artistic nudity?

[Slater]

NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

my gf will never take her clothes off for me... least not till we're married x.x

I mean she draws anthros for me that lack clothes. Nothing yiffy, just drawings of anthros.

[heero yuy 95]

NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

my gf will never take her clothes off for me... least not till we're married x.x

Oh, okay, sorry about that misunderstanding. I didn't think so anyway. Sorry, I was being dumb.

[Zilch]

NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

my gf will never take her clothes off for me... least not till we're married x.x

I mean she draws anthros for me that lack clothes. Nothing yiffy, just drawings of anthros.

*blows a sigh of relief* Just when I was getting ready to write you off as a sicko. THANK YOU for clearing that up.

[Lochaber Axe]

NO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

my gf will never take her clothes off for me... least not till we're married x.x

I mean she draws anthros for me that lack clothes. Nothing yiffy, just drawings of anthros.

I'm not saying anything beyond that I thought that too... becareful of wording, all it takes is a slip of the tongue and it all flies out the window. Even though you didn't intend it, the meaning that is majority recognized is that your girlfriend poses nude for you. I would edit it though for the archives at least.

Oh and you don't have to go berzerk... I don't think it is completely immoral for such sessions if (IF IF IF IF IF!!!) there is no lust involved (See note below). Since there is a very low possibility that it can be this way between two people with romantic attractions, such sessions SHOULD NOT be tried.

(Completely theoritical... lust was taken out of the picture, so it is in essense un-realistic.)

[Slater]

... ><
I said Open Canvas... thought everyone knew what that was around here! XD

[Shadowchild]

I dont like really any nudity at all in art but it is so hard to actually find a modest pic around anymore without the girl or guy showing something off. You have to be really mature to get past these things.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

In my first two years of Graphic Design I had to do Life Drawing sessions. I was uncomfortable with the whole idea and really disliked them. Almost everyone in the class also knew I was a Christian and was embarrassed and very nervous by the idea and they took advantage of that. It was helpful and bit in learning proper anatomy but can't they just wear skin tight clothes instead (leotard style?). You would still get all the muscle structure right and all that, minus the ...

Anyway, I think nudity in classic sculpture painting isn't erotic but I don't really care for it either. Much nudity in art is passed off as tasteful nudity but really should be lumped as erotic art. That's not to say that I believe the body is an evil thing or whatever. Its a special creation of God and should be treated as such.
I'm not a fan of nude art.

[EireWolf]

It was helpful and bit in learning proper anatomy but can't they just wear skin tight clothes instead (leotard style?). You would still get all the muscle structure right and all that, minus the ...

I think some Christian colleges do that kind of thing in their art classes. But I think you really miss something. Then again, I suppose that is the point...

[Mithrandir]

O.O


*goes to wash eyeballs*

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

You guys are hilarious! (I'm very timid when it comes to that sort of thing).

[Eriana]

I think there is such thing as artistic nudity - take the statue of David for example. Obviously da Vinci wasn't trying to be pornographic, but trying to portray a sense of purity instead. Adam and Eve were naked before they were driven out of the garden - there's nothing wrong with naked in itself. It only becomes problematic when the nudity is used in a provocative way, IMO.

Agreed.
Its one thing to be naked in front of ourselves or a mirror for instance or maybe members of your family that are the same gender, but never in public would I be naked, that's why I am against immodesty also. For a girl such as myself, I think that is very unfair to your brothers in God to dress that way to tempt them to sin. It's just very wrong. I would be very embarrassed to be nude in front of someone, mostly probably because I am a Christian and I do not want to blemish my body with sin even more. There is a reason why God called it "Private parts".
I don't see why people can't wise up and fly right for once. It just shows even more the eternal stupidity of man.

[EireWolf]

Agreed.
Its one thing to be naked in front of ourselves or a mirror for instance or maybe members of your family that are the same gender, but never in public would I be naked, that's why I am against immodesty also. For a girl such as myself, I think that is very unfair to your brothers in God to dress that way to tempt them to sin. It's just very wrong.

I will agree that it is wrong to dress in a way that is purposefully tempting.

I would be very embarrassed to be nude in front of someone, mostly probably because I am a Christian and I do not want to blemish my body with sin even more.

It's very good that you are modest. However, I would like to point out that there is a right and holy context for being nude in front of someone -- a context that is not sinful, and that is marriage. I don't think I needed to point that out, but just in case....

