Nakedness

[missionseeker]

The Quakers?

[Jaime]

Where would I put my cell phone?

[philothea]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 25 2006, 11:48 PM']i love how i get 12 responses in half an hor, and NONE of them actually answer my questins.  lol...i love you guys!

timmy
[right][snapback]866255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Heh, yeah, we're good that way.

I attempted to write a sensible response, but I wound up sounding like even more of an idiot than usual. So I stopped and I'm waiting to see if something sensible shows up.

[Aloysius]

the Christian reason to hide our nakedness is basically because of original sin, just like Adam and Eve's reason to hide their nakedness. Except Adam and Eve formulated it negatively, and the Church formulates it postively. here's how:

Adam and Eve were ashamed for their own sake.

The Church calls us to "be ashamed" (more like, be modest) basically for others' sakes.

The Church's concept of modesty is to admit that original sin inclines everyone towards sin. Hide your nakedness so that your appearance does not cause others to lust after you. Adam and Eve hid their nakedness because through the eyes of their newly tainted natures they saw the bodies as bad because the bodies caused bad thoughts (dualism, anyone? . The Church says to hide nakedness because the eyes of a restored nature give us insight into the tendency towards sin the fallen nature causes and so we should clothe the body to avoid the twisted use sin would cause to the body.

so it's all for the same reason, original sin, but formulated negatively and postiively.

[photosynthesis]

IT'S NAKED TIME!

I haven't started (or finished) the Holy Father's new encyclical, but I suspect it would give me insight into this topic that I don't have at the moment, so bear with me:

[quote]1) Is the human body inherently sexual/erotic? Or is the eroticness of the body a function of some other factor, be it circumstance, environment, mindset or something else?[/quote]
Yes, the human body is sexual and erotic. God made us male and female, and so we are inherently sexual, it is at the core of our being. The eroticness of the body comes from the fact that it is natural for men and women to be attracted to one another, because that's how God made us.... not from social factors.
[quote]2) When/where is it appropriate to be undressed?[/quote]
mostly in the privacy of your own home
[quote]3) How much of our views on the human body are related to the actuality of the body, rather than culural and social mores?[/quote]
Well, if we're talking about american society's views on the human body i'd say they come straight from the Devil himself. A lot of the stuff that's out there in themedia is almost pornographic. Peoples' views on the body often come out of the sinful world that we live in, unfortunately. But for people who seek holiness, they can understand the body in the light of the God who created it.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM']1) Is the human body inherently sexual/erotic?  Or is the eroticness of the body a function of some other factor, be it circumstance, environment, mindset or something else?[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
All right, I'm not precisely certain what you're asking, but I think I have an idea. If I go off on a tangent completely unrelated to your intent, let me know ...

OK, so if you're asking if the body has an inherent meaning that's related to genders, I say yes. I further say that the inherent meaning of the body is most fully expressed in the communion of the sexes through the marital embrace. We are a sign of the communion of the Trinity.

The eroticism so rampant in our society (and in societies for hundreds of years) is a twisting of this meaning. It focuses on the sign and not that to which the sign points. That's lust, a result (along with other sins) of the Fall.
[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM']2) When/where is it appropriate to be undressed?[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm assuming you're asking when it's appropriate to be naked with another person. I'd say it's appropriate to be naked in front of your doctor or other medical professional, to be naked in a communal shower/locker situation, and to be naked with your spouse. There may be other times it would be appropriate, but they don't immediately come to mind.
[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:14 AM']3) How much of our views on the human body are related to the actuality of the body, rather than culural and social mores?[right][snapback]866208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think most of our views on the body stem from our cultural and social mores.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:54 AM']Hide your nakedness so that your appearance does not cause others to lust after you.[right][snapback]866265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Al, I get what you're saying here, and I agree with you, but because I'm a nit-picker ...

Nakedness does not [i]cause[/i] lust. Lust is, as you noted, a byproduct of original sin, a distortion of the right and good call to love one another. While it's right and good to cover yourself in order to protect your body from the lustful gaze of another, that nakedness is not in itself a cause of lust. Nakedness is an inherently good thing -- we protect our nakedness precisely because it's a good thing.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:51 AM']Where would I put my cell phone?
[right][snapback]866261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Let's please just not contemplate that question in too much detail ... too late.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 26 2006, 02:56 AM']IT'S NAKED TIME!
[/quote]


Woohoo! I say this at least a couple times a day. Livens things up.

