Boy! I Never had nude models when I was 14

[Wicked Willow]

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.

And here it is again, the point Wiccan_Child and I wanted to get across:
people who are used to public nudity, either by attending nudist sites or by coming from a culture that doesn't place a taboo upon it, do not feel any more tempted by a naked person than by a clothed one. Nudity can be as utterly asexual as the blandest clothing out there. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that a certain amount of clothing that draws attention to certain areas of the body is MUCH more suggestive than plain nudity. I can still pretty much remember the point of my life at which I was literally TRAINED to consider nudity a taboo - before that, I didn't have the slightest qualms about it.

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.

The latter has much more to do with hygiene than with anything else. And again, you pretty much touch upon the point we were trying to make, without quite seeming to grasp it: there is nothing inherently or essentially indecent or sexual about the naked female breast. It's just a random societal taboo placed upon it by some societies - just like, say, HAIR is considered highly erotic and indecent by traditional muslim societies. The very fact that you feel offended by it just demonstrates how highly neurotic American culture has become at this point with regards to the human body, feeling the need to hide even the slightest traces of it.

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.

Actually, that was just an attempt at hiding, and nothing in the way of permanent clothing. The Biblical view pretty much declares that God invented leather/pelts: Gen 3,21: "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."
Interestingly enough, the European taboos associated with nudity (which you Americans inherited with a vengeance) saw to it that most paintings of paradise show Adam and Eve covering themselves with fig leaves even BEFORE they've tasted of the fruit. It just goes to show where this particular tradition of prudery originally came from, I suppose.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

Most people are not exposed to nude models until later on in their art education. My art teacher in college explained it that adults generally have a better appreciation of the naked body and a finer eye than a youth would. It makes for better drawing basically.

If someone gave me a nude model to draw, I'd still draw stick figures.

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.

I can agree here, and only because the school is an art school and I can only assume that the kids that are attending there are actually interested in art and are not going to see the nudity as something sexual.

I would have concerns if this were a normal middle or high school and the art class happened to have a nude model.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And here it is again, the point Wiccan_Child and I wanted to get across:
people who are used to public nudity, either by attending nudist sites or by coming from a culture that doesn't place a taboo upon it, do not feel any more tempted by a naked person than by a clothed one. Nudity can be as utterly asexual as the blandest clothing out there. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that a certain amount of clothing that draws attention to certain areas of the body is MUCH more suggestive than plain nudity. I can still pretty much remember the point of my life at which I was literally TRAINED to consider nudity a taboo - before that, I didn't have the slightest qualms about it.

Of course...anyone exposed to it for long periods of time are going to be desensitized to it. I also doubt that you'll find many Christians going to nudist beaches and colonies. There is a moral factor here, one that I don't expect society to get. Just because we don't like parading around naked doesn't make us prudes.

The latter has much more to do with hygiene than with anything else. And again, you pretty much touch upon the point we were trying to make, without quite seeming to grasp it: there is nothing inherently or essentially indecent or sexual about the naked female breast. It's just a random societal taboo placed upon it by some societies - just like, say, HAIR is considered highly erotic and indecent by traditional muslim societies. The very fact that you feel offended by it just demonstrates how highly neurotic American culture has become at this point with regards to the human body, feeling the need to hide even the slightest traces of it.

It has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with common sense. Like I said, it's perfectly natural to pee. Everyone does it - it is a basic and necessary function. Yet we don't just squat and let it go in public. There's proper places to do that. Same with breastfeeding. I'm not offended because women breastfeed in public (I did, too) I'm offended when they can't use common sense and decide to just whip it out in plain view for everyone to see. I believe that breastfeeding is a wonderful bonding moment that should be done between a mother and her child, in the most private setting possible. I LOVE malls that have the separate nursing rooms because that is just such a better atmosphere for breast feeding.

But I'm derailing the thread. I don't view breastfeeding as anything sexual. It's about being in public. When it was just me and the babies at home, I didn't bother to cover up because I didn't need to, but when I was in public, out of respect for others, I did.

Actually, that was just an attempt at hiding, and nothing in the way of permanent clothing. The Biblical view pretty much declares that God invented leather/pelts: Gen 3,21: "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."
Interestingly enough, the European taboos associated with nudity (which you Americans inherited with a vengeance) saw to it that most paintings of paradise show Adam and Eve covering themselves with fig leaves even BEFORE they've tasted of the fruit. It just goes to show where this particular tradition of prudery originally came from, I suppose.

I see a lot of paintings where they're not covered up. And they're tastefully done. But the point is, they covered themselves because they felt guilty. And why did they feel guilty? Because they went against God.

 

[MaxP]

And here it is again, the point Wiccan_Child and I wanted to get across:
people who are used to public nudity, either by attending nudist sites or by coming from a culture that doesn't place a taboo upon it, do not feel any more tempted by a naked person than by a clothed one. Nudity can be as utterly asexual as the blandest clothing out there. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that a certain amount of clothing that draws attention to certain areas of the body is MUCH more suggestive than plain nudity. I can still pretty much remember the point of my life at which I was literally TRAINED to consider nudity a taboo - before that, I didn't have the slightest qualms about it.

