The human form has been the most celebrated form of art for so long, with or without clothes. There is nothing wrong with nudist art because of this. If the pictures were drawn in a smutty fashion, I imagine that the pictures could be classed as rude or derogitory, but even so, sexuality has been around longer than just the human race, how would we survive without it. Sexuality, sex and the human form are innocent things, pure in their own way. Why should it be any different?

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the human form, but should it be used in context? Take Manet's "Lunch on the Grass." That painting confused a few people. Other than that I can't think of many people who have opposed such drawings and paintings... so it must be cool.

[quote]The human form has been the most celebrated form of art for so long, with or without clothes. There is nothing wrong with nudist art because of this. If the pictures were drawn in a smutty fashion, I imagine that the pictures could be classed as rude or derogitory, but even so, sexuality has been around longer than just the human race, how would we survive without it. Sexuality, sex and the human form are innocent things, pure in their own way. Why should it be any different?[/quote] I completely agree.

[quote]The human form has been the most celebrated form of art for so long, with or without clothes. There is nothing wrong with nudist art because of this. If the pictures were drawn in a smutty fashion, I imagine that the pictures could be classed as rude or derogitory, but even so, sexuality has been around longer than just the human race, how would we survive without it. Sexuality, sex and the human form are innocent things, pure in their own way. Why should it be any different?[/quote] I think the problem is the way popular art and the media have treated the human form, especially in the U.S. I don't know if it makes sense, but the human form has been objectified. Look at the animal-like poses women are in, in some makeup commercials, for instance, and this even when clothed. Because of the distorted view of the human figure, as ONLY a sex object, and not one of a higher kind of beauty, is it any wonder that people come to react with disgust at naked drawings? I tend not to care for them myself when I see them on Sheezy, unless I can tell they were done with REAL ARTISTRY in mind. I like the kinds of figure sketches that come out of art classes, for instance, or Renaissance/classical-style stuff, but a lot of modern naked art...blah. It just doesn't seem very respectful of the human form to me.

[quote][quote]The human form has been the most celebrated form of art for so long, with or without clothes. There is nothing wrong with nudist art because of this. If the pictures were drawn in a smutty fashion, I imagine that the pictures could be classed as rude or derogitory, but even so, sexuality has been around longer than just the human race, how would we survive without it. Sexuality, sex and the human form are innocent things, pure in their own way. Why should it be any different?[/quote] I think the problem is the way popular art and the media have treated the human form, especially in the U.S. I don't know if it makes sense, but the human form has been objectified. Look at the animal-like poses women are in, in some makeup commercials, for instance, and this even when clothed. Because of the distorted view of the human figure, as ONLY a sex object, and not one of a higher kind of beauty, is it any wonder that people come to react with disgust at naked drawings? I tend not to care for them myself when I see them on Sheezy, unless I can tell they were done with REAL ARTISTRY in mind. I like the kinds of figure sketches that come out of art classes, for instance, or Renaissance/classical-style stuff, but a lot of modern naked art...blah. It just doesn't seem very respectful of the human form to me.[/quote] Yeah, I see what you mean. Let me ask you a question which may not seem relevant right now, but I will explain later. Are you religious?

[quote]Yeah, I see what you mean. Let me ask you a question which may not seem relevant right now, but I will explain later. Are you religious? [/quote] I am a Christian--but I do not want or need the Puritan lecture about how supposedly Christians are all automatically afraid of the body and sex and so on.

[quote][quote]Yeah, I see what you mean. Let me ask you a question which may not seem relevant right now, but I will explain later. Are you religious? [/quote] I am a Christian--but I do not want or need the Puritan lecture about how supposedly Christians are all automatically afraid of the body and sex and so on.[/quote] I dont mean that, you get me all wrong!!! I just mean that in the begining, supposedly adam and eve were naked, if they hadn't sinned, would we not all be unclothed now? What's more, sexuality is natural, so is the want and need to reproduce. The "positions" girls make in the media as you said, are just expressions of sexuality. People should embrace how they feel and tell people about it. Everyone here (Britain) is so reserved, wether religious or not. I agree that some forms of art over-do it a little, but the love for the opposite or same sex is natural, it was created by God, do not forget it. I dont usually put things to religion. I don't do lectures. You belief is your choice and I respect you for that. Anyway, Christians aren't afraid of sex, they just limit it so that it is more special- there's nothing wrong with that.

