How about this argument.

How do people control their lust, when they are all together, naked? Doesn't the Bible say it's wrong?<P>Only Native Residents may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

How about this argument.

Postby Bare_Truth » Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:53 pm

This forum has been "asleep" and undisturbed for the last 4 years, but I guess the forum title "The Lust Factor" makes it the appropriate place for this question.

We have all heard the argument that goes something like this:
The problem with mixed gender groups of naked people is that just seeing the opposite sex with their "privates" exposed will incite people to illicit sexual activity!


Well then, if that argument is valid then would not the following also be true:
The problem with all these animals being around naked is that just seeing animals with exposed genitals will incite people to bestiality!


On the face of it, it seems to be a pretty good analogy, but how useful as an argument is it? It certainly packs a logical punch which is amplified by its "Ewww Factor" :shock: . What say you? Where can you see yourself using it?
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: How about this argument.

Postby Petros » Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:26 am

The problem is - as it always is - that people in general [I admit there are exceptions] use logic as a stepping stone to get from the bank of where they sre to the greener shrass of whare they want to go. It is rare indeed, even [I could almost say "especially"] in academia, that logic is seen as a path to stroll down to see where it may lead you. DO not attempt o confuse me with facts or unsolicited logic, my mind is made up with hospital corners.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: How about this argument.

Postby Larryk1052 » Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:11 am

I agree with you, petros, once people have had their minds made up logic and facts don't matter. This is a problem with human nature. Sin has corrupted our ability all to often to rightly look at a matter.


As for the analogy, I don't think it works because most people are not sexually attracted to animals. While most people are attracted to the opposite sex.
Larry in Kentucky

"Nude" just means barefoot all over.
User avatar
Larryk1052
Native Resident
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: How about this argument.

Postby Jon-Marc » Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:57 pm

Too often people judge how others would react to nudity by how they react to it themselves. I have never had any problem with lust--even as a non-Christian teen. Maybe I'm the exception but I doubt it.
The Righteousness of Christ--the ONLY clothing I need.
User avatar
Jon-Marc
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Jacumba, CA

Re: How about this argument.

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:09 pm

Larryk1052 wrote:As for the analogy, I don't think it works because most people are not sexually attracted to animals. While most people are attracted to the opposite sex.

Well, I do not deny your point, but speaking non-sexually, many people are attracted to other humans and many are attracted to animals. The false allegation is that clothing suppresses illicit sexual attractions. The truth of the matter is that proper channeling of our sexual urges/desires/attractions is accomplished through proper training of the mind. Pornography and licentiousness, on the other hand, are due to misdirection of our minds.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: How about this argument.

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:22 pm

Jon-Marc wrote: .... I have never had any problem with lust--even as a non-Christian teen. ...
Lucky you.!
My misdirection about sex started when after my mother told us children, that if we ever had any questions about sex, that we could come to her for answers, and then when I did she told me that I was too young to be asking such questions. :?. So then I had to look elsewhere for information.

My restraint on adolescent excess arose from a conviction that I would never want to risk that I could have children "out there somewhere" that I could not be a parent to. I don't know if that is a rare "anti wild oats" thing for my generation, but I never heard anyone else assert that viewpoint, and always figured that I was a bit weird (which is probably true to some extent). The temptation certainly was present but the aversion held out. It was not anything I perceived as being really religiously based at the time, I just thought it would be very sad and very wrong. Real religious conviction came later.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: How about this argument.

Postby jochanaan » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:13 pm

It seems to me that clothes never really stopped anyone from "doing it"--at least, not for more than a minute or so. :lol:
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: How about this argument.

Postby Larryk1052 » Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:34 pm

If clothing controled lust and immoral sexual activity, then we wouldn't have the sexaul probelms we have in our culture.
Larry in Kentucky

"Nude" just means barefoot all over.
User avatar
Larryk1052
Native Resident
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: How about this argument.

Postby natman » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:19 am

The truth of the matter is that clothing are designed to INSTILL lust, not suppress it. That is why we pay our fashion designers so much, especially those who design clothing that is "revealing" without being "revealing", to get us as close to the edge as possible without going over. They are designed to bring the eye to the very hem, forcing us to ask, "Why did they stop THERE? Oh but for just one more half inch!"

The monotony and imperfections of the human body in broad daylight is simply NOT that appealing in and of itself. That is why God created pheromones etc., something to get past merely the eyes.

We have been given a bag of goods from God, but we much prefer the bag.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7257
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: How about this argument.

Postby jochanaan » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:23 pm

natman wrote:...The monotony and imperfections of the human body in broad daylight is simply NOT that appealing in and of itself. That is why God created pheromones etc., something to get past merely the eyes...
I'm not sure I agree with that. To those of us who have learned to see beauty in every human form, nakedness only increases our perception of that beauty--a beauty that has little to do with sexual attractiveness and everything to do with our loving our neighbors as ourselves. :)
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: How about this argument.

Postby natman » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:14 pm

jochanaan wrote:
natman wrote:...The monotony and imperfections of the human body in broad daylight is simply NOT that appealing in and of itself. That is why God created pheromones etc., something to get past merely the eyes...
I'm not sure I agree with that. To those of us who have learned to see beauty in every human form, nakedness only increases our perception of that beauty--a beauty that has little to do with sexual attractiveness and everything to do with our loving our neighbors as ourselves. :)


I did not mean to imply that there is no beauty in the human body, for there most certainly is, especially in knowing that we are each created in the "image and likeness of God". What I mean to say is that if everyone were nude 100% of the time, there would be little to draw our attention to certain parts of the body in the same way clothing is designed to do.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7257
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: How about this argument.

Postby jochanaan » Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:50 am

natman wrote:
jochanaan wrote:
natman wrote:...The monotony and imperfections of the human body in broad daylight is simply NOT that appealing in and of itself. That is why God created pheromones etc., something to get past merely the eyes...
I'm not sure I agree with that. To those of us who have learned to see beauty in every human form, nakedness only increases our perception of that beauty--a beauty that has little to do with sexual attractiveness and everything to do with our loving our neighbors as ourselves. :)


I did not mean to imply that there is no beauty in the human body, for there most certainly is, especially in knowing that we are each created in the "image and likeness of God". What I mean to say is that if everyone were nude 100% of the time, there would be little to draw our attention to certain parts of the body in the same way clothing is designed to do.
That I can agree with! 8)
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver


Return to The lust factor

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron