Boy! I Never had nude models when I was 14

Uncle Tommy said:

Indeed it would be objectifying both the skydivers and the alligator wrestler. But I somehow think you have missed the point, or are purposely ignoring it.

If it is acceptable to allow a 14 year old view a live nude model then there is no good reason to not allow the same 14 year old to pose as one. Assuming of course that it be legal.

Click to expand...

are you saying that seeing someone naked is the same thing as being naked? LOL logic of the prude

Wiccan_Child said:

I'd let my child view the following piece of art, but I would not let them recreate it themselves:

Click to expand...

LOL good one ;p

I think American children are given a really weird outlook on sex, like you can't talk about the practical issues involved in sexual relationships but artificial titillation is available and encouraged 24/7, and you wouldn't objectively discuss birth control or anatomy but you can make lots of crude jokes and brag about your exploits...which chances are, you don't even understand. I think kids could do with seeing nudity embraced in a non-sexual atmosphere, something basically unheard of here. They've already, at fourteen, seen nudity and sex in movies, on tv or in music videos, but they've probably never seen a body as just a ho hum undressed body not for arousal. I think it would do them good. Yes, they might fall apart giggling or feel very uncomfortable, especially girls who are usually encouraged to be extremely sexually passive and not curious, but it might result in a more mature attitude once weekly nude drawing class becomes the norm and no longer a novelty. Go for it.

Uncle Tommy said:

Indeed it would be objectifying both the skydivers and the alligator wrestler. But I somehow think you have missed the point, or are purposely ignoring it.

If it is acceptable to allow a 14 year old view a live nude model then there is no good reason to not allow the same 14 year old to pose as one. Assuming of course that it be legal.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with a naked person of any age.

What defines the difference between a 14 year old viewing naked art and a 14 year old displaying him or herself in naked art, is due to practical reasons, not intrinsic reasons. A 14 year old cannot give consent. A 14 year old is at a risk from people who are sexually attracted to children. The potential problem lies with the possibility of predators in the audience, not with the act itself. An adult posing for naked art generally has a better grasp of things and about the audience than a child would, and can form a more complete decision as to whether to model naked or not.

In short, a 14 year old viewing an adult, naked form poses no such risks compared to the other way around.



-Lyn

Not appropriate and would object.

MoonLancer said:

I can sum it up on one word. prude.

Its truly sad the knee jerk some have to nudity.

so much for classical art huh?

Click to expand...

I don't see anything prude about not supporting nude art. It is more to do with morals than anything. There is no purpose for nude art other than those people who enjoy looking at various naked people.

Daisy321 said:

I don't see anything prude about not supporting nude art. It is more to do with morals than anything. There is no purpose for nude art other than those people who enjoy looking at various naked people.

Click to expand...

Really? so skeletal studies in art are just for people who enjoy looking at bones?

Daisy321 said:

I don't see anything prude about not supporting nude art. It is more to do with morals than anything. There is no purpose for nude art other than those people who enjoy looking at various naked people.

Click to expand...

Morals aren't even a factor here. It's all about social conventions, and yes, it's pretty much the dictionary-definition of prudishness.

What Willow said.

I highly doubt 14-year-olds could get over "there's a naked person of the opposite sex in front of me," to do any real drawing or any appreciation of the innate beauty of the design of the body. Some adults can't.

MaxP said:

I highly doubt 14-year-olds could get over "there's a naked person of the opposite sex in front of me," to do any real drawing or any appreciation of the innate beauty of the design of the body. Some adults can't.

Click to expand...

And that's because these adults have been brought up to believe that it's immoral (or at the very least inevitably sexual) to look at a naked human body. Something that such art classes would help prevent.

Jane_the_Bane said:

And that's because these adults have been brought up to believe that it's immoral (or at the very least inevitably sexual) to look at a naked human body. Something that such art classes would help prevent.

Click to expand...

I wasn't brought up to believe that it was immoral to look at the naked body, I was brought up (rightfully so) that it was immoral to lust after said body when the body wasn't my spouse.

I think that falls into the issue here, that most of us really aren't sure that 14 year olds (boys, especially) probably can't look at a naked body in the artistic way. Perhaps if they are a protege they could, but I remember what we were like when I was in school, all tee-heeing and twittering about the nude body in the science book in the library.

Jane_the_Bane said:

And that's because these adults have been brought up to believe that it's immoral (or at the very least inevitably sexual) to look at a naked human body. Something that such art classes would help prevent.

Click to expand...

