Who's Sin is it Anyway?

[RJM]

The female form has attracted the attention of artists since forever. Horses and fruit bowls somehow just don't seem to have the same magnetism. But there again -- artists in general have never really been famous for embracing the more conventional society values?

 

[SæEagle]

Thin Fine line's as artist walk upon; gives rise to their artistic nature; as form too of foundation. They Grant the Holistic Nature a reality whereby the state of concept comes in it's Seen, For Which an alternative is when the World Crumbles down; Then thus such is the Form of an Alternative come in the Artistic Nature By Norm. The Whole Conclusion by Form of Force is the Extent whereby Which we Let Artistic Nature Demand Nature to Constitution in the Profession of their Term. "Does NATURE (Artistic) Grant" a reality in This World Prior to it's Circumstance of being Inspected. This is Where the Soil meet's the Ground and ( we) See the Reality Which Lingers in the Above to the Below. For Which The Reality

of the Photo Taken is Either InEstate or Contemplate. The Depth of The Ridges come Close to it's Due Nature, So a Reality Whereby Which the Summoned Contest is the Test of Profess in the Destitute of the Contemplation alone; Will a Photographic Nature Take Words of Wholesome or Will it simply be Blunt (Pornographic"). This is the Question here, Then it follows into it's Category and Is What it seem'sed. The Random beyond the Law (Worldly) is to find balance between the Constitution of the Picture taken, and For Which it May be used; Then Comes the Realm of the Eye's Beholder; and the Picture Taken, as a Reality to Which it was Constituted & (Dictated) into it's Peripheral Estate in BE. As a Cooking Pot, Speaks of it'self in Taste, Smell; and Sight. So Does every Photo (Picture) taken; Speak of the Reality of Touch; Perception and Discretion. So Whereas some Might be able to Tame themselves of this Realm. Others Are Tho Still Linger in the Uttermost; Like Children and People of Lesser Institution of Warding of Evil To their Estate (Preliminar) Destitution in Time.

So Sin is By Measure in Accordance to Human Wealth and Value; Whereas the Society Changes it's Value by Day/ By Night. The Formation of Innocence Should not be Constituted; Arbitrar in the Profession of One Maturer then the Receiving; Receiver of Such Content into Hands of the Adult to the Infants in Term-Inology To the; Adolescence; Innocence of One's Another's Term; Kind; (Pornographic). - THE DESIRE to TAKE PICTURES BEYOND the Social NORM: CENSORSHIPped

Illicit Matter Differ then the Illicit Spiritual. Whereas the World Confines it's Law By Spiritual and Principles, These the Form Comes into the State; Estate of Certain Constitution That Hold no Place of Reality into it's State; Theirfore; The World Will Do What it does/Doth, and So Will a Person Do as he DOES/SEE'S: "Question IS" Does it benefit to Step on People's Toes WHEN Taking Acts of Pictures Beyond the Scope of What other's are intended to See. OR is it all But a Reality that Speaks Regardless of the/A Brother's Keeper (Sister) Does That Simply States Do as You Do - Please! ; and Let the Next Persons Luck Demand then on it TOO. YI "My Will" VS Your FRee "Will".

Conscience Speaks For ORN Against it, in Which Humanity Professes it'Zs Term. DOTH Not the CONTRARY of SPIRITUALITY Teach that their is a Higher Cause; then to Let Innocence/ of Infants - Come to the Closeness of Illicit Material; as a Child walking alone in the Garden and the Street's Is Naturally Protected by Innocent Stranger's (Hopefully); So are we Thus Confined to become (;?)~> Abductors and See no Fit for Wholesomeness in Terms to This Conclusion in itself & Terms?

