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

[2PhiloVoid]

"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.

...it's probably a subconscious holdover remaining from France's more "Christianfied" days......

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

So motives are the difference, basically. But the effects can be the same or different no matter what the motives are. Say, for instance, a gay fella can appreciate that she has a great body without feeling sexually attracted to her. And a straight fella can get turned on by a naked lady in a painting. In some contexts I think motive is an important factor because it has an effect on the outcome. I don't see that as being the case in this instance though.

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.

Did anyone ever claim she wasn't seeking attention? I don't think even she did. I'm pretty sure she just thinks that she should be able to clamor for attention in this manner if she wants to. I certainly never saw her claim the clothes were just "comfortable" or something like that.

That being said, so what? People wear clothes for attention all the time. A bright red pair of shoes grabs folk's attention; is there something wrong with that?

 

[SummerMadness]

So motives are the difference, basically. But the effects can be the same or different no matter what the motives are. Say, for instance, a gay fella can appreciate that she has a great body without feeling sexually attracted to her. And a straight fella can get turned on by a naked lady in a painting. In some contexts I think motive is an important factor because it has an effect on the outcome. I don't see that as being the case in this instance though.

It's always about motive. However, the problem with your examples here is you're talking about what someone viewing the artwork is doing, I'm talking about the creator of the artwork and/or wearer of the clothes. I don't think you can place a restriction on someone's reaction, but I can understand placing those restrictions on visitors to a museum. For instance, John Ashcroft covering up the Spirit of Justice statue versus telling a woman to cover up in a museum in modern society are two different things... unless of course our world see bare chests as any other day, we're just not there yet.

Did anyone ever claim she wasn't seeking attention? I don't think even she did. I'm pretty sure she just thinks that she should be able to clamor for attention in this manner if she wants to. I certainly never saw her claim the clothes were just "comfortable" or something like that.

True, but the reaction seems like feigned surprise to her barred entry.

That being said, so what? People wear clothes for attention all the time. A bright red pair of shoes grabs folk's attention; is there something wrong with that?

I think she can wear whatever she wants for attention, but I also think the museum should have their rules. I knew a woman that dressed up like Scorpion from Mortal Kombat and went for a walk down the streets of Philadelphia. She made it several blocks before the police stopped her, and she didn't post to social media complaining because of it. I understand mask laws, but I don't mind living in a world where Scorpion can take a stroll down the street... and possibly take on Sub-Zero.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's always about motive. However, the problem with your examples here is you're talking about what someone viewing the artwork is doing, I'm talking about the creator of the artwork and/or wearer of the clothes. I don't think you can place a restriction on someone's reaction, but I can understand placing those restrictions on visitors to a museum. For instance, John Ashcroft covering up the Spirit of Justice statue versus telling a woman to cover up in a museum in modern society are two different things.

Okay, so the effect of how people react is inconsequential. What's wrong with the motive of wanting people to get turned on when they see her? Isn't that the motive whenever anyone does anything to make themselves more physically attractive?

.. unless of course our world see bare chests as any other day, we're just not there yet.

Would there be anything wrong with such a world? If these sorts of people are pushing us in that direction, is it a bad thing?

True, but the reaction seems like feigned surprise to her barred entry.

I don't see why we should think that her surprise is feigned.

I think she can wear whatever she wants for attention, but I also think the museum should have their rules. I knew a woman that dressed up like Scorpion from Mortal Kombat and went for a walk down the streets of Philadelphia. She made it several blocks before the police stopped her, and she didn't post to social media complaining because of it. I understand mask laws, but I don't mind living in a world where Scorpion can take a stroll down the street... and possibly take on Sub-Zero.

I think it's fine if the museum has it's rules. If they don't like it, they don't like it. That's okay, it's their place. Why "should" they have that rule?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I don't know. How in-explicit is the following from the Louvre's official policy?:

Visitors shall demonstrate appropriate behaviour towards museum staff and
other visitors.
It is therefore prohibited to:

- wear swimsuits, or be naked, bare-chested or barefoot;

https://www.louvre.fr/sites/default...s/fichiers/PDF/louvre-visitor-regulations.pdf

No, I think she was pressing the envelope to see what she could get away with ...

