It has been posited by others on this board that since there is nothing sinful about the female form, that there is nothing inherently sexual or pornographic about, say, European topless beaches. I didn't and don't agree that there is anything innocent about topless beaches. But something recently got me thinking. Recently we watched the film Quigley Down Under. My 12 year old left the room and didn't want to watch. The reason? There are topless aborigines in the film. I had never thought about this before. Looking at a topless aboriginal woman evinces no lustful feelings in me. I didn't even think that there may be something untoward about topless aborigines in a film until my son brought it up. It still doesn't seem wrong to me. The difference doesn't seem to be limited to me. It seems that, if there were several topless non-aborigines in the film, that it would be rated R at the least. So why the difference between aboriginal peoples and others? Is one pornographic and the other not?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I've met a lot of people who because it doesn't cause them to be aroused they think it should be perfectly fine. The argument usually goes something along the lines of scoffing at those who might disagree with them, by saying, "It's JUST a statue! C'mon!" I've met a lot of people who simply don't remember what it was like to be a teenage boy (lots of women, for example) and just think they should "get over it". I agree they should "get over it" but you don't do that by exposing them to until they no longer find it stimulating... you do it through appealing to the intellect, and teaching them to control their thoughts and urges, and that takes time and hopefully in a setting that isn't constantly bombarding them with images that break down their feeble attempts to mentally block that out.
If every time a child went to stand up, he was knocked flat on his butt, you might expect that child to have difficulty learning to walk at all. In many respects the developing sex drive of an adolescent is the same way. Rather than beating them down, we should lift them up.
I think we can do that by pointing out wholesome and admirable beauty. By creating a safe environment for the mentally jarring media images, and pointing out virtues as desirable and praiseworthy. Something worth seeking out--pursuing even with manly vigor. Imagine a man whose hormones actually induced him to be more honest or chivalrous!
Okay so that's pretty farfetched nowadays...
I also think a lot of people lie about when they are thinking impure thoughts--mostly because they see nothing wrong in a stray thought. It's natural, right?
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 23:26, 2007-11-21
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Everytime I see the title of this thread I want to stop in and say this, "Excuse me, Mister, but I think you've got some porn in your eye."
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
Ok, now I can be serious. I've been mulling over why I feel like topless aborigines just aren't pornographic in the least, but I can't come up with a reason that holds water. I find myself wanting to just pull out the because-I-said-so card, but that doesn't even work on my kids. I am concerned that my thinking that topless aborigines aren't potentially arousing could mean that I've in some way dehumanized them in my own head.
Am I making any sense to anyone outside my own head?
__________________
"The promptings of the Holy Ghost will always be sufficient for our needs if we keep to the covenant path. Our path is uphill most days, but the help we receive for the climb is literally divine." --Elaine S. Dalton
1) breasts aren't considered erotic in all cultures. If going topless is the norm in the aboriginal culture... then it isn't pornographic. At least to an aborigine, which brings me to my next point.
2) anyone who finds the sagging breasts of an old aborigine woman erotic... well... needs to get out more.
As unappealing as that may be to me, I think that was kinda Arbi's point. He never saw it as arousing either, but clearly it bothered his son. I don't know that being dismissive of those urges is necessarily healthy. I mean, how do you get someone to just grow up?
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Well, that's a good point, Ray. Hm... I guess this could be a teaching opportunity, to discuss with his son the cultural differences of what is considered erotic, and how our culture sexualizes everything and how that isn't a healthy way to view other people. I dunno.
Call me an orthodox prude, but if it should be covered by the garment, then it should be covered. Male and Female.
... "make coats of skins to cover their nakedness"... not my words. Eloheims.
I am not comfortable watching swimming or diving competitions, and they certainly do NOT arrouse me in any way. The ONLY ONE that does that is my wife.
It may not be pornographic to most, but perhaps I'm like Arbi's son.
Obivously he is a good kid, Keep him that way Arb.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
We could just allow that when boys in certain age groups are growing up in our culture that we need to help them limit the amount of exposure they get, because some of them find everything erotic... So we can can limit as much of that exposure as we can... Allow a child that chooses to be prudish (since I am a prude, I welcome more prudes in this world...) to be so...
FWIW, I think a lot of our acceptance of some things are a huge slippery slope... For instance: I heard this same comment regarding catalogs, when I was a child... all the pictures in the Sears catalog were of plastic forms wearing the underwear... But I knew teenage boys in my neighborhood that used to look at them... My mom personally found them offensive... I thought "wow, mom, how could anyone possibly find that interesting...? The boys that look at those are just weird anyway, my brothers are smarter than that..." She's had a few teenage sons by then... I don't think any of my brothers spent any time looking at those pictures... but when there were live bodies with no heads modeling the clothes... I remember that my mom tore those pages out... and I thought she was over the top... she thought she was protecting her family.