[quote]I dont mean that, you get me all wrong!!! I just mean that in the begining, supposedly adam and eve were naked, if they hadn't sinned, would we not all be unclothed now? What's more, sexuality is natural, so is the want and need to reproduce. The "positions" girls make in the media as you said, are just expressions of sexuality. People should embrace how they feel and tell people about it. Everyone here (Britain) is so reserved, wether religious or not. I agree that some forms of art over-do it a little, but the love for the opposite or same sex is natural, it was created by God, do not forget it. I dont usually put things to religion. I don't do lectures. You belief is your choice and I respect you for that. Anyway, Christians aren't afraid of sex, they just limit it so that it is more special- there's nothing wrong with that.[/quote] I think once Adam and Eve's descendentts (had there been no sin) moved to cold climates, they would've adapted clothing as a convenience even if they were nudists in their home. Can you imagine enduring a North Dakota winter without a nice warm parka? ;-) I think of sex as something higher (not lower) than what it's typically portrayed as. I think what bugs me is the fixation on the fleeting sexual act without any of the spiritual/emotional love, which brings with it respect, committment, and the willingness to give of oneself in other ways as well as that...and an even further expansion of that should it result in children. That's stuff that can't be packaged up and sold, and that's what it feels like some of these men and women in the media are trying to do.

[quote][quote]I dont mean that, you get me all wrong!!! I just mean that in the begining, supposedly adam and eve were naked, if they hadn't sinned, would we not all be unclothed now? What's more, sexuality is natural, so is the want and need to reproduce. The "positions" girls make in the media as you said, are just expressions of sexuality. People should embrace how they feel and tell people about it. Everyone here (Britain) is so reserved, wether religious or not. I agree that some forms of art over-do it a little, but the love for the opposite or same sex is natural, it was created by God, do not forget it. I dont usually put things to religion. I don't do lectures. You belief is your choice and I respect you for that. Anyway, Christians aren't afraid of sex, they just limit it so that it is more special- there's nothing wrong with that.[/quote] I think once Adam and Eve's descendentts (had there been no sin) moved to cold climates, they would've adapted clothing as a convenience even if they were nudists in their home. Can you imagine enduring a North Dakota winter without a nice warm parka? ;-) I think of sex as something higher (not lower) than what it's typically portrayed as. I think what bugs me is the fixation on the fleeting sexual act without any of the spiritual/emotional love, which brings with it respect, committment, and the willingness to give of oneself in other ways as well as that...and an even further expansion of that should it result in children. That's stuff that can't be packaged up and sold, and that's what it feels like some of these men and women in the media are trying to do.[/quote] Yeah, I totally agree with you that sex should be about love and commitment. But sometimes that even gets bad press when shown anywhere. I know the Christian view of sex, is that is should be with marriage, but love can be with many people, and isn't set to one person. Through your life you can love many...your spouse could die,a nd then you may love again...So as long as you are in love, and committed to that person, to fulfil their need of love and completeness, should sex be such a bad thing? I know you cant think this because of your religion, but this aside what is your view??

[quote]Yeah, I totally agree with you that sex should be about love and commitment. But sometimes that even gets bad press when shown anywhere. I know the Christian view of sex, is that is should be with marriage, but love can be with many people, and isn't set to one person. Through your life you can love many...your spouse could die,a nd then you may love again...So as long as you are in love, and committed to that person, to fulfil their need of love and completeness, should sex be such a bad thing? [b]I know you cant think this because of your religion[/b], but this aside what is your view??[/quote] FYI, I am not a mindless drone as a Christian. I do not come to my beliefs because I am told but because I thought about it carefully without anyone prompting me to, and then decided I agreed. I'm not against remarrying after a spouse dies. I know that some people are against it, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What marriage is a symbol of, in my mind, is a committment between two people as long as BOTH are alive. To have a relationship where one professes to be committed but is unwilling to marry does not line up; that's an effort to leave an "escape route" so that one does not have to truly commit. True love is not supposed to be something in which one holds anything back--including that lifelong vow. How can one have true TRUST without that? How can you trust someone who is holding back in any way? Who knows what else they might be guarding? Otherwise, it's only a surface-level relationship as far as dating relationships go. Those kinds of relationships can be OK but within their appropriate bounds. There are other kinds of love--spiritual love, familial love, and friendship--but sex simply doesn't pertain to those. They ARE still forms of love, though, that can be incredibly powerful. My "love life" if you include all of those forms of love is certainly not empty or repressed.