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

Sure, I could 'just say that,' but I don't think that being a Christian means holding a seemingly apologetic and tentative position on every single ethical view that a Christian could possibly hold. Besides, there's always the possibility, however slim, that I'm not simply concocting everything I read, study and interpret in the Bible.

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

You're a Good man, Nick!

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know. How in-explicit is the following from the Louvre's official policy?:

Visitors shall demonstrate appropriate behaviour towards museum staff and
other visitors.
It is therefore prohibited to:

- wear swimsuits, or be naked, bare-chested or barefoot;

https://www.louvre.fr/sites/default...s/fichiers/PDF/louvre-visitor-regulations.pdf

No, I think she was pressing the envelope to see what she could get away with ...

Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about. How much of your bare chest can be exposed? Do you really think none of your bare chest can be seen? Are they out there measuring neck-lines? Obviously not all of your bare chest, but she didn't go that far. So yes, it is inexplicit. Those "" were there in the snippet you quoted because I was directly quoting the rules you already linked.

You think she was pressing the envelope because you have your own subjective standard of what you consider "too much exposed chest" to be, and you're assuming everyone shares it.

Sure, I could 'just say that,' but I don't think that being a Christian means holding a seemingly apologetic and tentative position on every single ethical view that a Christian could possibly hold. Besides, there's always the possibility, however slim, that I'm not simply concocting everything I read, study and interpret in the Bible.

A while back I was told by a member here that because I don't derive my morality from the Bible, I am unfit to interpret what the Bible says on what is allowed or not allowed. Because you "agreed" with those posts via the little check-mark at the bottom, I don't know why you'd expect me or any other non-Christian to discuss morality that only has its basis in the Bible with you.

You don't have to apologize for thinking whatever you think. But it would be a lot more honest if you just respond to my question, "What's immoral about showing cleavage" with a simple, "Cuz The Bible sez so!". Pretending there's anything about morality to be discussed here with anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible is ridiculous. I mean, it would be the same as making a thread about Hindus and proclaiming, "Hey look how immoral it is to have other gods besides Yahweh!".

So it's fine if you see things this way. Just tell me why anyone who isn't a Christian should care and what exactly a dirty heathen such as myself could honestly contribute to a thread of this nature.

And no, this doesn't apply to "every single ethical view that a Christian could possibly hold". Someone told me recently that I should stick to the context at hand instead of trying to broaden it to every single instance imaginable... Who was that? There are things in the Bible that we could talk about in terms of morality that have something other than faith to back them up. How about some threads on giving to the poor? How come Christians around here never want to talk about that? It's always sex, sex, sex with you guys!

 

[USincognito]

[And yes, Metropolis is a classic film, and in a strange way, it remains relevant...even to the dilemma in this thread of mine here.]

Fun fact - No one has watched the entire movie since like the 1930s.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about. How much of your bare chest can be exposed? Do you really think none of your bare chest can be seen? Are they out there measuring neck-lines? Obviously not all of your bare chest, but she didn't go that far. So yes, it is inexplicit. Those "" were there in the snippet you quoted because I was directly quoting the rules you already linked.

Personally, I'd read the rules given by the Louvre and look at the context of their request that one's clothing choice not show too much skin, too much cleavage, or look like a bathing suite (which I'm guessing that would apply to just about any swimsuit, let alone those that look like a bikini or a skimpy one-piece).

You think she was pressing the envelope because you have your own subjective standard of what you consider "too much exposed chest" to be, and you're assuming everyone shares it.

A while back I was told by a member here that because I don't derive my morality from the Bible, I am unfit to interpret what the Bible says on what is allowed or not allowed. Because you "agreed" with those posts via the little check-mark at the bottom, I don't know why you'd expect me or any other non-Christian to discuss morality that only has its basis in the Bible with you.