Those adds pushed the envelope society would allow then... Now merchants purposely produced catalogs to encourage sensual thoughts... Because I throw out catalogs that I find offensive... I am a labeled a prude, by some. However, even children from modest families in some cases have warped the whole industry into a belief that provocative underwear is okay... as long as it is covered by slightly less provocative clothing... It doesn't make you promiscuous if you cover it up... right??? Unfortunately I have unintentionally heard what some young girls in our ward are saying to each other about why they wear such underwear, and those comments are not innocently made...
It is my personal belief that it is wrong to expose the human body to the masses. Even in art... Yes the human body is and can be very beautiful, but... no matter how innocent it may seem to one part of the population. The Lord reverences our bodies... I just feel I should not only reverence my own, but other's too.
In the case of exposure to information... I wish I understood why I needed to see a body in order to understand that a culture is without clothing...? Why do I need to see in a restaurant the parties involved, to understand that a couple are physically involved in private...? Why do I have to SEE the murder on the news... in order to understand the seriousness of the event? We are a society where we have no ability to fill in the blanks. Innocence is scorned and propriety is considered old fashioned.
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
Nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution and I also think it is a matter of context.
I think in the case of arbi's son, maybe he was just trying to do what is right.
I remember on my mission seeing a 75-80 year old woman walking topless through a park. Not in the least erotic, and rather disturbing in fact. OTOH, had it been some 20 year old woman, well, that would have been different. It is in the same vein as comparing the Venus de Milo to a centerfold from some porn mag. I find a clothed Victoria's Secret commercial with models with clothes on way more erotic or sexy than some topless aboriginal women. I guess it is more the effect it has, but best to avoid it as you can.
I remember discussing something similar on "that other site" about art and when it is inappropriate. I love fantasy art and it often involves the female form. Even when in a "non-erotic" state, should I look at it? I don't know, for myself, I have decided to err on the side of caution and not risk anything.
__________________
Lo, there I see my mother, my sisters, my brothers Lo, there I see the line of my people back to the beginning Lo, they call to me, they bid me take my place among them In the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live...forever
You said that whatever is covered by the garment should be covered, because that comes straight from the mouth of Elohim. But, we garments used to come only with long sleeves and long legs. If that can change, what else can change? How much is cultural and how much actually comes from God?
I think "cultural" is often the catalyst to a new revelation. Like the Word of Wisdom example. If the clean-up was never as issue, maybe we'd all be chewin' right now... Also the reversal of blacks holding the Priesthood comes to mind.
I guess in these examples the "cultural" can be interpreted as not just what's going on "out there" in the ever-changing fallen world, but it's an issue that has materialized and has now become something over which the leadership is praying for direction.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I've thought a lot about this, and I think I'll change what I expressed in an earlier discussion of a similar topic.
I think porn is in the eye of the pornographer.
Any portrayal that is designed for sexual arousal is pornography. We should not partake. We should not support. In any way.
The portrayal of nudes in art is therefore not porn. Immodest? Definitely. Immoral? Perhaps. Porn? No.
The portrayal of aboriginal nudes in film documentaries is therefore not porn. Definitely immodest. Perhaps unnecessary. Not porn.
So what about those who get aroused by the above two examples and countless others that are not really designed for sexual arousal? That's a specific issue for that person. Obsession serves as a better label than pornography. We can't use "the eye of the beholder" as the standard. Women's shoes could therefore be classified as porn.
I'd rather have a community-based definition. But in this case, I don't think we'd ever get one that even comes close to gospel standards. I think a one-sided definition based on intent is probably the least ambiguous and most consistently applicable.
Given that, I submit the entire storefront of Vicotria's Secret is pornography.
__________________
The ability to qualify for, receive, and act on personal revelation is the single most important skill that can be acquired in this life. - Julie Beck
You said that whatever is covered by the garment should be covered, because that comes straight from the mouth of Elohim. But, we garments used to come only with long sleeves and long legs. If that can change, what else can change? How much is cultural and how much actually comes from God?
No, you are misquoting me. Go back and read what I wrote. Elohim told Jehova to make coats of skin for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness. It wasn't porn but it wasn't right that they should be naked and they were husband and wife! God said so Himself.
Whatever garment the living prophets of the Lord authorize us to wear, we should wear.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
Coco, tell me that you and your husband haven't been out in public naked.
-- Edited by arbilad at 22:57, 2007-11-26
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I think Roper's point would be the intent for which the couple was naked. If they get their jollies by exposing themselves to others, that's pornographic... If they had a horrible clothing accident, were doused in some kind of cotton eating microbe, and were fleeing with the intent to get clothes on as soon as they could... then... that's really scary, cuz it could happen to you... so watch out.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
*snort*
I dunno.