What Say you; Is an Amber alert Thus Justified; of Will a Picture that Speaks More then a Thousand Words Be On ~ Scandalous Route till it hit's the Paparazzi as Such in Their Social Term ()?

pornography (n.)
1842, "ancient obscene painting, especially in temples of Bacchus," from French pornographie, from Greek pornographos "(one) depicting prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution"), related to pernanai "to sell" (from PIE *perə-, variant of root *per- (5) "to traffic in, to sell") + graphein "to write" (see -graphy).

Does YouR'n Picture Taken, Constitute as a Armed Bomb? as Pornographic IZ Explained in it's Etymology above. So is the Desire to Capture a Nature of a Picture Like a Flower in the Garden, in THE-Peripheral to Speak on Nations of What Beauty May be Defined. In This the Eye of an Beholder is Seen THUS Granted to how the Words Speak to Them. But if These words are Simple Raw and Bluntly; Then it is No Longer Artistic, But a Reality of the Complicit Pornographic in it's Nature to the Humanity in the Social Terms. For Which it they ()... Seem AlbeitRARY Speak to That Which Human's Can Relate to Arbitrary to their Libido. Then it is Artistic in Nature; in Accordance to it's Measure as Spoken Words Come in Pictoral Form (Pictographic) Bn.

whole (adj.) / -Ness (n.)
Old English hal "entire, whole; unhurt, uninjured, safe; healthy, sound; genuine, straightforward," from Proto-Germanic *haila- "undamaged" (source also of Old Saxon hel, Old Norse heill, Old Frisian hal, Middle Dutch hiel, Dutch heel, Old High German, German heil "salvation, welfare"), from PIE *kailo- "whole, uninjured, of good omen" (source also of Old Church Slavonic celu "whole, complete;" see health).

As an Artist Myself; I Consider that Every Picture of a Female Form taken; is Depended on the Relationship With the Opposer and and the Oppressed in Which it state's: “The universe is not for man alone, but is a theater of evolution for all living beings. Live and let live is its guiding principle. 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah' - Non-injury is the highest religion.”
― Virchand Raghavji Gandhi

Even going so Far that Paul himself said: Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. 1'st Corinthians 8:13.

In all the Estate's one may Bring offense, it will be Regardless by People's that Some Consider illicit or It Not; But on the Contrary as one's Knows/'N it to be illict; One is not to Spend out what one knows to be thus as Such, While We're back to the Conclusion that it is in the eye of the beholder, innit; We See that Humanity is either Separated and conclud-ED itself; Itself Only; Or is a Whole in Nation, Considering others in as much AS Oneself; Whole Part in that Notion and it's Society; (or Human People). Wherein their are Innocence that Stand By too in that Group of Gather.
That State One Ought not Make - "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in m[]e--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Luke-Matthew-Mark (17:2 18:6 9:42).

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

The female form has attracted the attention of artists since forever. Horses and fruit bowls somehow just don't seem to have the same magnetism. But there again -- artists in general have never really been famous for embracing the more conventional society values?

I shoot a little bit of everything myself, both video and still media. Anything from tin soup labels to lingerie catalogues. (Quite fancy those -) I even take the yearly class pictures in these parts. Only thing I won't shoot is porn. Not that there isn't plenty opportunity in my line, just not my deal.

 

[Thomas]

Yeah, what amounts to porn is not something we agreed on 5 years ago and not something we're likely agree on now.

Possibly.

There's blokes that get off on feet. Does that make manufacturers of shoes that accentuate the foot pornographers? You're right, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly.

That is, his sin not the cobbler's if what others see as merely pleasing to the eye, evokes lustful thoughts for him.

Precisely. You make my point.

Like I said 5 years ago mate, men are still men and women are still women. We haven't suddenly become asexual. All that's changed is the facade we have to put on in public these days.

'facade?' .

Don't like the program on telly? Why malign it's producer? Just change the bleeding channel. -

It's called 'going to the source'.

 

[Thomas]

The female form has attracted the attention of artists since forever.

And so has the male, in its day. But the point I am making concerns the commentary on the form. Historically the evidence is how much men owned the debate, how man has defined 'the female form', and how women were silenced, excluded, ignored or ridiculed for expressing an opinion.