You don't have to apologize for thinking whatever you think. But it would be a lot more honest if you just respond to my question, "What's immoral about showing cleavage" with a simple, "Cuz The Bible sez so!". Pretending there's anything about morality to be discussed here with anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible is ridiculous. I mean, it would be the same as making a thread about Hindus and proclaiming, "Hey look how immoral it is to have other gods besides Yahweh!".

So it's fine if you see things this way. Just tell me why anyone who isn't a Christian should care and what exactly a dirty heathen such as myself could honestly contribute to a thread of this nature.

And no, this doesn't apply to "every single ethical view that a Christian could possibly hold". Someone told me recently that I should stick to the context at hand instead of trying to broaden it to every single instance imaginable... Who was that? There are things in the Bible that we could talk about in terms of morality that have something other than faith to back them up. How about some threads on giving to the poor? How come Christians around here never want to talk about that? It's always sex, sex, sex with you guys!

What you might want to consider is that some of us Christians know that, like John the Baptist, it's our job to open our mouths and let God's Truth fly out of it, EVEN IF we also know at the same time that 99% of the ears that hear it are going to eschew it.

Sure, no one's asking for Christians to open their mouths, but neither did they ask when God sent just about any other personages in the past to open their mouths against the sins of the "establishment."

I mean, one does wonder 'why' non-Christians wander in from elsewhere and settle-in on what is for the most part a Christian venue of internet communication.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fun fact - No one has watched the entire movie since like the 1930s.

I've watched it. Of course, I'm weird like that, especially after having taken that Science Fiction Film and American Studies class back in college....................................................

 

[USincognito]

I've watched it. Of course, I'm weird like that, especially after having taken that Science Fiction Film and American Studies class back in college....................................................

I might have been too subtle. There are no existing copies of the entire movie. The one most people have seen since the 1980s is cobbled together and is still about a half-hour short.

(I learned that watching the DVD years back.)

 

[Moral Orel]

Personally, I'd read the rules given by the Louvre and look at the context of their request that one's clothing choice not show too much skin, too much cleavage, or look like a bathing suite (which I'm guessing that would apply to just about any swimsuit, let alone those that look like a bikini or a skimpy one-piece).

Well, "too much" is subjective.

What you might want to consider is that some of us Christians know that, like John the Baptist, it's our job to open our mouths and let God's Truth fly out of it, EVEN IF we also know at the same time that 99% of the ears that hear it are going to eschew it.

Sure, no one's asking for Christians to open their mouths, but neither did they ask when God sent just about any other personages in the past to open their mouths against the sins of the "establishment."

No one's telling you to shut up. I'm just saying it's more "Truthful" if you're up front about which morals you take on faith. Is that unreasonable? I know you really want to feel like everyone is out to get you, but that just isn't happening here. I'm talking about how you present your point of view, not whether or not you should present it at all. The problem isn't what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.

I mean, one does wonder 'why' non-Christians wander in from elsewhere and settle-in on what is for the most part a Christian venue of internet communication.

If you don't like talking to non-Christians you don't have to. Some of you guys don't want to live in an echo chamber and appreciate a diverse set of viewpoints, some of you guys don't, and that's why Christian Forums was nice enough to put up "Christians Only" sections where you won't feel so persecuted all the time.

I like talking to Christians even if I don't buy the whole religion thing. Some of you all are very fine people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I might have been too subtle. There are no existing copies of the entire movie. The one most people have seen since the 1980s is cobbled together and is still about a half-hour short.

(I learned that watching the DVD years back.)

ok. Yeah, I get what you're saying if that is what you were trying to allude to. Good point!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, "too much" is subjective.


No one's telling you to shut up. I'm just saying it's more "Truthful" if you're up front about which morals you take on faith. Is that unreasonable? I know you really want to feel like everyone is out to get you, but that just isn't happening here. I'm talking about how you present your point of view, not whether or not you should present it at all. The problem isn't what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.

Oh, it sounds like you've mistaken me for a Republican, Nick!

