Nearly bare-chested Blogger Beauty denied entrance to the Louvre ...!

[2PhiloVoid]

I honestly don't understand your objection to my question. What's the "moral dilemma" if it isn't about showing cleavage?

I didn't object to your question. I'm objecting to your re-positioning of the contexts. We're not talking about the generalized principle of just any woman in the world showing 'cleavage' anywhere at any time. No, we're talking in this thread about this particular and exact person who has decided to indiscriminately wear whatever darn well pleases her to wear; but we're not talking about a native African woman living in one of the many various tribes of Africa whose culture see's bared breasts on a daily basis.

So, let's maintain the essential and original context here.

And like I told you before, if you only want responses that accept Christianity as a premise, you should be posting in the sections just for Christians. The only input us dirty heathens are going to have isn't going to have anything to do with the Bible. If you don't want to hear questions and answers that aren't Christian in nature, why post outside of the "Christians only" sections?

Sometimes, I wonder about your ability to read contexts, Nick.

For one, she isn't in Australia. Secondly, the rules of the Louvre are what they are, and I'm thinking she just wanted to use her visit there as an opportunity to "showcase" and flaunt her stuff in a famous French milieu. Thirdly, if the World wants to end up letting her do whatever the heck it is she wants to do with her own so-called 'morality' show so she can brazenly show off her stuff, then so be it. But let's not pretend that the Christian view of her escapade in visiting the entrance of the Louvre AND her follow-up act of posting her complaint for the world to hear about is anything other than what it would appear to be: vanity, indiscreet vanity, probably of the type that is meant to push present boundaries, using the internet to gain a popularity vote for her own seeming plight of being victimized by unfair treatment.

Am I wrong? Or is my gripe ruffling people's feathers here because..... oh my, "we know you're really a hypocrite, 2PV, and we think you should just shut your trap!"

 

[Occams Barber]

I didn't object to your question. I'm objecting to your re-positioning of the contexts. We're not talking about the generalized principle of just any woman in the world showing 'cleavage' anywhere at any time. No, we're talking in this thread about this particular and exact person who has decided to indiscriminately wear whatever darn well pleases her to wear; but we're not talking about a native African woman living in one of the many various tribes of Africa whose culture see's bared breasts on a daily basis.

So, let's maintain the essential and original context here.

Sometimes, I wonder about your ability to read contexts, Nick.

For one, she isn't in Australia. Secondly, the rules of the Louvre are what they are, and I'm thinking she just wanted to use her visit there as an opportunity to "showcase" and flaunt her stuff in a famous French milieu. Thirdly, if the World wants to end up letting her do whatever the heck it is she wants to do with her own so-called 'morality' show so she can brazenly show off her stuff, then so be it. But let's not pretend that the Christian view of her escapade in visiting the entrance of the Louvre AND her follow-up act of posting her complaint for the world to hear about is anything other than what it would appear to be: vanity, indiscreet vanity, probably of the type that is meant to push present boundaries, using the internet to gain a popularity vote for her own seeming plight of being victimized by unfair treatment.

Am I wrong? Or is my gripe ruffling people's feathers here because..... oh my, "we know you're really a hypocrite, 2PV, and we think you should just shut your trap!"

No Phil You're not a hypocrite. You're what we call a "wowser';
"Wowser" is a term that originated as a slang expression; it is most commonly heard in Australian and New Zealand English. "Wowser" refers to a person who seeks to deprive others of behaviour deemed to be immoral or "sinful". Wikipedia

You're also being unfair to Nick with this intemperate little outburst. Since Nick isn't a Christian, your Christian take is not relevant to him which is what he very clearly explained to you.

This line is particularly insulting:

"Sometimes, I wonder about your ability to read contexts, Nick."​

In my book you owe Nick an apology.

As an aside : your take on the young lady's motives is irrelevant to the issue.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No Phil You're not a hypocrite. You're what we call a "wowser';
"Wowser" is a term that originated as a slang expression; it is most commonly heard in Australian and New Zealand English. "Wowser" refers to a person who seeks to deprive others of behaviour deemed to be immoral or "sinful". Wikipedia

You're also being unfair to Nick with this intemperate little outburst. Since Nick isn't a Christian, your Christian take is not relevant to him which is what he very clearly explained to you.

This line is particularly insulting:

"Sometimes, I wonder about your ability to read contexts, Nick."​

In my book you owe Nick an apology.

