Ponderings on nudity and modesty


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

I remember on my mission my zone was going to go see an exhibit by Reubens, a 15th century painter who would sometimes paint nude women.  I proudly and self righteously refused to go, on the basis that "its pornography!"  We even had to do a companion exchange because my poor companion wanted to go and see Reubens works and I was refusing.

I later got home and told my mom about this story.  I thought she would be pleased, as she is one of the most anti-pornography people I have ever met.  Instead, she told me to "stop being a self-righteous freak" and that renaissance paintings are NOT what general authorities are talking about when they are talking about pornography.  

Take that story as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I remember on my mission my zone was going to go see an exhibit by Reubens, a 15th century painter who would sometimes paint nude women.  I proudly and self righteously refused to go, on the basis that "its pornography!"  We even had to do a companion exchange because my poor companion wanted to go and see Reubens works and I was refusing.

I later got home and told my mom about this story.  I thought she would be pleased, as she is one of the most anti-pornography people I have ever met.  Instead, she told me to "stop being a self-righteous freak" and that renaissance paintings are NOT what general authorities are talking about when they are talking about pornography.  

Take that story as you will.

Your mom is awesome incarnate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I would obviously never speak for @NeuroTypical or @DoctorLemon but I'm confident that there is media/art out there that the three of us would find offensive, so it's not like we are libertines (well, I am) saying anything goes. Am I right guys? 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I would obviously never speak for @NeuroTypical or @DoctorLemon but I'm confident that there is media/art out there that the three of us would find offensive, so it's not like we are libertines saying anything goes. Am I right guys? 

Oh certainly! 

I was talking with an active member and RM who is an art major.  He said one should use the spirit in these matters when judging what crosses the line, but that Reubens, the Venus de milo, and that famous statue of David were positively NOT pornography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Oh certainly! 

I was talking with an active member and RM who is an art major.  He said one should use the spirit in these matters when judging what crosses the line, but that Reubens, the Venus de milo, and that famous statue of David were positively NOT pornography.

Of course they aren't, only someone who has no clue what both pornography and art are would try to say that. It's best to just ignore someone like that. 

And thanks for understanding that I wasn't trying to speak for you my friend. I'm arrogant, but not that arrogant. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Of course they aren't, only someone who has no clue what both pornography and art are would try to say that. It's best to just ignore someone like that. 

And thanks for understanding that I wasn't trying to speak for you my friend. I'm arrogant, but not that arrogant. 

No problem! In my younger days I had some pretty silly ideas about art, and I probably just about drove my poor companion crazy!  As you get older you get wiser, and I no longer have those sentiments.  

I don't think much pre-1900s art qualifies as pornography.  Some newer art probably does (I think the late great Leonard Nimoy's project where he took nude pictures of obese women probably crosses the line).  But one should use the Spirit in making these determinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, DoctorLemon said:

No problem! In my younger days I had some pretty silly ideas about art, and I probably just about drove my poor companion crazy!  As you get older you get wiser, and I no longer have those sentiments.  

You are not alone bud. I've changed views on a ton of issues since my younger days. The 21 year old Gator would be very confused by the 35 year old Gator! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I remember on my mission my zone was going to go see an exhibit by Reubens, a 15th century painter who would sometimes paint nude women.  I proudly and self righteously refused to go, on the basis that "its pornography!"  We even had to do a companion exchange because my poor companion wanted to go and see Reubens works and I was refusing.

I later got home and told my mom about this story.  I thought she would be pleased, as she is one of the most anti-pornography people I have ever met.  Instead, she told me to "stop being a self-righteous freak" and that renaissance paintings are NOT what general authorities are talking about when they are talking about pornography.  

Take that story as you will.

While in general I have almost always held a position in agreement with what your mother said, I also have grounds to disagree and think that you were absolutely correct to avoid that material as a missionary.

In order to produce the nude renaissance art, individuals (usually women) posed naked in the presence of the artist.  Was the woman not wrong to pose naked at the time she did it?  Would you be supportive of your family members posing naked for an artists painting?  If not, how is it different to justify that view?  What if you could send your daughter back in time to pose instead of the person in the painting?  Is it the time period?

I would agree that in modern times to see such images may not have the same effect as traditional modern pornography, but to me that isn't necessarily an appropriate justification.

What makes a nude painting not pornography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
18 minutes ago, person0 said:

What makes a nude painting not pornography?

Pornography, like the famous Supreme Court justice said, is actually quite hard to define but "you know it when you see it". In other words, it's usually in the eye of the beholder. To me, pornography is the depiction of two unmarried people engaged in sexual activity. No, that description is not perfect,  and yes, you (not you @person0, generic usage) can nit pick it,  but it's a good starting point. Nude paintings/sculptures are usually not engaged in sexual or vulgar acts, aside from being nude. Therefore, to me it is not porn. 

The other issue is what you do with the artwork. If you treat it like a Playboy centerfold and are looking for your own sexual gratification, than that's on you. However I think less than 2% of people in the world look at classical nude works or the David like they do a centerfold. 

The final issue is yes, culture and expertise. If no one else but you thinks that The David is offensive or porn-than maybe you are the one that needs to change how you think. To some degree, it's like reading Hamlet. When you read Hamlet, Shakespeare is not on trial-you are. If everyone thinks it's a masterpiece but you think it's dirty in some way, that is also on you. Not us or Shakespeare. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True story: My grandparents had a full-size replica of the Venus de Milo in their living room next to the piano.  She stands over 6 1/2 feet tall.  As kids, my cousin and I would dare each other to 'touch them'.  I remember we argued quite a bit about whether we'd go to hell or not, having been baptized and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

True story: My grandparents had a full-size replica of the Venus de Milo in their living room next to the piano.  She stands over 6 1/2 feet tall.  As kids, my cousin and I would dare each other to 'touch them'.  I remember we argued quite a bit about whether we'd go to hell or not, having been baptized and all.