I'm very confident that I don't suffer from any sort of persecution complex, at least not any persecution that would fall from the lips of fellow human beings. If anything, I do suffer from a burgeoning awareness of demons existing around just about every corner, trying to play us all for fools.

I do appreciate your taking the time to point out to me in a rational, level headed manner that I more than likely don't appear to be very "nice" and that I probably come across as not very 'Jesus- like' in my Christian conduct or in my on-line composure. To some extent, I'd agree with you. I probably don't. However, on the other hand, I'd like to suggest to you that perhaps you try see this from another angle of vision, my angle of vision, which is this: since the Devil did me "the courtesy" of putting his hand in my life from an early age, I've come to realize now, much later in what remains of my short time here on earth that, like John the Baptist, I would best spend my time in returning the courtesies extended to me by the Devil, but only as I feel Christ leading me to do, even if the way in which I express myself appears to some of my fellow Christians and to fellow human skeptics to be done in an otherwise existentially inverted manner. For me, it's philosophy before piety, principle before precept---it's God's Justice before Humanities' Will to Power.

So, when I see something that I think is "wonky," I'm going to say something, even if the World doesn't want to hear it.

If you don't like talking to non-Christians you don't have to. Some of you guys don't want to live in an echo chamber and appreciate a diverse set of viewpoints, some of you guys don't, and that's why Christian Forums was nice enough to put up "Christians Only" sections where you won't feel so persecuted all the time.

Actually, I quite enjoy talking to most non-Christians, and I'm more than happy to say that I appreciate that a number of "them" occupy these forums.

I like talking to Christians even if I don't buy the whole religion thing. Some of you all are very fine people.

And likewise on my part: I think a good number of skeptics and atheists, like yourself, are generally great folks as well. In fact, I actually think their growing presence is meant to support and further some portion of God's plans overall ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I might have been too subtle. There are no existing copies of the entire movie. The one most people have seen since the 1980s is cobbled together and is still about a half-hour short.

(I learned that watching the DVD years back.)

I've watched one of the shorter versions years ago, and more recently I came across one of the (supposedly) more restored and much more lengthy versions on youtube ... either way, it's an apt metaphor for today's world.

 

[Moral Orel]

I do appreciate your taking the time to point out to me in a rational, level headed manner that I more than likely don't appear to be very "nice" and that I probably come across as not very 'Jesus- like' in my Christian conduct or in my on-line composure. To some extent, I'd agree with you. I probably don't. However, on the other hand, I'd like to suggest to you that perhaps you try see this from another angle of vision, my angle of vision, which is this: since the Devil did me "the courtesy" of putting his hand in my life from an early age, I've come to realize now, much later in what remains of my short time here on earth that, like John the Baptist, I would best spend my time in returning the courtesies extended to me by the Devil, but only as I feel Christ leading me to do, even if the way in which I express myself appears to some of my fellow Christians and to fellow human skeptics to be done in an otherwise existentially inverted manner. For me, it's philosophy before piety, principle before precept---it's God's Justice before Humanities' Will to Power.

So, when I see something that I think is "wonky," I'm going to say something, even if the World doesn't want to hear it.

See, you say this, and I don't think you're listening. It isn't about being nice, it's about being forthcoming. I'm not telling to you not to speak up about whatever you think is "wonky". Why do you keep reminding me of your need to speak up when I keep telling you to speak up all you please?

It isn't that most of us in the "World" don't want to hear your message, it's that we don't care, and you haven't given us a reason to. There's a major distinction between "not wanting" and "not caring" that you just aren't seeing. We're not going to take it on faith that too much cleavage is immoral when we already don't believe a god exists or cares what we do. Why should we?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

See, you say this, and I don't think you're listening. It isn't about being nice, it's about being forthcoming. I'm not telling to you not to speak up about whatever you think is "wonky". Why do you keep reminding me of your need to speak up when I keep telling you to speak up all you please?

