Celeres Nexus Pro 2006-05-03

Quick Links for Today:

Comments 20

  1. advogado de diabo wrote:

    As much as I dislike Bush, I kinda find myself feeling sorry for him nowadays, and I couldn’t enjoy the roast.

    Posted 03 May 2006 at 11:45 pm
  2. advogado de diabo wrote:

    Re: the naked virgin, I love Brasil!

    I browsed a couple of her photos and the nude ones I saw were not pornographic. I do have to admit some of her photos where she was modeling clothes however were very erotic.

    I just want to reiterate the point which has been made here before that nudity does not equal porn.

    Posted 04 May 2006 at 6:53 pm
  3. advogado de diabo wrote:

    One more thought, Brasil is the worlds largest Catholic country. I think we have to consider that the attitude of brasilian Catholics could/should be considered more representative of a typical Catholic’s attitidue/views than the attidudes / views of a few highly educated Americans.

    Note: I am not claiming Ms. Lima is a typical Catholic, its just what reminded me of that.

    Posted 04 May 2006 at 7:03 pm
  4. Mike Demers wrote:

    Look up the definition of pornography in the CCC. Nudity by itself is not pornographic. Also, Brazil doesn’t have the Puritan element that still influences the USA for better or for worse.

    Posted 07 May 2006 at 7:00 pm
  5. Funky Dung wrote:

    pornography: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. (dictionary)

    “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.” (CCC 2354)

    Nudity need not enter the picture (in either definition). If the intent of the image is to arouse lustful feelings in the viewer, it’s pornographic. I’d classify the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated in that category.

    If my opinion is inadequate, how about John Paul II? Check out pages 192-193 of “Love and Responsibility”. Here’s a sample.

    “Pornography is a marked tendency to accentuate the sexual element when reproducing the human body or human love in a work of art, with the object of inducing the reader or viewer to believe that sexual values are the only real values of the person, and that love is nothing more than the experience, individual or shared, of those values alone.”

    Posted 07 May 2006 at 9:09 pm
  6. Mike Demers wrote:

    You’re proving my point: there are several definitions of pornography. For example, the SI swimsuit issue is not pornographic as defined by the CCC but it is by you. Lust and eroticism only add to the confusion here. I maintain, however, that a nude picture of a good-looking woman is not pornographic according to the catechism. Otherwise, we may as well join the Muslims and have all women wear burkha.

    Posted 07 May 2006 at 11:29 pm
  7. MomtoFour wrote:

    For what purpose, Mike, would you be looking at a nude picture of a good looking woman anyway?

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 10:12 am
  8. Squat wrote:

    Whether it’s porn or not, as a Catholic Christian she has a duty to not lead others into sin. If she thought for one moment that her posing nude would give others material to use for self pleasure, she should not be doing it. I’m pretty sure that these models know what their pictures are used for, and i don’t just mean advertising.
    Look at what it is that they are advertising too. It’s not Hanes Her Way. It’s Victoria’s Secret. I see nothing wrong with the Hanes underware ads, VS however dose not just sell underware, they sell lingerie. Lingerie is sold to help women to look and/or feel sexy. You are trying to make someone think about sex if you are showing off you lingerie. If you are not married to that person you are causing that person to commit adultery (Matt 5:27-28). The danger of lingerie is that it causes lust. Lust is not just extra-marital. A spouse should not lust after the other. Lust is a sin. Spouses should love and respect each other and want to have sex. Not for we can get out of it, but what we can give each other through it. In other words, mutual sexual desire between spouses is good. We have these desires for a reason. But for her to knowingly risk creating a distorted desire in men, for the purpose of their self-gratification, is to create a stumbling block for those seeking Christ.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 10:42 am
  9. Squat wrote:

    Good rule of thumb: If you can’t look at these things with your wife or mother looking over your shoulder, don’t look at them.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 10:45 am
  10. Mike Demers wrote:

    If you see a good-looking woman, praise God!

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 2:18 pm
  11. Squat wrote:

    But, why are you praising Him (not that it wrong to praise Him 😉 )? For giving you eye candy to gawk at? For giving you that warm feeling you now have below your belt?
    You should praise God for all the women he created. For all of our mothers and sisters. Praise Him for all the “plain looking” women as well as those who were not gifted with “good looks”. Do not, by any means, save your paise and thanksgiving just for the beautifull. They will get enough of that from the rest of society. Praise Him instead for the normal looking woman to whom you will or may be married to.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 5:29 pm
  12. Mike Demers wrote:

    From the Song of Songs, chap. 7:

    Turn, turn, O Shulammite,
    turn, turn, that we may look at you!
    Why would you look at the Shulammite
    as at the dance of the two companies?
    How beautiful are your feet in sandals,
    O prince’s daughter!
    Your rounded thighs are like jewels,
    the handiwork of an artist.
    Your navel is a round bowl
    that should never lack for mixed wine.
    Your body is a heap of wheat
    encircled with lilies.
    Your breasts are like twin fawns,
    the young of a gazelle.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 5:58 pm
  13. Spacemouse wrote:

    Quote Squat:
    The danger of lingerie is that it causes lust. Lust is not just extra-marital. A spouse should not lust after the other.

    Are you suggesting that spouses shouldn’t wear lingerie for each other? I think you must be confusing “lust” with “desire.” Lingerie doesn’t have to cause lust, when used in the right place. I’m certainly not suggesting that Victoria’s Secret advertises in appropriate ways, but I am saying that there is nothing wrong with their products, if used properly.

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 6:59 pm
  14. Squat wrote:

    No, I think it is ok for spouses to wear lingerie for each other to stimulate desire. The danger with it though is that if that desire then turns to lust. If you and your spouse can enjoy lingerie without creating a lust for each other then, by all means, break out the crotchless painties! 😉

    Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:15 pm
  15. Mike Demers wrote:

    Oh, that you may suck fully of the milk of her comfort, That you may nurse with delight at her abundant breasts!

    Isaiah 66:11

    Posted 09 May 2006 at 6:21 pm
  16. Mike Demers wrote:

    It sounds like Mark Driscoll is saying that if a woman poses in the nude she is committing a sin. Huh? Also, he thinks sex is a sin but I’m sure he meant fornication. Where does he get the idea that Adriana Lima doesn’t think lust is a sin? I think maybe she’s not as confused as Mark is.

    Posted 09 May 2006 at 6:39 pm
  17. Funky Dung wrote:

    Who is Mark Driscoll?

    Posted 09 May 2006 at 9:10 pm
  18. advogado de diabo wrote:

    Have spent time in Brazil I tend to find Brazilians both more vain and more down to earth than Americans. Its an apparent contradiction I would have a difficult time trying to explain.

    My hunch is that Adriana is loves all the attention, but has never, ever once thought about her photos in terms of leading someone to sin (were talking about a model here not a theologian).

    She’s probably going to pull a Britney Spears and lose her virginity in the next year or two anyway.

    Posted 09 May 2006 at 10:48 pm
  19. Mike Demers wrote:

    Mark Driscoll is the fellow you linked to above:
    Huh? Naked, Virgin, Catholic Model | Resurgence

    Posted 10 May 2006 at 9:03 am
  20. Squat wrote:

    oops, she did it again 😉

    Posted 10 May 2006 at 9:43 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *