cultural norms

As an artist myself, “art” is no excuse for anything. It is not a free pass or bulletproof shield. While attending art classes, I stumbled across a display of asphalt on the floor with a few accessories. I was told it was art. A picture of a drawing of Christ dipped in a jar of human urine. Someone called it art.

I am 100% against actors and actresses degrading themselves by appearing partly or fully nude and engaging in simulated sex scenes which are obviously meant only for the purpose of sexual arousal. To be copied and spread by sex addicts all over the internet. It does not matter one bit what anyone tells you - it has nothing to do with a magic word called art. It is a violation of human decency, a degradation of human sexuality and a perversion. All designed to get the audience aroused.

My friends. Stop for a moment and see behind the illusion. What you are seeing was carefully planned ahead of time. Each camera angle. The lighting. The setting. All of it. It did not assemble itself.

Human dignity begins with human decency. No nudity, no profanity, no cold, heartless killing or “heroes” who act as judge, jury and executioner.

The line has been crossed. I urge everyone reading – do not cross that line. Do not pay money to see any of it, or get used to it. We are moving, inch by inch, year by year, into soft porn, to be joined, by hardcore pornography. Say no. Post no. Let Hollywood know, the answer is no.

I don’t buy or want DVDs anymore. I have some old movies with moral standards, and I’m tired of “the industry” going from blu-ray to green-ray to purple-ray to whatever. Even for old movies, I’m not going to buy the same thing in a half dozen different formats.

Normal is respect. Normal is respecting human decency at all times. Normal is no profanity. Normal is real justice and the criminal going to jail, not beaten to a pulp for shock value, and then killed in the most gruesome way possible. I’ve read all the excuses. And that’s all they are.

We don’t need those images and those words in our heads.

Ed

Was there not modernizing, could we dare say ‘secularizing,’ the Rite of Baptism in the Anglican church for gathering a greater audience through draw by popular attraction. How much longer until we might expect to see scantily clad lesbian parsons who will be coming soon to a Church of England near you.

Stunning! Don’t miss it. A must see, bring the family.

I think it has to do with intent and interpretations of the intent.

For example, I think it’s logical to determine that most women didn’t intend to show their ankles to sexually stimulate men. I would also argue that outside of some ankle/foot fetish; most wives would not sexually tease their husbands in bed by slipping on and off their sock. :smiley:

WARNING: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ANSWER BELOW

Now, as a man, I can testify that if/when my wife (and it’s been a long time since she’s done this) teases me in bed by slipping on and off her bra and panties, it sexually stimulates me. It also sexually stimulates me if/when she runs her fingers up and down the inside of her thighs. Even thinking about it is stimulating. :blush:

If my wife were to parade around the bedroom in very sort shorts, with her butt cheeks hanging out each leg and a cut off shirt with her midriff showing and no bra… it would stimulate me. :blush: Now, if she were wearing her panties with her butt cheeks hanging out each leg and in an old dirty (yet modest) shirt, I might not give her a second look unless she were doing something specific to get my attention and arouse me. My wife walks around our bedroom like that all the time and even naked. I don’t think it is sexual for my wife to stand naked in our bathroom, brushing her teeth. I don’t even think it’s sexual for her to be taking a shower (unless she invites me in :blush: ). I usually can tell when she intends to be sexy and when doesn’t. And still I sometimes misread her.

END OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ANSWER

No matter how society changes, the above will most likely ALWAYS be stimulating to most heterosexual men (note: I’m not talking about homosexual or asexual men). But husbands and wives are in a state of life were they can know the other intimate enough to know their intentions. That’s why many husbands often get jealous or don’t like it when their wives dress sexy to work or when out without them.

It’s all about being beautiful vs. acting sexy.

Dressing or “acting” sexy is about wanting to be appear hot and/or sexy with the desire to sexually stimulate or attract a another/others.

Dressing or “being” beautiful is about wanting to reflect the beauty God gave you on the inside and out.

Notice, people don’t “act” beautiful. One can always dress beautiful; but they cannot act beautiful. You are either beautiful or you are not. You can’t act beautiful.

However, in addition to dressing sexy, one can ACT sexy and/or mold their public persona to present themselves as “being sexing.” Even an ugly person who is not beautiful (inside or out), can dress, act or be sexy.

Being sexy does not always mean that a person is beautiful or even pretty. Same with being “hot.” An ugly person (inside and/or outside) can attract people by simply being “hot.” A “hot woman” can attract, sexually stimulate, seduce, and fornicate with a man without saying a single word (even if she was ugly). Where is the beauty in that?

However, if a “beautiful woman” (who isn’t dressed or acting hot) attempted to do the same, most men would (at bare minimum) stop to at least make sure they knew her name. Why, because true beauty (inside and out) deserves respect.

God’s creation is beautiful. God’s creations are never sexy. You don’t say, “wow, look at those sexy trees!” But you might say, “wow, look at those beautiful trees!”

No matter how society changes, their will always be a difference between looking beautiful and looking sexy. How we as society recognize that differences in intent might change over time, but there will always be a difference.

Being sexy is about power and lust. Power over the other sex.
While true beauty is a gift from God.

NOTE: in regards to the “rave clothes,” if what passes as “rave clothes” today are worn to Church in the distant future and suit & ties were only worn at raves, bars, brothels and strip clubs; then “rave clothes” would be modest and wearing a suit & tie would not be modest.

The message broadcasted by clothing & fashion can change over time, but the message itself is always the same – Beauty vs Sexy.

God Bless.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.