There is a reason why God called it "Private parts".

Um... He did?

God created us this way, and there is nothing inherently dirty about it. It only became dirty when humans made it so by sinning. (Genesis 2:25 -- "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." See Genesis chapter 3 for the end of this innocence.)

I don't see why people can't wise up and fly right for once. It just shows even more the eternal stupidity of man.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, exactly. But... it comes off as judgemental, and implies that you yourself are always wise and righteous. We ALL do stupid things now and then. Perhaps that is not how you meant it, but it might be wise to check these kinds of statements.

[rocklobster]

Artistic nudity can be detected by trying to see how much emphasis is being placed on the subject and the intent of the artist. I once saw a painting of an artist and his "nude model" where he treated her as if she were a person of high status and was helping her off a tree stump. I think this is an example of artistic nudity because it shows respect for the human body and it didn't overdo the "naughty bits" (you could see them but they were quite small). Now a good example of what doesn't qualify is Playboy or Penthouse. Poor Hugh Hefner. He has no idea just how sinful his obsession is, and if he does, he doesn't care.

[~Natsumi Lam~]

i think the fraze "Artistic Nudity" is just a deceiving way of saying lighter porn. I think it is equally bad. Just cuz you call a cow a moose doesnt make it any less of a cow. THat is what i think about it ... ive thought about this question for years but still come to the same conclusion... it is a cow named moose

~NL~

[Slater]

I disagree. The thing on Deviant (which is an issue in my mind because of how long that Daily DA lasted [I'm not sure if they even removed it or not by now]) was what I would consider porn even though it just shows the top half of a woman's body. It was the fact that so much emphasis was put on her very ample breasts and that her facial expression suggested that she was in the process of something very dirty that makes it pornographic.

What constitutes the difference between porn and artistic nudity in my mind is the subject matter. In artistic nude, the focus isn't on whether or not the subject is nude; the focus is on their body and how well it is made. Artistic nudity does not appeal to a person's sex drive (or at least is not intended to by the artist). Pornography, however, is the oppoiste. Porn is made with the sole intention of arousing a person's sexual desires.

I will also point out that pornography doesn't always involve nudity. After researching it a few weeks back for an essay I wrote, I have come to the conclusion that a huge ammount of the advertisements we see in newspapers and magazines (and other places) is pornography. Of course, there are no exposed breasts or nudity in them since that would be illegal to publish in such generally-accessable areas, but a lot of those ads have a purpose of appealing to a person's sex drive. Sometimes, there doesn't even need for there to be a single human being in the picture for it to be pornographic; an ad for ties which ran in the New York Times comes to mind, in which all the reader sees is the picture of a bed with ties tied to the bedposts, suggesting that the ties had been used in a round of sex involving bondage. There are a myriad of examples of pornographic ads out there that don't include explicit nudity. Conclusion: nudity is not a requirement of pornography.

It's easy to see why artistic nude isn't pornographic. A.N.'s focus is on beauty, which is what our bodies are. God didn't create us with bodies that are sinful to look at. The reason why nudism is wrong is because clothes are symbolic of Jesus covering our shame of sin and how we can't control it. God created our minds to be attracted to the opposite sex's nakedness, and Satan was smart in usurping that fact. For that reason, a lot of people look at artistic nude as some "dirty" thing, and that is part of Satan's plan; to get us to think that our bodies (which were created in the image of God) are dirty things. Of course, with sin they naturally are, and they can be made dirty through pornography or extra-marital sexual relations, but God doesn't want us to think that our bodies or the act of sex are dirty things. Our bodies are blessed with a beautiful image that surpasses anything in nature, and we as Christians shouldn't deny that fact.

[shooraijin]

Conclusion: nudity is not a requirement of pornography.

On this point, I am quite agreed. Fanservice, even with the requisite bits covered, generally counts in my view (even over nudity, since fanservice's intent is always to stimulate).

[Nate]

I agree. Porn doesn't require nudity, and nudity is not an automatic indication of porn. As Kodai stated, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who considers Michelangelo's David as pornographic, even though he's nude.

Remember, as Slater stated in better words than I could, we were created nude. Nudity is a state of innocence and purity, which was shattered when the fruit was eaten...and we became ashamed and put on clothing.