Today the majority of men still think they own the debate, that the female form is theirs to do with as they choose, and the outrage they express when the female of the species offers any critique.

Look at the History of Art in the West. Where are the female artists? A very, very poor second by comparison. Is that because women lack the eye or the skill? Or maybe they lacked the opportunity?

But there again -- artists in general have never really been famous for embracing the more conventional society values?

Famously the role of art is to hold up a mirror and reflect ... And I know what you mean, but I've never looked into what proportion of artists challenge the norms, and what proportion underpin them.

It comes back to the same point: Is the artist shocking because s/he's showing us something about ourselves we'd rather not face, or is s/he shocking because s/he wants the attention?

In terms of gender politics, the histories of the religions are founded on very thin ice — the Abrahamics have in turn demonised and deified the female form, she's the cause of all man's ills, in all three Abrahamic religions the female form is heavily censored, controlled and carefully engineered; she must be covered, she must be subservient, she must at all times be responsive to the male need ... and the ideal, the goal to which all womanhood should aspire, is presented in terms of what's tantamount to an inviolate fantasy figure of male projection.

 

[RabbiO]

In all three Abrahamic religions she must be subservient, she must at all times be responsive to the male need ... and the ideal, the goal to which all womanhood should aspire, is presented in terms of what's tantamount to an inviolate fantasy figure of male projection.

Apparently you do not know many non-Orthodox Jewish men and women nor are you familiar with Judaism in its non-Orthodox expressions.

 

[Thomas]

Apparently you do not know many non-Orthodox Jewish men and women nor are you familiar with Judaism in its non-Orthodox expressions.

Quite so. I was referring to orthodoxy?

 

[Thomas]

The female form has attracted the attention of artists since forever.

Quite, and in the western tradition, those artists are, by a significant majority, male.

And if one studies the history of art, and the difficulties, impediments. Becoming an artist (and assuming a talent as given) is hard enough, for a woman it was significantly harder. Artists are notoriously self-centred and self-obsessed. Any woman, whoprofessed an interest in something other than child-birth and house-keeping was regarded with deep suspicion, if not an offence against decent morals (never mind the hypocrisy of those same who were quite willing to overlook the peccadillos of the male artist).

Regardless of talent, women were hard-pressed to get into reputable art schools.

Those who did manage to get through the doors were denied basic instruction, notably being denied access to a model (something that persisted well into the 19th century).

Women had to compete for a place in a man's world.

Many of the works of women artists were attributed to a man, or remained anonymous.

Horses and fruit bowls somehow just don't seem to have the same magnetism.

Interestingly, the records mentioning female artists show a far greater recognition and representation in Egyptian, Greek and Roman cultures. And, of equal note, the male nude attracted as much attention as the female.

The position of the woman in society generally declines from then on, and with the emergence of feudalism takes a dip, and then never really recovers.

As she is occluded, the defining narrative becomes increasingly a male-oriented mythology. Women become mere stereotypes, and at the extremes the projections of the male sexual fantasy: at one end the harlot, at the other the chaste virgin.

 

[Thomas]

... it is A SIN, to cause other's to stumble.

I agree, but this needs careful consideration.

It was a sin, for example, for a woman to raise her head, or speak out, why? Because men considered women weak, secondary creatures. And sometimes people see sin where there is none, but their own sense of doubt, or guilt ... they assume that because they sin, everyone sins ...

There was a time when to demand that slaves be set free was considered a sin, an attempt to overthrow the natural order that said the white man was superior. And today, in parts of the world, to suggest that black and white are equal is considered offensive ...

So don't Think you can say it is in the beholders eye individually ...

Oh, but you can. Too often and too easily, what is right or wrong is determined by social tides, by memes ... people follow, all manipulators understand the rule of the mob.

Consider the Kings New Clothes.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..It was a sin, for example, for a woman to raise her head, or speak out, why? Because men considered women weak, secondary creatures..