[quote][quote]Yeah, I totally agree with you that sex should be about love and commitment. But sometimes that even gets bad press when shown anywhere. I know the Christian view of sex, is that is should be with marriage, but love can be with many people, and isn't set to one person. Through your life you can love many...your spouse could die,a nd then you may love again...So as long as you are in love, and committed to that person, to fulfil their need of love and completeness, should sex be such a bad thing? [b]I know you cant think this because of your religion[/b], but this aside what is your view??[/quote] FYI, I am not a mindless drone as a Christian. I do not come to my beliefs because I am told but because I thought about it carefully without anyone prompting me to, and then decided I agreed. I'm not against remarrying after a spouse dies. I know that some people are against it, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What marriage is a symbol of, in my mind, is a committment between two people as long as BOTH are alive. To have a relationship where one professes to be committed but is unwilling to marry does not line up; that's an effort to leave an "escape route" so that one does not have to truly commit. True love is not supposed to be something in which one holds anything back--including that lifelong vow. How can one have true TRUST without that? How can you trust someone who is holding back in any way? Who knows what else they might be guarding? Otherwise, it's only a surface-level relationship as far as dating relationships go. Those kinds of relationships can be OK but within their appropriate bounds. There are other kinds of love--spiritual love, familial love, and friendship--but sex simply doesn't pertain to those. They ARE still forms of love, though, that can be incredibly powerful. My "love life" if you include all of those forms of love is certainly not empty or repressed.[/quote] Oh that came out really wrong...I had no intension of implying you were "a mindless drone as a Christian" and I'm very sorry if it sounded that way..I just meant that there are some formalities that surround religion. I also had no intesion to imply you made your decisions by anthing other than careful consideration. What I mean is, that on the whole, there is a general view of no sex before marriage. My words seriosuly are screwed, and I didn't mean to cause offense... The spouse issue, I know you have nothing against re-marrying...I've never found anyone who is a Christian that is against it- it was just an exaple of falling in love more than once... I totally agree with love forever, as a total commitment, but it is also fair to say that people change through life. I am not condoning in any way divorce on a whim, but somtimes things dont work out. I have a question...I know the general view of divorce, is that it isn't good unless say physical violence is happening. I don't knwo much abotu this specific topic though...what other circumstances would you say divorce was ok?? I know that Christians (contrary to popular belief) are very accepting, and do try to help the best they can, be to what extent would this work? Just a wondering. Wow. I really didn't mean to offend before, I should really think about the way I'm writing before I send :S Sorry.

[quote]Oh that came out really wrong...I had no intension of implying you were "a mindless drone as a Christian" and I'm very sorry if it sounded that way..I just meant that there are some formalities that surround religion. I also had no intesion to imply you made your decisions by anthing other than careful consideration. What I mean is, that on the whole, there is a general view of no sex before marriage. My words seriosuly are screwed, and I didn't mean to cause offense...[/quote] Thank you. You'd be shocked how many people DO actually believe Christians are mindless. [quote]The spouse issue, I know you have nothing against re-marrying...I've never found anyone who is a Christian that is against it- it was just an exaple of falling in love more than once... I totally agree with love forever, as a total commitment, but it is also fair to say that people change through life. I am not condoning in any way divorce on a whim, but somtimes things dont work out. I have a question...I know the general view of divorce, is that it isn't good unless say physical violence is happening. I don't knwo much abotu this specific topic though...what other circumstances would you say divorce was ok?? I know that Christians (contrary to popular belief) are very accepting, and do try to help the best they can, be to what extent would this work? Just a wondering.[/quote] Personally, I would carry "abuse" out to include real verbal violence, as well as adultery. Both of those degrade a person in the marriage severely. No person should have to be told they're a piece of crap every day by someone they love. Nor should they have to play "second wife" or "second husband" to someone else who can't even find the guts to admit they weren't committed in the first place (not to mention that the adulterer could potentially bring diseases home for the spouse, which is pretty callous! Interesting that without adultery, STD's wouldn't exist or at least wouldn't ever get off the ground, isn't it?). BTW, I do know that both the man OR the woman can be the abuser. Where these issues don't exist, I would much prefer that people try to work things out on their own, or try counseling if that's not working. I get a feeling sometimes that some people don't try anymore. As for supporting the person who's been divorced afterwards, I do agree that if they seek help from the church or from an individual Christian, being cruel to them would be unacceptable. I don't come from a church where people are excommunicated for divorce.