As an aside : your take on the young lady's motives is irrelevant to the issue.

OB

I'm not apologizing since I simply made a statement that isn't insulting but pressing for consistency on his part. And I don't think I'm a "wowser" either.

The reason I say this is that simply offering a moral, Christian critique on a public forum isn't really "depriving" others of behavior which I (or maybe God, really) deem to be ill fit for humanity. I mean, it's NOT like I'm the one who made up my point of view. But, if non-Christians want to apply some kind of epithet to someone relatively harmless like, say, John the Baptist, or to a person like myself who thinks it's appropriate to spout a biblically oriented moral critique about some gal from Australia who flaunts herself by wearing her liberty to the Louvre, then by all means, call me a "wowser."

No, what I think is that some of you are surprised that anyone actually 'believes' this Christianity stuff and you're just shocked that anyone would dare to open their mouth in straight-line fashion and call a spade a spade.

Or maybe some people get confused between a lowly guy like myself who has no influence and who will never have any political power, really, and a guy who runs around leading the Republican party in the U.S.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think in the Uk, in London say, she wouldn’t have been stopped - we Brits are just too inclined to be reasonable about, well, pretty much everything. The French I have to admit do have more class - it’s not just about her dress, I would say it’s more about the expectation that women have some class and some self-respect. I would suggest that the guard was motivated but both of those ideas.

And here I thought British women were known for having class! You mean to tell me that the French have more class than the Brits? I mean, anything is possible I guess.

OR......maybe what's really going on is the folks at the Louvre thought that the outfit worn by this gal from Australia would detract museum patrons from paying homage to one of their more famous paintings, like "Liberty Leading the People," by French artist Eugène Delacroix.

 

[Tom 1]

And here I thought British women were known for having class! You mean to tell me that the French have more class than the Brits? I mean, anything is possible I guess.

OR......maybe what's really going on is the folks at the Louvre thought that the outfit worn by this gal from Australia would detract museum patrons from paying homage to one of their more famous paintings, like "Liberty Leading the People," by French artist Eugène Delacroix.

I doubt it. It’s about respect and maturity, and realising that having some half baked blog doesn’t make a person the centre of the universe.

 

[SummerMadness]

Her dress isn't showing cleavage, a plunged neckline is a bare-chest dress, which is against their dress code. I went to the Louvre this past summer, there is nudity in some of the paintings, but there is a difference between nudity in art versus provocative clothing meant for sex appeal.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't object to your question. I'm objecting to your re-positioning of the contexts. We're not talking about the generalized principle of just any woman in the world showing 'cleavage' anywhere at any time. No, we're talking in this thread about this particular and exact person who has decided to indiscriminately wear whatever darn well pleases her to wear; but we're not talking about a native African woman living in one of the many various tribes of Africa whose culture see's bared breasts on a daily basis.

So, let's maintain the essential and original context here.

Okay, so moral relativity is your game. That's fine. Why is it immoral to show cleavage at The Louvre?

Sometimes, I wonder about your ability to read contexts, Nick.

For one, she isn't in Australia. Secondly, the rules of the Louvre are what they are, and I'm thinking she just wanted to use her visit there as an opportunity to "showcase" and flaunt her stuff in a famous French milieu. Thirdly, if the World wants to end up letting her do whatever the heck it is she wants to do with her own so-called 'morality' show so she can brazenly show off her stuff, then so be it. But let's not pretend that the Christian view of her escapade in visiting the entrance of the Louvre AND her follow-up act of posting her complaint for the world to hear about is anything other than what it would appear to be: vanity, indiscreet vanity, probably of the type that is meant to push present boundaries, using the internet to gain a popularity vote for her own seeming plight of being victimized by unfair treatment.

See the bolded part? You're still harping on her attire as if morality has something to do with it. Explain that to me. If all you have is "I interpret the Bible to be against it with no rational reason outside of that" then just say so. Otherwise, explain to me, without having to appeal to the Bible, what morality has to do with how revealing someone's outfit is.

Am I wrong? Or is my gripe ruffling people's feathers here because..... oh my, "we know you're really a hypocrite, 2PV, and we think you should just shut your trap!"

I dunno if you're a hypocrite or not. Do you ever go around shirtless in public?

I'm not apologizing since I simply made a statement that isn't insulting but pressing for consistency on his part.

No apology necessary. If you need to vent your frustrations at me about how this woman has offended you, feel free. You really can't hurt my feelings, so don't worry. Let it all out, Philo. It isn't my feathers that are getting ruffled.