It isn't that most of us in the "World" don't want to hear your message, it's that we don't care, and you haven't given us a reason to. There's a major distinction between "not wanting" and "not caring" that you just aren't seeing. We're not going to take it on faith that too much cleavage is immoral when we already don't believe a god exists or cares what we do. Why should we?

No, I'm listening, and I'm typically quite aware that many skeptics just "don't care." In fact, it was my reading of Pascal and of the book of Revelation, as well as my own watching of the nightly news for some number of years, as well as just living in the family that I lived in while growing up, which all kind of filled me in on this aspect of social reality.

However, it's not really my job to motivate people "to care." No, that's on them and I suppose on God, too, to some extent. All I can do is lend people a hand by caring about them and their welfare as best I can and by being willing to do them the additional favor of speaking forth 'the truth' as I hear God telling me to tell it.

And if you disagree with the policies of the Louvre, then ......................you disagree.

So, in your estimation, Nick, how should the Louvre have dealt with the gal in the OP article?

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I'm listening, and I'm typically quite aware that many skeptics just "don't care." In fact, it was my reading of Pascal and of the book of Revelation, as well as my own watching of the nightly news for some number of years, as well as just living in the family that I lived in while growing up, which all kind of filled me in on this aspect of social reality.

However, it's not really my job to motivate people "to care." No, that's on them and I suppose on God, too, to some extent. All I can do is lend people a hand by caring about them and their welfare as best I can and by being willing to do them the additional favor of speaking forth 'the truth' as I hear God telling me to tell it.

God tells you to dance around the fact you see this as immoral based solely on faith?

And if you disagree with the policies of the Louvre, then ......................you disagree.

So, in your estimation, Nick, how should the Louvre have dealt with the gal in the OP article?

I don't disagree with their policy. They can have a policy against wearing the color orange if they want to. It's their place, they don't have to let in what they don't want. I don't think they were clear enough, sure. And with that in mind I probably would have offered her a free sweater or T-shirt from the gift shop to cover her dirty pillows and allowed her in for a visit.

No, I only disagreed with your estimation that what she was doing by dressing the way she did was immoral. We kept talking because you took too long to own up that it's strictly because of faith that you see it that way.

Which makes me think that we ought not conflate "immoral" with "sin". Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. Getting them mixed up, to me, seems like an attempt to legitimize claims that there's something rational or reasonable about being against certain behaviors that there's no reason besides faith to have a problem with them in the first place.

 

[Moral Orel]

However, it's not really my job to motivate people "to care." No, that's on them and I suppose on God, too, to some extent. All I can do is lend people a hand by caring about them and their welfare as best I can and by being willing to do them the additional favor of speaking forth 'the truth' as I hear God telling me to tell it.

I'm still really curious about this attitude of telling people your opinions without caring to demonstrate them as Truth, but I recognize I'm derailing your thread. So I started a thread in Apologetics about it if you care to explain it to me there. Here's the link:
Speaking Out Against Sin

 

[2PhiloVoid]

God tells you to dance around the fact you see this as immoral based solely on faith?

I don't disagree with their policy. They can have a policy against wearing the color orange if they want to. It's their place, they don't have to let in what they don't want. I don't think they were clear enough, sure. And with that in mind I probably would have offered her a free sweater or T-shirt from the gift shop to cover her dirty pillows and allowed her in for a visit.

No, I only disagreed with your estimation that what she was doing by dressing the way she did was immoral. We kept talking because you took too long to own up that it's strictly because of faith that you see it that way.

Whether I have faith in the Bible or not doesn't really tell us if the moral content of the Bible is to be ignored by the rest of the World or not.

Which makes me think that we ought not conflate "immoral" with "sin". Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. Getting them mixed up, to me, seems like an attempt to legitimize claims that there's something rational or reasonable about being against certain behaviors that there's no reason besides faith to have a problem with them in the first place.

Are you saying this as a Moral Relativist or instead as proponent of one of a dozen different ethical frameworks?

 

[Sketcher]

Eh, I wouldn't call that bare-chested.