Well, though nudity does inspire lust quite easily, I still think it's a bad idea to classify all nudity as porn. Because it isn't.

[Conner999]

I want to revive this topic because it's an issue nobody ever talks about where I live, and it is generally not tolerated as an unwritten rule. I've been trying to get to the root of this issue, and I have some points I would like to bring up from an objective stance.

When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, why did they cover themselves? If it is not sinful for a husband and wife to view eachother nude, yet they were the only humans on the planet, how and why would modesty apply to them? Is there some universal rule of modesty as a result?

Do you view artistic nudity the same with paintings and drawings as with photography or videography? And does your view change depending on the subject, for example if it is your brother or sister, son or daughter? (Assuming of course they are mature enough to make their own decisions.)

Why isn't it generally considered immodest for a man to be topless? Is lust the only reason nudity can be considered immoral? If lust can be taken out of account, is there a difference between viewing a nude image, and a nude image in an intimate setting?

How does written intimacy apply, such as romance novels? If it can be immoral or viewed in an immoral way, couldn't the Song of Solomon be viewed in an immoral way? Where is the line and what is the difference?

I have more points to bring up, but they don't need to be brought up until these have been addressed. I am looking for opinions from all points of view. =)

[CAAOutkast]

We discussed this topic already. Lock this thread please.

[Conner999]

I read this thread and the points I brought up were not discussed.

I didn't think it appropriate to start a new topic, why not continue the discussion?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Christisright you can't ask a thread to be locked.

Conner, I think it all comes down to what provokes lust. Also some parts of the body are just more private than others.

[RobinSena]

We discussed this topic already. Lock this thread please.

It's better for him to bump the thread with his questions instead of creating a whole new one. Besides, you aren't really in the position to call for it to be locked.

[TriezGamer]

When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, why did they cover themselves? If it is not sinful for a husband and wife to view eachother nude, yet they were the only humans on the planet, how and why would modesty apply to them?

Without trying to get too deep into theological territory, there are interpretations of Genesis where Adam and Eve represent more than just two people. In that context, it would make sense.

Within the literal interpretation of Genesis, Adam himself gives the explanation that he did not want to be naked before God, so he covered himself and hid.


Is there some universal rule of modesty as a result?

I don't think there are any universal rules of modesty -- the difference in what constitutes modest behavior varies wildly from one culture to another, and even within specific sub-cultures in larger cultures. Possibly even down to the fammily level. I was raised in a family very open about nudity -- we did not care about being unclothed in front of immediate family members. As a result, I generally have no trouble with artistic nudes as presented here in this subject. It takes something more overtly sexual for me to find it a stumbling block.


Do you view artistic nudity the same with paintings and drawings as with photography or videography?

Yes. I have seen incredibly artistic videos and photos involving nude people. That said, if you struggle much with artistic nudity in paintings, you probably don't want to go anywhere close to an artistic nude video -- the motion is even more likely to distract.


And does your view change depending on the subject, for example if it is your brother or sister, son or daughter?

I don't think it is a rational position to judge art differently based on the identity of the subject -- it may affect your personal level of response, but it doesn't make the representation more or less wrong.


Why isn't it generally considered immodest for a man to be topless?

Because it's not generally considered to be provocative. Of course, my experience with many women indicates that this is not the case, but it certainly isn't to the same degree that a topless woman can affect a man's mind.


Is lust the only reason nudity can be considered immoral?

Honestly, I'm going to go with a yes on this one. Nudity in itself I do not believe is immoral until the intent is to provoke lust, and I do not believe viewing nudes is immoral until one is doing it for lustful reasons.


If lust can be taken out of account, is there a difference between viewing a nude image, and a nude image in an intimate setting?

No, there is no difference -- however, depending on the viewer, nude imagery in an intimate setting is exceedingly more likely to provoke thoughts of lust.


How does written intimacy apply, such as romance novels?

I don't think one can rationalize something as being acceptable in one medium and not in another, or vice-versa.


If it can be immoral or viewed in an immoral way, couldn't the Song of Solomon be viewed in an immoral way?

In the literal sense, certainly -- Song of Solomon could be used for erotic purposes, and I'm sure people have. That said, I think it comes back to your above question about artistic nudes and intimate settings -- that is to say, it can still be artistic, but it is more likely to provoke thoughts of lust. That said, if one is looking for erotica, I wouldn't recommend SoS -- not that I would recommend anything anyway.