I doubt many of the 14 year olds whose parents would allow them to take this art class would be of the type who thought the body in and of itself is immoral. So it really prevents nothing.
According to many Christian denominations, the immorality, as Preachers Wife said, lies in the way one looks at the body. If it is done in a scientific, artistic, or analytical way, it's not immoral at all, but should one take the opportunity, as at least most 14 year old boys will, to fantasize about the model, it really benefits no one. Surely you'll grant that a nude model posed to 14 year olds will be nothing more than an object.

PreachersWife2004 said:

I wasn't brought up to believe that it was immoral to look at the naked body, I was brought up (rightfully so) that it was immoral to lust after said body when the body wasn't my spouse.

Click to expand...

Why do you say the way you were brought up was "rightfully so"?

PreachersWife2004 said:

I think that falls into the issue here, that most of us really aren't sure that 14 year olds (boys, especially) probably can't look at a naked body in the artistic way. Perhaps if they are a protege they could, but I remember what we were like when I was in school, all tee-heeing and twittering about the nude body in the science book in the library.

Click to expand...

Which is the point: the shame, privacy, and taboo, we place on the naked body is precisely why it's titillating to see one. The same feeling occurs when a teenager does anything forbidden: it's a thrill to disobey society's rules.

But we don't see this sort of thing in societies that aren't as prude as us. There are many topfree cultures, where a bare breast doesn't get a second glance. But in our culture, some people get outraged when a woman dares breastfeed in public! It's mindboggling.

Wiccan_Child said:

Why do you say the way you were brought up was "rightfully so"?

Click to expand...

Because I'm a Christian and we believe that our sexual desire should be for our spouse, not anyone else. It's one thing to look at someone and think "that's a good looking person" versus "oh man, I'd like to tap that!"

Which is the point: the shame, privacy, and taboo, we place on the naked body is precisely why it's titillating to see one. The same feeling occurs when a teenager does anything forbidden: it's a thrill to disobey society's rules.

Click to expand...

That's the allure of sin. That's what Christians are told to fight against. Society doesn't believe in fighting against it.

But we don't see this sort of thing in societies that aren't as prude as us. There are many topfree cultures, where a bare breast doesn't get a second glance. But in our culture, some people get outraged when a woman dares breastfeed in public! It's mindboggling.

Click to expand...

It's not about being prude. It's about being discreet. There's a reason why, after they sinned, Adam and Eve suddenly felt guilty about their nakedness. Oh, and while I don't get outraged when I see someone breastfeeding in public, it does depend on the situation. I've had a woman whip out her breast to feed her baby right in front of my 13 year old. That was pretty tactless, especially when there was a family nursing room 25 feet away.

I've been taught to appreciate the human body, but again, we didn't know that appreciation at 13 or 14 years old.

If nakedness is so wonderful and should be embraced by all, I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to wear clothes ever again. Obviously there's something at play here more than just people being prudish.

I've got a pretty good body, especially for having four kids, but I'm still discreet about it, and my husband is the only one who really gets to appreciate it the way it should be appreciated.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Because I'm a Christian and we believe that our sexual desire should be for our spouse, not anyone else. It's one thing to look at someone and think "that's a good looking person" versus "oh man, I'd like to tap that!"

Click to expand...

Ah, you were talking with respect to Christianity. Nevermind.

PreachersWife2004 said:

That's the allure of sin. That's what Christians are told to fight against. Society doesn't believe in fighting against it.

Click to expand...

Nudity is no more harmful to society than the shame society puts on it. Can you blame society for not being too bothered about something that has no discernible side-effects?

PreachersWife2004 said:

It's not about being prude. It's about being discreet. There's a reason why, after they sinned, Adam and Eve suddenly felt guilty about their nakedness.

Click to expand...

Is there any reason besides the fear of lust? If not, why would Adam and Eve feel guilty? Surely they, the original married couple, are allowed to lust after one another?

PreachersWife2004 said:

Oh, and while I don't get outraged when I see someone breastfeeding in public, it does depend on the situation. I've had a woman whip out her breast to feed her baby right in front of my 13 year old. That was pretty tactless, especially when there was a family nursing room 25 feet away.

Click to expand...

Why was it tactless? It's one of the most natural things the human body can do besides birth itself, and I'd be surprised if you considered it sexual. Yes, it's a breast, but a nursing mother is rarely a sex object, even to hormone-riddled teenagers.

PreachersWife2004 said:

If nakedness is so wonderful and should be embraced by all, I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to wear clothes ever again. Obviously there's something at play here more than just people being prudish.

Click to expand...

