This Is the Massive Difference Between Artistic Nudity and P*rn.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Christopher and Matt Fradd delve into the nuanced differences between artistic representations of the human body and pornographic depictions. We explore the artist's intent, the dignity of the person, and the purity of heart as outlined by John Paul II. Join us as we discuss the role of art in revealing the truth and beauty of human love versus the objectification found in pornography.
Watch the full discussion here: • A Deep Dive Into John ...
============================================
🔥 Get 3 FREE sessions of our flagship course on Theology of the Body: www.tobforfree...
🎤 Check out the Ask Christopher West Podcast where Christopher and his beloved wife Wendy share their humor and wisdom. It's available on all streaming platforms. askchristopher...
⚡️ Click the link to join our Patron Community! Your monthly gift helps us continue to put out the message of Theology of the Body to the world. Thank you! www.tobpatron....
📚 Want to attend a course at the Theology of the Body Institute online or in person? Click the link to view our schedule: tobinstitute.o...
📍 We might be coming to a city near you! Check out our Made for More event schedule: tobinstitute.o...
🏔️ Want to join us on one of our pilgrimages? Click here: tobpilgrimages....
🛍️ Check out our store! shop.corprojec...
🌟 For professional Catholic Life Coaching, including Porn Recovery: www.stevemotyl...
============================================
Social Media:
📸 TOBI Instagram: / tobinstitute
🟦 Facebook: / tobinstitute
📸 Christopher's Instagram: / cwestofficial
🟦 Christopher's Facebook: / cwestofficial
📸 Discerning Marriage Instagram: www.instagram....
Porn is the infidelity of the coward. I had this phrase pop into my mind a number of years ago and it has helped me ever since.
As a late intern from medical school, we had lessons at practice in ginecology. What makes a doctor morally different from a professional of sex? the intention, as it was said in the video.
Of course, there are few doctors being banned and censured by the law because of awful cases of rape, but that doesnt mean every doctor is a rapist.
In other way, Jesus said, if you saw by desire other's wife, you already commited adultery. A doctor is adulterous if he intend to do so.
My late preceptor said one wonderfull thing as christian: "Attend your patient as if she is your mother, your sister, your daughter, BUT NEVER as your wife".
That helped me a lot in medical school.
My problem as a doctor was/is talking in this matter without making people blush or shame, in some scenarios we need to explain how some diseases acts in genital/perineal areas, we need to teach new mothers about "how to give proper milk-feeding" after giving life to newborn at first time...
please do another video explaining the differences between numbing oneself to sin vs one having an addiction. i think these two concept can be a bit confusing since one increases culpability while the latter decreases it. thank you, for your ministry such a very much needed discussion. God bless! 🙏🏼❤
You're so welcome, and thank you for the great suggestion!
I disagree. The idea that the intention of the artist or the viewer redeems the explicit nature of an artistic representation is false. This is what adult film performers claim. This is what film makers who include explicit/gratuitous sexual content say. This is also how many Christians justify consuming entertainment with explicit content.
I'd like these men to ask themselves if they'd want their wives and daughters to be depicted in any degree of nakedness in anyone's vision of artistic representation of anything "religious," but I'm afraid they'd say yes; which would prove they fail to love their wives and daughters as well as their neighbors.
The appropriate Christian response is to turn away from nudity, not rationalize it because an artist was brilliant at representing it accurately within the context of "reverent art."
This is Christianity capitulating to modern, western notions of sexuality and beauty, and then saying that a certain degree of spiritual discipline somehow renders one resistant or immune to the sinful nature of the content.
We wouldn't do this with drugs (which many cultures have a rich history of employing in artistic and cultural expressions) we shouldn't do this with nudity.
You missed their discussion on how a film or photo of a naked body shows the actual person, e.g John Smith the adult film star, whereas a nude painting does not. Your own wife or daughter can be a nude model for an art class, but the drawings/paintings of her would not actually be her, but would be the interpretation of the artist of her.
Also, Catholics are not prudes. As was discussed, JPII said there is a different way of looking at the human body, not as an object of lust and source of genital pleasure, but as a beautiful creation of God. The problem is most of us are so broken by the sexual sins of this world that we are always tempted by the devil when we see nudity.
We do this as well with drugs and with other things. I respect your opinion though.
@@krdiaz8026 I agree fully because you have to depend on Jesus so you can see how Jesus intended it. It’s not through our carnal view. It’s through his view. They were able to do it because what came first was the beauty or the fall. It was the beauty reconciliation purchase back to the beauty.