 

[Moral Orel]

Her dress isn't showing cleavage, a plunged neckline is a bare-chest dress, which is against their dress code. I went to the Louvre this past summer, there is nudity in some of the paintings, but there is a difference between nudity in art versus provocative clothing meant for sex appeal.

And just what is the pertinent difference between the two?

 

[Occams Barber]

What we’re arguing here is not good vs bad or right vs wrong – it’s about culture.

The US has a collective reputation for being prudish and formal. Add to this is an overwhelmingly Christian majority with the rather awkward Christian attitude to sexuality and the female body and you get what those of us outside the US see as a painfully moralistic attitude. @2PhiloVoid is a classic product of this culture.

For others who are either not Christian or not American (or not either) this attitude comes across as strange. At one time I put this attitude down to cold weather but Scandinavian attitudes to sex and nudity suggest that this is not the cause. I suspect that the US attitude is a function of the influence of its own peculiar versions of puritanical Christianity.

The issue here is not that I’m right or you’re right or they’re right. Within the boundaries of our own particular culture we’re all ‘right’. I would argue however that there is no intrinsic rightness or wrongness about sex or exposing the human body. A highly judgemental society, like the US, is simply exposing its own anxieties and a collective immaturity.
OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I doubt it. It’s about respect and maturity, and realising that having some half baked blog doesn’t make a person the centre of the universe.

That's an excellent point, Tom!

 

[Tom 1]

That's an excellent point, Tom!

As OB said I think it is a cultural issue, to some extent anyway. When I was at college one of the guys I shared a house with was from Ghana, he had relatives out in the styx there where women walked around bare-chested - there it was just the norm, and, so he told me, not sexual. Not in Paris, tho, the Louvre curates some of world’s oldest and greatest art, some of the most significant cultural objects people have ever created. While French society might not be big on sexual morals they are known for elegance, class, a certain propriety and decorum in ways that are important as far as they go - just walking into the Louvre with your boobs (if you have them) hanging out is just childish and a bit moronic, I think, certainly a bit too self-important, the whole ‘look at me’ of it. If some old dude with a beer belly in short shorts and a string vest pitched up at the door pretty sure he’d get turned away too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, so moral relativity is your game. That's fine. Why is it immoral to show cleavage at The Louvre?

Off hand, I don't know, but I'll do us both a favor and show the Louvre's policies [here]

See the bolded part? You're still harping on her attire as if morality has something to do with it. Explain that to me. If all you have is "I interpret the Bible to be against it with no rational reason outside of that" then just say so. Otherwise, explain to me, without having to appeal to the Bible, what morality has to do with how revealing someone's outfit is.

Without having to appeal to the Bible? Why on earth would a Christian's sense of "morality" not be at least partially, even if not fully, informed by the influence and conceptual shaping that comes by way of God's Word?

...so carrying on, then, and still biblically speaking, we are our brother's and sister's "keeper." And what does this mean? It means that, again biblically speaking, we are to keep the welfare of our fellow human being's in mind, and we are to conduct ourselves in such a way that not do we encourage other people to follow God's Will (in Christ), but we also care for them by not doing things (such as purposely wearing vain, skin-tight, and revealing clothing) that might cause other people to desire to sin in the face of God. It also means having some sense of modesty, at the least, when fanning about in public, and this goes for men just as much as for women.

But, since "Liberty" as a social and political concept, a shibboleth of our day in fact, and since it's an untamable little idea that keeps being pried further open by various relative evaluations, it's no wonder that this little Aussie lass showed up at the Louvre think'n she should just non-chalantly waltz in .......

I dunno if you're a hypocrite or not. Do you ever go around shirtless in public?

No.......because I care about people.

No apology necessary. If you need to vent your frustrations at me about how this woman has offended you, feel free. You really can't hurt my feelings, so don't worry. Let it all out, Philo. It isn't my feathers that are getting ruffled.