It seems to me you are making many assumptions about the people of cultures you are not intimately familiar with, as well as the inner workings of minds that are not your own.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Which sin is associated with nudity? Or rather, which sin is associated with nudity that society itself didn't put there? Lust, I'd wager, comes from the oversexualisation of the nude form. You don't see African men going wild when they see yet another bare chest, but, in the Western society, breasts are sexualised.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Actually, you do: there are many instances in even our society where taboos are more relaxed and public urination is acceptable. But if we're talking about the morality of exposing children to nudity, then we've come full circle: if the only thing wrong with public breastfeeding is taste and decorum, and not with sexuality, then it is simply society's arbitrary taboos that make us cringe at the mere sight of a nipple.

That is, breastfeeding, while exposing the breast to the public, isn't immoral. Which is the point.

Hurrah.

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.

Ah, but if Adam and Eve were ashamed that they had fallen from God's Image, and not because of lust, then why should we follow suit? If the only gripe is lust, then we should change society's views of the naked body, not cover it all up.

Personally, I couldn't stand to be in a burqa all day.

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.

I was referring back to lust: if an attractive person covers up to avoid inciting lust in others, an unattractive person can go nude without causing the same sin. They are, after all, unattractive.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I was referring back to lust: if an attractive person covers up to avoid inciting lust in others, an unattractive person can go nude without causing the same sin. They are, after all, unattractive.

To whom, though? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

My friend liked big girls. And when I say big, I mean big. A lot of people don't find that attractive, but my friend sure did, and he would encourage his girlfriends to wear bikinis because he liked looking at them.

Nudity for me isn't so much about morality, because as you guys pointed out, sometimes clothing is much more provocative. But again, there's a huge difference between oggling a body and appreciating a body. I tend to believe that most art classes are going to have people appreciating the body rather than oggling it.

And no, breastfeeding in public is not immoral, but there are still proper ways of doing it. And here in the US, peeing in public can get you a ticket - if you're doing it anywhere near where kids are, it can get you a sure pass to the sex offenders list.

 

[ttreg]

I think it is just fine.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't see anything prude about not supporting nude art.

That's the definition of prudery.

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.

It's understanding anatomy, especially live sketching.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

My art teacher said that in order to fully be able to paint people, you had to be able to understand what was going on underneath the clothes as well. I can agree with that. I have nothing against nude models in an art class, with appropriate students.

I'm just not so sure 14 year olds are appropriate students, even if it is at an art school. I'm just not convinced. I'm not going to say that the school is wrong, but I just can't give blanket approval to it, either.

It's not a class I would allow my 13 year old to take.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My art teacher said that in order to fully be able to paint people, you had to be able to understand what was going on underneath the clothes as well. I can agree with that. I have nothing against nude models in an art class, with appropriate students.

I'm just not so sure 14 year olds are appropriate students, even if it is at an art school. I'm just not convinced. I'm not going to say that the school is wrong, but I just can't give blanket approval to it, either.

It's not a class I would allow my 13 year old to take.

Understood. And respected. This is why 13 year olds have parents, lol.


I've already stated my pov on this - WAY back somewhere in this thread. IMHO, most 14 year old guys would GET the context here, and it's NOT sexual. Now, I agree that guys are wired to embrace ANYTHING as sexual (including 64 year old guys), but we're also pretty darn good at noting context. This model is not being sexual, the context is not sexual, there's NOTHING provacative or sexual going on here - my guess is 90% of 14 year old guys would fully embrace that, and accept the situation as such.

UM (maybe I shouldn't say this) but I dobut there are any 14 year old guys who haven't seen a nude female (although perhaps not personally). It's just not going to be a big deal. Maybe it SHOULD be, but it's not. And again, the CONTEXT makes for all the difference in the world. Another point (speaking as a former 14 year old, extremely healthy guy, lol), a cute girl in a bikini at the pool of the neighbor is probably a LOT more sexually arosing to him than some professional model in an art class. Although, guys can get terribly arosed looking at a parking lot.

Going back to the opening post: GOOD parents know their kids. Including teen boys. That's just ONE good reason why this college should (if it didn't) require parental okay. And GOOD teens (are there any, lol?) know that. There were times (and not so isolated) when I disagreed with my parents - but honored their wishes (even when I could have gotten away with not doing so) because I accepted their perspective. I honored it MOST when I understood WHY they said what they did - even if I disagreed with it.


Just my $0.00 on that.




.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To whom, though? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

My friend liked big girls. And when I say big, I mean big. A lot of people don't find that attractive, but my friend sure did, and he would encourage his girlfriends to wear bikinis because he liked looking at them.