@@TheHouse17 I don't think we do this with drugs. We know enough about drugs to know that you cannot just try a bit in the weekends and hope that God's grace will prevent you from being addicted. You WILL get addicted, but it's easier to fight the addiction early on. There is also no real reason for us to use such substances. That's different from nude art.
Depictions of Adam and Eve wearing only fig leaves on their privates look to go back to the tenth century at least and that's well before modernity as ordinarily understood. Granted that's not full nudity, but I feel like your message here would be against depictions of a topless woman too. (Admittedly I'm sometimes uncertain about this issue. Also tenth century art I think tend to depict the body in a bit of a "bloodless" way as in say no blush of cheeks, etc.)
This is very beautiful. You two are awesome.
Thank you for watching! We're glad it blessed you.
Tenderness, compassion and repentance are great- but without HUMILITY they mean very little.
Prayers for all married people...❤
Excellent video. I particularly enjoyed you two working out your definition of p0rnography - words matter, definitions matter.
Thank you for watching!
I think the focus on pornography is a problem here.
Just because something is not pornography does not mean that it's appropriate.
I find that people generally make this mistake of representing a particular group of sins with one specific sin and then subconsciously allowing for the others to pass as acceptable. For example, some people think they are modest just because they don't fornicate. This leaves room for other forms of immodesty.
It's improper for the viewer of the unintentionally filmed sex to go on watching that comfortably. I don't see a reason for that which is not at it's root, pleasure seeking.
I think the intentions of the artist go hand in hand with the mind of the consumer of the art, because it is also possible to randomly stumble on some actual pornography and not lust but have genuine pity for those who use themselves in this manner (as is mentioned here, purity of heart is possible even now). Doesn't mean the content isn't pornography but it is not having the intended effect in this case. Someone can also view properly dressed actors and lust after them. Doesn't mean it is pornography but the movie is not having the intended effect in this case. I think there is too much emphasis on intention. Not that it doesn't count tho.
I kind of disagree with the lack of a more intense warning
The danger is of a grave sin, and we men always are looking for ways to benefit from what we should not, we yave NOT NEED to "gain" in this way
I am concerned of what they are saying
The other day I heard someone say that immodesty was in the intention, that if not bad intention may or may nor be immodest, but it would be inappropriate...
I hope TOB are not making mistakes, or at least failing to instill the JUST amount of carefulness
Many of thise things might be inconsistent with the spirit of chastity
Just read the book “theology of the body”. Clarifies and explains more thoroughly than the videos, id also read Love and Responsibility since both love and responsibility and theology of the body is about Saint Pope John Paul 2 discussing the human body.
I think an objective reasonable person standard would be helpful in the definition. That way it takes away the subjective stupidity situation. Or a knowledge component where the person knows or should have known that the material would lead to sexual arousal.
This is crazy, so nude 2d art in rennasiance style as a wallpaper on a laptop is tottaly appropriate? Do people really make this complex distinction when they look at nude statue what about children that see them? It's crazy
why are we demonizing nudity, are you saying children shouldn’t see the naked cherubims? how then will they grow to understand the beauty of both body and soul. nakedness signifies vulnerability and innocence. the reason the youth is so confused is because they were taught to hate their bodies rather than view their body as sacred and worth taking care of.
It's definitely not appropriate because it's still likely to cause someone to sin.
Who knows back then if that artistic art ( They didn't have camera or movie projectors) 1500 years ago,it was they're salacious version of porn, and mr. West is celebrating it? I always found it interesting that all the women - were chubby or borderline fat in those nudes- i guess it was a badge honor - or show of wealth if one had fat on their bones.
@@airinkujo3207 "youth is so confused is because they were taught to hate their bodies rather than view their body as sacred and worth taking care of."
And that was most by the church -
If you go to other cultures where there's lack of Muslim or christianity influences, their nudity wasn't issue - Like Polynesian cultures and south american tribes. We have been repressed for hundreds yrs, that nakedness is a sin and obscene - and than with that it blurs over the lines of sexuality. Now the floodgate have been open since maybe WW2. After 15 years of Depression and war, there was also a desire on the part of Americans to live in the moment and enjoy life, and they were accordingly less likely to defer to traditional restraints on their behavior.”
According to research, the sexual revolution actually began during World War II, which had a great liberalizing effect on values, affecting everything from child-rearing to religion.