Where is the line and what is the difference?

The line is wherever the viewer begins to lust. This will vary wildly from person to person, and I do believe is the sole responsibility of the viewer. As to the responsibility of the artist, I believe the artist is only in the wrong when the intention is to evoke an erotic response, and while we as humans cannot prove anyone's intentions, I believe God can do so quite well.


Of course, this is all just my opinions on the matter, and there are probably many people here who disagree with me.

[ChristianKitsune]

*wonders if I'm treading on some sort of wierd ground with my responce...*

Personally, I view the human body as beautiful. I marvel at how awesome God is when he created us...how everything moves together, or how he thought our muscles would work.

As an artist, I know how important it is to be able to draw the human body appropriately. And I don't mind ARTISTIC nudes. If someone is just standing around sans clothes in my art class for me to draw, I look at is a figure to draw and that's it. I don't view it as being lustful because it's a way that I can learn...

It's when the poses get heated that I draw a line, but generally, I never come across that.

As for you Adam and Eve question: If it is wrong for a husband and wife to view each other naked, why wouldn't God just give them the knowledge to put clothes on in the first place? They were just embarassed and full of shame for what they had done...

Again, if someone is afflicted with lust in their lives they should tread more carefully when viewing/drawing artistic nudes. They should pray and ask God to protect their minds from the thoughts that enter their mind, or just avoid doing it all together.

As for me, I am not bothered by it. So I'm okay with it. Provided there are some major boundaries.

[king atlantis]

It does. I have always said that there is a distinct difference between pornography and artistic nude.

As for too much, it becomes too much when the emphasis/focus shifts too much on the genatalia of a person or sexual acts. While genatalia is a part of artistic nude, it really can go too far.

[color="Red"]this .

artistic is fine...but recently i went to a art museum hosting some modern stuff, and all i could think of was 'what is this, porn?' and left.

i also wrote the artists explaining why i didnt like his...ahem...'work'[/color]

[LadyRushia]

Didn't we talk about this in another thread? XD

Anyway, I'm not really much of an art person so I don't really have this problem, but I agree that it all depends on when you start feeling lustful.

I heard somewhere (and have found it to be true in my case) that graphic descriptions in romance novels are like porn for girls. Not that guys can't read something and imagine it just as vividly, but I thought that was interesting. It's also why I hate books with sex scenes and other stuff with a passion, especially if they're in books I have to read for school. That only happened once, though.

[silver_wolf454]

I normaly just laugh at all the people who are so silly about this. The body is beautiful it's just weak minds that make it dirty.

[termyt]

I believe lust to be a very personal thing. I do not believe it is right for anyone to impose restrictions on another so that he may avoid lust. That turns the luster into a sort of victim instead of requiring the luster to learn to either control his own thoughts or moderate his own behavior.

Of course, “having the right to” is different from “being right to do.”

It is wrong to be lustful. I think that is the key. Since we are called to aid and love one another, it is also wrong to provoke lust in others.

If you are an artist, I think it wise to consider your audience’s sensibilities before submitting your works. If you are in the audience, I think it wise to consider the subject matter before attending a show.

Saying that it is wrong to make anything involving nudity is nothing more than a rather boorish attempt to absolve oneself of any responsibility for one’s own actions and place all of the responsibility for one’s own state of mind on another person.

Similarly, saying the artist should be able to do whatever the artist pleases in the name of art and everyone should like it is also an attempt to absolve the artist of any responsibility for its content.

The fact is, all parties involved share responsibility for the piece of art in question. The artist for not making works solely to titillate and the viewer for not demanding unreasonable restrictions on art because of his own uncontrolled lust.

[ChristianKitsune]

[quote="termyt (post: 1245369)"]I believe lust to be a very personal thing. I do not believe it is right for anyone to impose restrictions on another so that he may avoid lust. That turns the luster into a sort of victim instead of requiring the luster to learn to either control his own thoughts or moderate his own behavior.

Of course, “having the right toâ€

[LadyRushia]

I normaly just laugh at all the people who are so silly about this. The body is beautiful it's just weak minds that make it dirty.

Some people can't help it, which is why it's good to consider the questions brought up in this thread and figure out where your own personal boundaries are. It isn't silly to want to be cautious about the things you see.