Errr .. no.
We are taught to be modest in scriptures. As ladies possess physical beauty that attracts men, they
are required NOT to attract the attention of men by displaying their 'beauty' or trying to attract
their attention in church etc.
They are not 'secondary creatures' .. without ladies, there would be no human race.
Mothers have children and usually wean them .. that is universally accepted in law.

"Machines were mice and men were lions, once upon a time,
But now it is the opposite, it's TWICE upon a time"

 

[Thomas]

Errr .. no.

Errr ... OK.

We are taught to be modest in scriptures. As ladies possess physical beauty that attracts men, they are required NOT to attract the attention of men by displaying their 'beauty' or trying to attract their attention in church etc.

OK ... so:
1: If a woman is possessed of beauty, and men cannot control their passions, it's her problem, not theirs?
2: if a woman is possessed of beauty, then that's a gift of nature, why should it be hidden?
3: Why are not men, who are similarly attractive to the woman, not obliged to mask themselves accordingly?
I could go on, but the point is, it's all from the male perspective, isn't it?

Basically, if men were raised to see women as women, and not objects of sexual gratification, then the world would be a different place.

They are not 'secondary creatures' .. without ladies, there would be no human race.

Do the restrictions on religious practice apply to men and women equally?

Mothers have children and usually wean them .. that is universally accepted in law.

But that should not necessarily impact anything else.

The female of the species menstruates, that too is an accepted universal law, but that did not stop the taboo surrounding the process.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..If a woman is possessed of beauty, and men cannot control their passions, it's her problem, not theirs?

That is rather a simplistic view. It's like saying that there should be no restrictions on gambling in a community, because people should control themselves. There is a fine line between regulation and encouragement.

..if a woman is possessed of beauty, then that's a gift of nature, why should it be hidden?

..oh, so it's ok for women to go around semi-naked, attracting attention?
Is that what you'd advise your daughter to do?
..or would you rather them be modest, and marry a person of God?

..Why are not men, who are similarly attractive to the woman, not obliged to mask themselves accordingly?

Men should behave modestly also, but quite obviously, women and men do NOT have the same nature.

Do the restrictions on religious practice apply to men and women equally?

I have no idea why you consider modern political correctness as regards to gender, as improving
relationships between men and women.
I see that the traditional "Ladies & Gentlemen" roles as treating women with consideration, being a privilege for them. Treating women like men does not look like any improvement to me.
It seems that we all 'want our cake and eat it'. Not possible, I'm afraid.
Perhaps that's why we see an increase in people wanting to change their gender ..
i.e. severe psychological trauma

 

[Thomas]

That is rather a simplistic view. It's like saying that there should be no restrictions on gambling in a community, because people should control themselves. There is a fine line between regulation and encouragement.

Sorry, I don't think the two equate at all.

Are you saying that because men can't control themselves, then women have to take responsibility for that? It's their problem? Man is the innocent, hapless and helpless victim of the female allure?

..oh, so it's ok for women to go around semi-naked, attracting attention?

I never said anything about going round semi-naked. D'you equate 'beauty' with 'nudity'?

Men should behave modestly also, but quite obviously, women and men do NOT have the same nature.

The point is that men somehow hold women responsible, and accountable, for the shortcomings of the male nature.

I have no idea why you consider modern political correctness as regards to gender, as improving relationships between men and women.

I see any gender dialogue where women are accorded equal status as an improvement.

I see that the traditional "Ladies & Gentlemen" roles as treating women with consideration, being a privilege for them.

Well I'm all for consideration, just not the male narrative by which they keep the female 'in her place'.

Treating women like men does not look like any improvement to me.

All the above statements bear no resemblance to the points I've made.

I'm not talking about treating women like men, I'm talking about treating women as equals.

It seems that we all 'want our cake and eat it'. Not possible, I'm afraid.