[toledo_jesus]

well, they only became ashamed when they ate from the tree...they were naked in their innocence. None of us are innocent in that way anymore, and so being naked doesn't hold the same meaning for us as it did...That would be my uninformed guess at why we don't run around nude.

[WildCatRupe]

has anyone, in their responses, taken into account our history? that, for thousands of years, humans wore (at most) loincloths, and were often naked, in fully social situations. There are still tribes in austrailia and africa where clothes are worn only when necessary. Jesus himself was baptized, in public, in the middle of the river, totally naked. Up until about two hundred years ago, the female breasts were essentially equivalent to male breasts, and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:23 PM']and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.
[right][snapback]866735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]There is your own answer. As humanity develops so sin seems to as well. Ever since the fall human nature has been stained with concupisence and this has reared its ugly head more today than ever. You correct, for quite some time humans did not hold the same views of the body as we do today, but humanity has perverted its view of its own body and so we clothe ourselves. This is partially not to present an occasion for sin to others who might have a disordered view of sexuality.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Paphnutius

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 03:23 PM']has anyone, in their responses, taken into account our history?  that, for thousands of years, humans wore (at most) loincloths, and were often naked, in fully social situations.  There are still tribes in austrailia and africa where clothes are worn only when necessary.  Jesus himself was baptized, in public, in the middle of the river, totally naked.  Up until about two hundred years ago, the female breasts were essentially equivalent to male breasts, and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.
[right][snapback]866735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
methinks 200 years a bit short a time for when yon dirtypillows were off-limits. Look thee at the Calvinist dress of the 16th century and tell me that they were walking around shirtless.

[homeschoolmom]

It's cold in this thread...

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Jan 26 2006, 04:03 PM']It's cold in this thread...
[right][snapback]866906[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='WildCatRupe' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:23 PM']has anyone, in their responses, taken into account our history?  that, for thousands of years, humans wore (at most) loincloths, and were often naked, in fully social situations.  There are still tribes in austrailia and africa where clothes are worn only when necessary.  Jesus himself was baptized, in public, in the middle of the river, totally naked.  Up until about two hundred years ago, the female breasts were essentially equivalent to male breasts, and not the sexualized objects we see them as today.
[right][snapback]866735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This really isn't accurate. Adam and Eve made clothe's (tunics) for themselves immediately after the fall.

Most cultures wear, at minimum, loinclothes to cover the genitals, and in most civilized, advanced cultures, much more clothing is worn.

And as far as I know, you were not present at the Baptism of Christ, so we do not know whether He was nude or not (or if women were immediately present - which would be unlikely if the baptism were in the nude).

In cultures where public nudity is indeed common, there is often an elaborate system of rules and taboos governing sexually-related behavior.

And contrary to politically-correct opinon and "noble savage" romanticism, "primitive" societies are not innocents - and should hardly be held up as models for behavior. Many practiced polygamy, human sacrifice, ritual warfare, infanticide, cannibalism, etc.

Neither were societies in the past always more "pure." Pagan societies in the past (such as ancient Greece and Rome) were known for a variety of sexual excess and perversions.

And the bit about breasts is not really true either. No normal man in any culture would consider female breasts no more erotic than male breasts! (Nor would most women). Though they have indeed been overly eroticized (as everything else) in modern culture, human female breasts have always been sexual. (I need not discuss this in detail here.) They have been traditionally covered in western culture (and in other civilized cultures) for well over 200 years!

Concupiscence and sin are part of the fallen human condition, and that is part of why we wear clothes in public.

[Aloysius]

I offer you a Chestertonian insight: we have no idea whether those ancient peoples wore clothes or not! Did you expect their clothes to be made out of stone? The speculation that they didn't wear clothes is equally as likely as the speculation that they had green colored skin.

Just because there are modern day tribes that don't wear many clothes doesn't mean that's how every civilization started out. It could... or maybe those peoples that don't wear many clothes nowadays in their culture never wore many clothes and those peoples that do wear clothes nowadays, well, maybe they wore elaborate clothes in the beginnings of their civilizations... we simply don't know and probably will never know (barring the invention of time travel)