

[jim111]

See, it is possible to look upon a naked person without lust. It just requires one to exercise self control. 

 

Yes, but not everyone can, and its very tempting. In a past post future priest said he can't control it but has to look away, I myself am usually the same way. The problem is that original sin caused use to look and see lust instead of the beauty of the body.

[PhuturePriest]

These are extreme situations, in one of my pasts posts i address this, the same is true for doctors too. However you should still attempt to do this without entertaining your sexual appetite.

 

I can look at a naked woman right now and not lust. It's a matter of not entertaining sexual thoughts. The sexual thoughts/actions are what is sinful, not seeing a naked person.

[PhuturePriest]

Yes, but not everyone can, and its very tempting. In a past post future priest said he can't control it but has to look away, I myself am usually the same way. The problem is that original sin caused use to look and see lust instead of the beauty of the body.

 

I never said that. My self-control is excellent.