For example, the proportion of the population that considered alcoholism a disease rather than a moral failing increased from 6 percent in 1944 to more than 60 percent in 1954 and this was all before the pill.
@@airinkujo3207 "youth is so confused is because they were taught to hate their bodies rather than view their body as sacred and worth taking care of."
And that was most by the church -
If you go to other cultures where there's lack of Muslim or christianity influences, their nudity wasn't issue - Like Polynesian cultures and south american tribes. We have been repressed for hundreds yrs, that nakedness is a sin and obscene - and than with that it blurs over the lines of sexuality. Now the floodgate have been open since maybe WW2. After 15 years of Depression and war, there was also a desire on the part of Americans to live in the moment and enjoy life, and they were accordingly less likely to defer to traditional restraints on their behavior.”
According to research, the sexual revolution actually began during World War II, which had a great liberalizing effect on values, affecting everything from child-rearing to religion.
For example, the proportion of the population that considered alcoholism a disease rather than a moral failing increased from 6 percent in 1944 to more than 60 percent in 1954 and this was all before the pill.
great insights and discussion
Thank you for watching!
Yeah no. Intent isn't everything. Something doesn't need to have sexual intent in order for it to be sexual, or at least for it to have sexual/sensual qualities or undertones to it. Not only that, intent can never be proven. People lie, and a lot of the time people aren't even fully aware of their actual intent (nor is intent ever 100% "this or that" most of the time anyway). This isn't to say that nudity in and of itself is sexual, but rather, when it comes to art and some other acts, things just get really messy. I think impersonal drawings of the human body for medical purposes are one thing, but as soon as you step into romanticism, things get blurry. I just don't think the intent argument is strong enough. Is intent important? Yes, absolutely. But, is it the star of the show? I think not. I'm also triggered by this topic because of a certain negative/traumatic experience I had as a child where the Intent argument was used, and so this is deeply personal for me.
That would be a choice of the viewer
@@MeadeFatLoss ?
@@OneDay38104 means they have a lust spirit. You can lust after food too.
I think intent is very important to the guilt of the individual. Although I can see an argument that the artist may be blameless and yet the work still a mistake or cause scandal.
But taking the viewers reaction too much to heart, I'm not sure you're doing that, could run into problems too. I know women who are very much more excited to lust by a man in certain suits or uniforms than they are a naked man. Does this mean depictions of soldiers in uniforms or tuxedos are inevitably "porn for women"? Or does it at least depend on how they are depicting them?
@@ThomasReeves-s7u Yeah I definitely agree. Like I said, intent is important. When it comes to clothing, I'm not so sure. When it comes to nudity and then art adding romanticism to it though, that's where I don't think things are as black and white as "well, the artist didn't intend for it to be sexual/sensual (at least, so they've told us), so it must not be". Also, maybe something doesn't need to be "porn" in order for it to be inappropriate.
art is literally transcribing the expression of the idea to medium to make it manifest. Either textile or no clothes, It’s still pure.
What do you think of nude beaches
If your are swimming nude and a jellyfish just grazes your bum you will have a painful and itchy bum. Sand up your crack must not be fun either.
seeing as how going to a beach with women in bikinis is 'tempting' I doubt they'd advocate for going to a nude beach.
@@mteresa7655 well have you ever tried it?
I think they are unnecessary.
@@MeadeFatLoss In some cases. - what I find at nude Beaches ( i've been to a few) for most of the people that are nude shouldn't be. 60, 70. 80 yr olds and these aren't the fit geriatric type either. Don't get me wrong I've seen some attractive women there ( most of the better looking women are just topless - You tend not want get sand where you don't want it.) - but for me it had a different vibe about it - when i seen naked women it wasn't like I wasn't sexually turned on by it - it was a bit strange just seeing people doing normal things naked.
You lost me at the Airbnb example. The smirk on Matt's face was disturbing. Great points and discussion before that point. Thank you for this.
Sounds like a you problem, I don’t think you understood the point of the example.
@@milkeywilkie I guess I didn't either. I mean I think I got his point, but it still seemed like a weird and unnecessary tangent.
@@ThomasReeves-s7u the point of that example was to take this crazy situation and strip the common conception of "pornography" to its bare bones and figure out what it actually is. It was a very nerdy philosophical point lol
@@milkeywilkieYes. The point being made was adding to the conversation, that the intention of the art from both creator AND consumer is for lustful sinful desire. Otherwise, anything, including Michaelangelo's painting, could be seen as pornography as long as someone finds it sexually arousing and stimulating lust.