Nakedness..art or porn??

Question

Why is nakedness considered art in history but porn in modern day? Anybody have a reasonable answer for this? I believe that in any form porn is disrespect of the human body. Yes the body is a beautiful thing but keep it holy for it is God's Holy temple.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you ...? therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

Nakedness was fine before Adam and Even ate of the forbidden fruit because they knew no evil or sin but now that is is knowledgeable it is sinful because humans are weak and we look upon nakedness with lust and desire.
Matthew 5:28 "If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

lol lucan.. I should of asked for serious questions please!

Nakedness was fine before Adam and Even ate of the forbidden fruit because they knew no evil or sin but now that is is knowledgeable it is sinful because humans are weak and we look upon nakedness with lust and desire.
Matthew 5:28 "If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Answers I meant!!

Answer 1

I think it's because there's been a shift in thinking somewhere in the not too distant past. You bring up a good point & I think there is beauty in nature, hence also in the form we have. Any form. Not just the big busted small butt blonde with too much lipstick, but also the sweating frenetic person at the concert next to me. Hope this helps. :)

Answer 2

In general I think it is exactly what is being pictured that determines the pornicity of the image. If it is just the human form, that probably isn't porn, but if the human form has spread open legs and stuff moving between them, well that would be considered porn by most.

Its also a matter of intent and audience as well. What I just described above wouldn't be port if the video was made as a documentary for sex education and viewed by teens. But the same video would be considered porn if someone was using if for ...um...less than educational purposes.

So, if you consider it porn, then don't watch it and leave it out there for others to decide for THEMSELVES. Because nobody wants your opinion thrust upon them (no matter how "right" you "know" you are).

And P.S. bible quotes are irrelevant to the majority of the world who doesn't believe what you believe.

Answer 3

Depends entirely on the circumstances. The human body is extremely beautiful and can certainly be considered an art form. If the nakedness emphasizes either primary or secondary sexual organs to the extreme, then it becomes pornographic. And remember, God was disappointed when he found Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves in the Garden of Eden. He preferred the innocent state of nudity.

Answer 4

Is the subject in question trying to incite arousal? That's the difference to me. I'm very spiritual and religious but I have a nude sculpture from my past that I held on to because it's tasteful... And I used to collect "pin up" art and kept a few pieces.
On the other hand, my husband has a nude sculpture of a woman reclining in such a way it looks like she's masturbating to me lol- so it's put away.

In many ways this is a "conscience matter". Each person reacts differently so individuals need to consider how they themselves are affected as well as the impact it has on others around them (my youngest son, for instance, is uncomfortable with any nudity so I don't publicly display my collection).

Answer 5

several points are raised by your question. First, who says? One person's are is another's porn. I believe free artistic expression to be of top priority and that it must be shown to be presented for purposes other than artistic to be considered porn. Further, what is wrong with porn, if the purpose ifs to arouse a person in a sexual way, what is wrong with that? Are we saying that the use of photos for the purpose of exciting a person is wrong and should not be allowed?

Of course, in the real world, porn is often accompanied by other things that are undesirable, but porn in and of itself is not wrong.

Another point, what if you don 't believe in the Christian god? What if you are not bound by the dogma of the bible? Would you consider porn and /or nudity to be wrong anyhow? Can you separate your opinion here from your religious beliefs?

Is there any situation in which you would consider a public display of nudity to be acceptable? I presume that Michaelangelo's David would not be considered porn by you? Where would you draw the line? And what if someone else's line is different from yours?

Who is right? Neither. Because it is too subjective, even, I suspect, among Christians. Pornography is one of those areas of law that is tricky because it is so subjective and some things which one might consider porn might be considered not to be porn by another and would therefore be constitutionally protected free speech.

If you can separate yourself for the bible for a moment here, you can probably see how this is not a question to be left to churches.

Blessings,
Lady Morgana )0(

Answer 6

To what extent nudity is considered natural is clearly a social manifestation.

Not only that, but the moral standards surrounding fleshy exposure change over time, just as many other moral systems do.

There is not, nor can there be, a universal standard.

PS: Your "temple" metaphor is an empty one. I have heard the same quote from nudists to JUSTIFY their nudity.

The argument can also be made the Adam and Eve were in paradise while naked and in sin while clothed. If we are working towards sinlessness then we should do our best to imitate that paradise.

Answer 7

There is both a history of nakedness and pornography in the history of art. Pornography is when the nakedness becomes a solely sexual experience, and less of an aesthetic one. One need only see porn by looking at the brothel preserved by ash in Pompeii, a Roman city destroyed from Mt. Vesuvius when it erupted in 79 A.D. They show customers images of women in all sorts of positions.

I also think sexuality is normal. If that includes porn, so be it, but I'm not a personal fan (I think a good deal of it is exploiting to women). But there is nothing less beautiful about the human body for being a sexual thing and nothing about abstaining from sexual drives that makes it more holy. For me, nakedness is not sexual, it is comfortable! (definitely preferable to pajamas)

Answer 8

Sometimes a naked body is just a naked body and is neither art nor porn. Are you saying that nakedness is ungodly?

Isn't that what a lot of the settlers in the New World said shortly before they tried to wipe out the indigenous peoples of those lands?

Answer 9

Well if your going to quote scripture, how about the part where Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Eden? God didn't invent clothing man did...

My opinion? A naked body is just that, whether it is art or porn is determined by the heart and eye of the viewer.

Edit: American Heritage® Dictionary: Description of lust
NOUN: 1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

Personally I can look at naked bodies and appreciate them without wanting to have sex. My desire for sex (lust) is reserved for love making in a loving supportive relationship, not just any body who is undressed.

Answer 10

I would consider pornography to be any titillation of desire that simultaneously denies or demeans the integrity or personhood of the desired. It reduces an irreducible person to objects of sexual gratification at the expense respect.

Pornography, however, I believe can be art as I define art as simply a human practice of self-expression within a given community. Thus art does not have moral requirements other than what is accepted or rejected by those participating. This is called the "institutional" view of art.