She hasn't directly offended me. I just saw the news article on the news feed and I thought I'd give my two Christian cents about it. What I was really surprised about was that the folks at the Louvre still had such a sense of decorum and propriety.....kudos to them!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As OB said I think it is a cultural issue, to some extent anyway. When I was at college one of the guys I shared a house with was from Ghana, he had relatives out in the styx where women walked around bare-chested - there it was just the norm, and, according to him anyway, not sexual. The Louvre curates some of world’s oldest and greatest art, some of the most significant cultural objects people have ever created. While French society might not be big on sexual morals they are known for elegance, class, a certain propriety and decorum in ways that are important as far as they go - just walking into the Louvre with your boobs (if you have them) hanging out is just childish and a bit moronic, I think, certainly a bit too self-important, the whole ‘look at me’ of it. If some old dude with a beer belly in short shorts and a string vest pitched up at the door pretty sure he’d get turned away too.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What we’re arguing here is not good vs bad or right vs wrong – it’s about culture.

The US has a collective reputation for being prudish and formal. Add to this is an overwhelmingly Christian majority with the rather awkward Christian attitude to sexuality and the female body and you get what those of us outside the US see as a painfully moralistic attitude. @2PhiloVoid is a classic product of this culture.

For others who are either not Christian or not American (or not either) this attitude comes across as strange. At one time I put this attitude down to cold weather but Scandinavian attitudes to sex and nudity suggest that this is not the cause. I suspect that the US attitude is a function of the influence of its own peculiar versions of puritanical Christianity.

The issue here is not that I’m right or you’re right or they’re right. Within the boundaries of our own particular culture we’re all ‘right’. I would argue however that there is no intrinsic rightness or wrongness about sex or exposing the human body. A highly judgemental society, like the US, is simply exposing its own anxieties and a collective immaturity.
OB

Did I hear what I think I heard, that I'm just a product of Christian and American prudishness? ...yeah, I don't think so!

Nice post, anyway, OB!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"We don't want people seeing topless women....in this building that contains statues and pictures of topless women"

Although, I do find it surprising that this is from France. I thought they had surpassed the irrational & illogical objection to random body parts that the US still seems to struggle with.

 

[Moral Orel]

Off hand, I don't know, but I'll do us both a favor and show the Louvre's policies [here]

Okay, so it's immoral because it's breaking the rules the Louvre wrote. Trouble is, the rules aren't super explicit. How much "chest" being exposed constitutes "bare chested"? It isn't unreasonable to assume it means 100% bare chested, which she wasn't. I'm sure they don't throw out fellas in V-necked T-shirts, so it isn't 0% either.

Without having to appeal to the Bible? Why on earth would a Christian's sense of "morality" not be at least partially, even if not fully, informed by the influence and conceptual shaping that comes by way of God's Word?

...so carrying on, then, and still biblically speaking, we are our brother's and sister's "keeper." And what does this mean? It means that, again biblically speaking, we are to keep the welfare of our fellow human being's in mind, and we are to conduct ourselves in such a way that not do we encourage other people to follow God's Will (in Christ), but we also care for them by not doing things (such as purposely wearing vain, skin-tight, and revealing clothing) that might cause other people to desire to sin in the face of God. It also means having some sense of modesty, at the least, when fanning about in public, and this goes for men just as much as for women.

But, since "Liberty" as a social and political concept, a shibboleth of our day in fact, and since it's an untamable little idea that keeps being pried further open by various relative evaluations, it's no wonder that this little Aussie lass showed up at the Louvre think'n she should just non-chalantly waltz in .......

Right. There's no reason to think it's immoral other than your interpretation of the Bible. You could just say that.

No.......because I care about people.

I don't go to the beach either, and for the same reasons.

 

[SummerMadness]

And just what is the pertinent difference between the two?

Cleavage is simply the space in between the chest, not all cleavage is exposed. A plunged neckline is exposed cleavage.

 

[Moral Orel]

Cleavage is simply the space in between the chest, not all cleavage is exposed. A plunged neckline is exposed cleavage.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the pertinent difference between "nudity in art versus provocative clothing meant for sex appeal".

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Since when did the French care about modesty?

I will say, I'm pleased with the decision, even though I expect them to probably back down from pressure.

 

[SummerMadness]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant the pertinent difference between "nudity in art versus provocative clothing meant for sex appeal".

Nudity in art from previous centuries, were simply for aesthetic, it wasn't meant to illicit sexual feelings. However, puritanical attitudes that later arose to cover up everything turned all nudity into sexuality. As society has been pushing back on those puritanical attitudes, the clothing that is worn is meant to move past sexual repression, so her clothes are clearly meant to be sexual, unlike the original artwork.

I think barring her from the museum is stupid, but I don't buy that she is not seeking attention with her clothing. She's an Instagram model, her whole sense of being is using sexuality to get clicks.