Clothing originally developed as a way to keep warm, dry, and comfy: animal furs from leftover hunts would suffice. Then it just became a societal norm that continues to this day.

Nakedness is wonderful, but it doesn't have to be embraced by everyone. I personally like wearing clothes.

They hides me flab .

PreachersWife2004 said:

I've got a pretty good body, especially for having four kids, but I'm still discreet about it, and my husband is the only one who really gets to appreciate it the way it should be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Do you think that an ugly person should be less discreet?

Wiccan_Child said:

Ah, you were talking with respect to Christianity. Nevermind.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Pretty much any perspective I post is gonna be towards the Christian one.

Nudity is no more harmful to society than the shame society puts on it. Can you blame society for not being too bothered about something that has no discernible side-effects?

Click to expand...

Of course nudity isn't harmful to society. The sin that can be associated with it is. Frankly, I don't care what society has to say about it, so long as I'm not required to walk around naked, or that my kids aren't exposed (heh...) to it when I'm not around.

Is there any reason besides the fear of lust? If not, why would Adam and Eve feel guilty? Surely they, the original married couple, are allowed to lust after one another?

Click to expand...

I think lust is the wrong word when we're talking about attractions to our spouse. I like to use the word desire. Lust is generally a sinful emotion, like lusting after our neighbor's wife. Adam and Eve felt guilty because they were no longer in God's image - they had broken his one commandment and they were now feeling the guilt of their sin.

Why was it tactless? It's one of the most natural things the human body can do besides birth itself, and I'd be surprised if you considered it sexual. Yes, it's a breast, but a nursing mother is rarely a sex object, even to hormone-riddled teenagers.

Click to expand...

Hey, I breastfed in public too...but I was discreet about it. I covered up and let my baby feed in peace. When I know women can be discreet about it (for heaven's sake, just use a blanket!!) the women who aren't discreet about it annoy me. And when I say she just whipped it out, I mean she just whipped it out. No covering, nothing. It's got nothing to do with anything sexual, it has everything to do with taste and decorum. Peeing is natural and vital, but you don't see the guys whipping it out in the mall fountain.

Clothing originally developed as a way to keep warm, dry, and comfy: animal furs from leftover hunts would suffice. Then it just became a societal norm that continues to this day.

Click to expand...

That would be a non-biblical view, yes. But the first clothing line ever was a couple of fig leaves strategically placed and that fashion line just evolved from there.

Nakedness is wonderful, but it doesn't have to be embraced by everyone. I personally like wearing clothes.

They hides me flab .

Click to expand...

I totally hear ya. (Not that you have flab. I wouldn't know. I tend to envision everyone as skinny people.)

Do you think that an ugly person should be less discreet?

Click to expand...

Not really sure that has anything to do with my point. I was just saying that even though I have a decent enough body, I don't parade it around town for the world to see. Besides that, I don't categorize people as ugly - only their attitudes.

Wicked Willow said:

Morals aren't even a factor here. It's all about social conventions, and yes, it's pretty much the dictionary-definition of prudishness.

Click to expand...

I dare to differ with you. Morality has much to do with the issue of public nudity be it displayed in a art class for 14 yr olds or whomever. A person is not prude over nudity because they don't believe such nude art is appropriate. A person can fully enjoy nudity within it's proper place such as within the context of marriage and with one's spouse. What's different between those who support nude art and those who do not is different moral values and beliefs. A dictionary does not define morality or what is right from wrong, but God does. Choosing to live by God's laws and instruction is not being prude it's being obedient and christian.

Washington said:

So, what do you think: would you allow your 14 yo daughter to gaze at a naked man, or let your son carefully look over a naked woman? Appropriate offering for kids this age or not?

Click to expand...

I remember the first time I had an art class that had a nude model. I was 19, and I didn't know exactly what to expect. The thing I remember most is how unsexual the whole experience was. I thought it'd be more titillating or exciting, and was surprised at how ordinary and mundane it all was. For all of you who think a 14 year old couldn't get over the fact that there's a naked body in front of them, all I can say is sit in on one session and see if you think the same thing afterward.

As with most issues with minors and education, I think the final call should be up to the parents and they should have the ability to opt their child in or out of such activities. Plus this is an Arts school, where students actually do intensive study in this area, which is so not the same as a regular public school. It truly is not nearly as big a deal as you might think. And while 14 year olds are not always known for their good judgment and behavior, it's not like anyone is going to act like a jerk in front of their peers. The whole situation is really not that arousing. Honestly. So not a big deal.