True, there are people who are attracted to things most other people aren't. But, if there was a person for whom there was no corresponding fetishist, would their be no sin attached to their nudity?

Nudity for me isn't so much about morality, because as you guys pointed out, sometimes clothing is much more provocative. But again, there's a huge difference between oggling a body and appreciating a body. I tend to believe that most art classes are going to have people appreciating the body rather than oggling it.

Precisely: in an art class, even one taken by teenagers, the nude form can be appreciated when it is no longer seen as a simply sexual object. For that to happen, society needs to change its attitudes to nudity.

And no, breastfeeding in public is not immoral, but there are still proper ways of doing it. And here in the US, peeing in public can get you a ticket - if you're doing it anywhere near where kids are, it can get you a sure pass to the sex offenders list.

And I thought we Brits were the prudes .

 

[PreachersWife2004]

True, there are people who are attracted to things most other people aren't. But, if there was a person for whom there was no corresponding fetishist, would their be no sin attached to their nudity?

The sin isn't attached to the nudity, it's attached to someone's reaction to it. Our bible tells us that we shouldn't be stumbling blocks to others. It's kinda like the same reason I tend to not drink alcohol around people I know are alcoholics.

Precisely: in an art class, even one taken by teenagers, the nude form can be appreciated when it is no longer seen as a simply sexual object. For that to happen, society needs to change its attitudes to nudity.

I think that needs to be qualified, though. I don't think you could just slap together a class of high school boys and throw a nude model in there and think all the guys are going to appreciate it.

And I thought we Brits were the prudes .

Hardly! Just because your accent is all prim and proper and stuff!

In all honestly, the thought of peeing in public like that makes me want to puke, but I've actually peed au natural a couple times on the golf course...which is a bit different than peeing in the public fountain, but the concept still applies.

I actually do know someone who was placed on the sex offender's list because he got drunk, was still drunk the following morning and proceeded to pee on his neighbor's tree. It just so happened that there was an early education center across the street and someone from there called to report it. Not really thinking about the consequences, my friend admitted that yes, he did pee on his neighbor's tree and that he was drunk at the time. He figured he'd get hit with a citation for the peeing and the being drunk. Never once did he think he'd get put on the offender's list. But...he's there. It's one of the reasons I think the list is stupid, but that's another thread for another day!!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The sin isn't attached to the nudity, it's attached to someone's reaction to it. Our bible tells us that we shouldn't be stumbling blocks to others. It's kinda like the same reason I tend to not drink alcohol around people I know are alcoholics.

I think that needs to be qualified, though. I don't think you could just slap together a class of high school boys and throw a nude model in there and think all the guys are going to appreciate it.

True, but like I said, it requires a change in societal taboos. Teenagers raised in topfree countries will appreciate a nude female more easily than those in Western countries, simply because the breasts are no longer a hidden titillation.

But then, I'm not one for convention or tradition. There should be a World Nudity Day, where all the world's laws on nudity are abolished!

 

[Wicked Willow]

But then, I'm not one for convention or tradition. There should be a World Nudity Day, where all the world's laws on nudity are abolished!

Actually, such a day would only reinforce the taboo, as it would serve the same function as other taboo-breaking traditions: defusing pent-up tensions created by the taboo and reinforcing it for the rest of the "normal" year.

Now, to the Christians: I've said it before, but will state it once more in a straightforward fashion. In order to understand what Wiccan_Child and I are trying to say, just think of the taboos in the muslim world, particularly those associated with female hair. For a pious muslim (particularly one who hasn't come into close contact with the non-muslim world), uncovered female heads might very well trigger the same reaction as an uncovered female breast in the United States. It is considered indecent, inappropriate, even as a possible temptation for "sins of the flesh".

Not because it essentially is, but because their culture and religion has projected this meaning upon it. The same applies to nudity. A hundred and fifty years ago, Janet Jackson could have created a HUGE scandal simply by taking off her gloves on the stage, or revealing her ankle. Or, for that matter, taking off her bonnet.
Taboos are pretty arbitrary, and there is nothing inherently sexual or indecent about naked breasts - only what our culture projects.

 

[trt]

Came across this interesting little offering from the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

2008 - 2009 Pre-College Saturday School
The Pre-College Saturday School at The University of the Arts has been providing quality arts education to Philadelphia area students for more than 100 years.

About the Pre-College Saturday School: The Pre-College Saturday School at The University of the Arts offers college-level courses designed specifically for high school students in grades 9 through 12. Courses are offered in fine arts, crafts, design, media, writing, and communication.

Nude Models
Many of the Pre-College Saturday School courses use nude models to help students build a strong foundation of observational skills. Students should anticipate the use of nude models in the following courses: Drawing I, Drawing II, Painting I, Painting II, Portfolio Preparation, Figure Drawing, Figure Sculpture, and Watercolor Painting. Students are expected to behave with maturity and professionalism in the presence of a model.

source​

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?

Yes I would, it's Art (to me).