You mean, men have got the cake, or at least 'the lion's share', and that's the way it's gonna stay?

Perhaps that's why we see an increase in people wanting to change their gender ..
i.e. severe psychological trauma

Yep, by far and away women wanting gender reassignment as men.

 

[RJM]

The women I know are happy to be noticed and often unhappy if they're not. I suspect that is as old as the world is.

Most women like being admired by men; it's not a hardship? Although of course it can be taken to extremity and misrepresented?

 

[RJM]

Effort in one sphere can unexpectedly be beneficial in another. Nothing is ever wasted really. It just feels that way sometimes. Hard wasted times may be most useful in the end. Imo

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you saying that because men can't control themselves, then women have to take responsibility for that?

Who said anything about men "controlling themselves"?
No .. I'm not talking about rape.

The point is that men somehow hold women responsible, and accountable, for the shortcomings of the male nature.

Both men and women can be guilty of fornication or adultery.
If either sex encourage such activity, it is sinful.
A woman can do that by dressing immodestly. It is no fault of the male nature.
If males didn't have their nature, their wives would not be fulfilled.

I see any gender dialogue where women are accorded equal status as an improvement.

Depends what you mean by "equal"..
Pretending that men and women are identical is damaging to society.

Well I'm all for consideration, just not the male narrative by which they keep the female 'in her place'.

We all have to answer to somebody. A good husband consults his wife before making decisions.
Families are an important institution. No respect for authority results in non-function --> broken homes and trauma.

You mean, men have got the cake..

I think the worry right now is that unemployment is going to rise considerably due to serious recession..
What role do unemployed young men have, other than to become unstable and threatening to society?
When people talk about "equal pay", I don't think they refer to benefits!

People who are looking for worldly wealth, whether men or women, are not spiritually tuned-in.
"For the rich man to enter heaven is like the camel passing through the eye of a needle"

"To honour and obey" is not easy .. but without it, a civilisation collapses.
Christianity has lost its way in the west, and has become liberal secularism.
Spirituality has decreased, and has been replaced by consumerism .. and the planet is creaking.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

The women I know are happy to be noticed and often unhappy if they're not. I suspect that is as old as the world is.

Most women like being admired by men; it's not a hardship?

Use to have a small studio in Sydney when I was first married that we lived upstairs from. Back then the bulk of my work was boudoir photography. My clients ranged from professional models looking for some sexy shots to add to their portfolios, to everyday gals just wanting to take some sexy photos for their husbands and boyfriends.

Now as one might expect, amateur gals are usually a lot more timid than pros, but can't tell you the number of times I had to get them to turn it down a notch! I always try to keep things professional on these shoots, especially with amateurs to avoid misunderstandings. Problem is, when gals don't get the reaction they're expecting, they tend to dial it up. So there's me, "Put it away luv, ain't that kind of shoot!" -

 

[RJM]

Christianity has lost its way in the west, and has become liberal secularism.

But secularism, that's not Christianity. It's the necessary separation of church and state in a society with different faiths existing side by side with unbelievers? I agree with most of the rest of what you say though.

Spirituality has decreased, and has been replaced by consumerism .. and the planet is creaking.

I quite enjoy quiz shows and to me it's sad that the easy way to beat most under 40s is to give them a religion question, even a very basic one.

"To honour and obey" is not easy .. but without it, a civilisation collapses.

This is a tricky one -- the 'obey' part? Respect is earned, not given by right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Respect is earned, not given by right?

That's what atheists say about the worship of God Almighty.
Do you really think that the Christian marriage vow "to honour and obey" was just cultural,
and has no basis in theology?
You can't have 2 commanders .. just as you can't have 2 'gods'

 

[RJM]

Do you really think that the Christian marriage vow "to honour and obey" was just cultural,
and has no basis in theology? You ... can't have 2 commanders .

But what if the 'commander' is an adulterous, wife beater? Must scripture always be interpreted literally? It's the whole problem?