Lol!  

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MormonGator said:

Pornography, like the famous Supreme Court justice said, is actually quite hard to define but "you know it when you see it". In other words, it's usually in the eye of the beholder. To me, pornography is usually two unmarried people engaged in sexual activity. No, it's not perfect, but it's a good starting point. Nude paintings/sculptures are usually not engaged in sexual or vulgar acts, aside from being nude. Therefore, to me it is not porn. 

I'm going to continue to play 'angels advocate' here.  So then if an artist takes pictures of your [insert relative] in various different nude poses, it's not porn as long as they are alone?  If porn is in the eye of the beholder then wouldn't it be something that should be treated similar to the Word of Wisdom?  Not all people drink alcohol irresponsibly, or even to the detriment of their health, but the law still forbids it to all of us.  Not all naked images will sexually arouse everyone, but I can assure you there must be a few people out there who would be aroused by a renaissance nude painting.

Not all nude imagery is porn; however, most of it is.  I refrained from the conversation up until this point because I really liked and agreed with @Vort's OP and perspective and didn't think there was much to add.  There is reasonable applicable need for nude imagery for medical and similar purposes.  However, those can be obtained during medically appropriate situations.

The Church's definition is:

Quote

Pornography is any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings. (True to the Faith: Pornography)

I don't know what the artists intention was.  Also, I think the other question needs to be addressed: how was it not wrong for the woman to pose nude for the painting in the first place?  If it was wrong for her to pose, does that not translate to it being wrong for me to view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I remember on my mission my zone was going to go see an exhibit by Reubens, a 15th century painter who would sometimes paint nude women.  I proudly and self righteously refused to go, on the basis that "its pornography!"  We even had to do a companion exchange because my poor companion wanted to go and see Reubens works and I was refusing.

I later got home and told my mom about this story.  I thought she would be pleased, as she is one of the most anti-pornography people I have ever met.  Instead, she told me to "stop being a self-righteous freak" and that renaissance paintings are NOT what general authorities are talking about when they are talking about pornography.  

Take that story as you will.

I take that to mean that your mother was uninformed about the history of renaissance paintings.  Pornography was exactly what most of them were.

For a painter to be prolific, he had to find a patron who was willing to fund his work.  Most of the wealthy had a few standard "decorative" paintings that they wanted.  But others just wanted more hedonistic portrayals.  That is not to say that ALL renaissance paintings which show the human body were thus motivated. But a good many were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this - if renaissance paintings are actually pornography, then my very devout mother, my mission president, and at least ten missionaries from my mission and their parents (including one AP) need to set up appointments with their bishops!

This is one reason why I would be hesitant to brand renaissance paintings as pornography - mainstream devout Mormons, as I have observed, seem almost always to be OK with these things.

I just want to be a good mainstream Mormon, and not one of the freaks on LDS Freedom Forums! :D

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

This is one reason why I would be hesitant to brand renaissance paintings as pornography - mainstream devout Mormons, as I have observed, seem almost always to be OK with these things.

If God and his prophets felt this way the Word of Wisdom would have remained a recommendation.  Everyone was doing it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I will say this - if renaissance paintings are actually pornography, then my very devout mother, my mission president, and at least ten missionaries from my mission and their parents (including one AP) need to set up appointments with their bishops!

This is one reason why I would be hesitant to brand renaissance paintings as pornography - mainstream devout Mormons, as I have observed, seem almost always to be OK with these things.

I just want to be a good mainstream Mormon, and not one of the freaks on LDS Freedom Forums! :D

I don't know if you've been following my posts on this thread, so I'll repeat.

I believe pornography is two things:  1) What one intends in the creation of the medium in question.  OR 2) How one perceives or reacts to it.

I said "OR" because I don't necessarily think both are required in order to deserve the label.  And to those viewing without such perception/reaction aren't necessarily breaking any commandments by viewing it.  But that doesn't lessen the accuracy of labeling it as "pornography."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

What are LDS Freedom Forums? @DoctorLemon

You don't want to know.  You really really don't want to know.  :D

(They are a competing forum with some, ahem, rather extreme ideas about how the Church works, particularly related to politics, the end of the world, that kind of thing)

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know if you've been following my posts on this thread, so I'll repeat.

I believe pornography is two things:  1) What one intends in the creation of the medium in question.  OR 2) How one perceives or reacts to it.

I said "OR" because I don't necessarily think both are required in order to deserve the label.  And to those viewing without such perception/reaction aren't necessarily breaking any commandments by viewing it.  But that doesn't lessen the accuracy of labeling it as "pornography."

Wow.  That is pretty much word for word my opinion on the matter.  Which reminds me of this:

995644dd7fd0033bd75768ea2403d189.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

You don't want to know.  You really really don't want to know.  :D

Hey!!! I had spent some time on those forums for a while.  They weren't so bad.  You just had to get past the survivalist, Myan Calendar, Rawles followers, & Alex Jones fans wanting to head out to their bug-out bunker every weekend.  That's all.:P

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hey!!! I had spent some time on those forums for a while.  They weren't so bad.  You just had to get past the survivalist, Myan Calendar, Rawles followers, & Alex Jones fans wanting to head out to their bug-out bunker every weekend.  That's all.:P

FREAK. :D

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share