Dark: nudity in and of itself is not wrong. I think the argument that you are born naked makes it "okay" makes absolutely no sense to me. Is there any other way to be born?

I think there can be tasteful nude modeling but it's not common. I think the use of nudity is for the sexual side and nothing else.

Adam and Eve were naked until their innocence was taken away. Before the Fall Adam and Eve didn't care they were naked because it didn't mean anything...

I think pornography is destructive. I think it ruins marriages and creates an over-sexed population. I don't think it fills a sexual need but instead increases one. I also think it creates an unhealthy view of what sex is. The average person doesn't look, or perform, the way that people do in porn. It's just not realistic. Not to mention how much time, money and effort that goes into the creation of porn which in my opinion has no intrinsic value. What good is a movie of naked people?

Sure, I think pornography is wrong in a moral sense but in a more practical way I just think it is a harmful habit. I think too much time and money is spent on aquiring and using pornography. It's just so wasteful.

I'm not sure how else to say what I'm trying to get across....

--------------------

nope, that doesn't make any more sense.... just because we are born naked doesn't mean there is any justification for nudity/pornography being okay.

Nudity can have an educational purpose and if it is made in such a way (ie for sex education courses) but beyond that I just don't see the benefit. Consider the amount of money spent on pornography in any given year. According to Forbes the porn industry grosses about 14 billion dollars. You could create jobs/demand in nearly any other industry with 14 billion dollars being spent there. The jobs/moeny from this industry would shift to something else if porn were gone.

It is different technically although again it's only an art form when viewed as such. I guess nude photography is more tastefully done than porn. I don't really have a problem with nude photography done for arts sake but I still don't think it's overly useful either. Although I feel that way about art in general Yeah, the statue of David is art even though it does show off male genitals. Not many people would say it is pornographic.

I don't think the issue here is with nudity but with pornography. It's the hardcore porn (porn with sex in it) that is the issue. The rest of it is debatable as to it's benefits to society but I just don't feel porn has any redeeming value. Some people may argue with me about that but we've gotten by without it for many years I don't see why we need to spend 14 billion dollars on it now.

--------------------

I don't disagree with you but the simple fact is that there is no reasible way that a law like that would pass. There just isn't enough support for it. You can't have a 14 billion dollar industry taken out all of a sudden because a small group of people don't like it. That's part of democracy. If the majority is for or against something than the will of the majority is what determines that.

Like I said, I agree with you but until society values things like chastity then something like this will never happen.

--------------------

Originally posted by 2dnoodleman

---

people would have sinned at some point...

Originally posted by Lowell

---

What about Indecent Exposure? Don't you think the world would be a better place if we never ate the apple, and everyone was still naked?

---

---

Zylo: I agree.

Ziggy: I disagree with the idea that the "original sin" was somehow avoidable. There were 2 commandments given in the Garden of Eden. 1 was to multiply and replenish the earth (make babies) and the other was to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now, if there was a tree that contained the knowledge of good and evil then it you could assume that Adam and Eve did not have a knowledge of good and evil but simply existed in the Garden. When they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they then understood both good and evil. This then gave them the knowledge of how to have children which was impossible before. So basically God gave them 2 commandments which could not both be kept at the same time. So after they partook of the fruit they were cast out of the Garden but now had knowledge of good and evil and were now able to choose to follow God or not.

If Adam and Eve had never partaken of the fruit then mankind wouldn't have existed. But even if you believe that they could have still had children without partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil how could there possibly be any point to life on this planet? If mankind had no conecpt of either good or evil then there couldn't be any good or evil ever done. You couldn't be happy because you had no concept of either happiness or sadness.

I just don't buy the idea that partaking of the fruit was avoidable and that the world would be better off without it having taken place.

--------------------

that response was less for you actually and more for 2noodle... I just forgot to put his name in there too....

--------------------

yeah, and I think I remained on topic in theory....

I was arguing about Adam and Eve and how there is no way that they would have remained in a state where nudity had no meaning.... so, I was on topic but was on a sort of tangent that didn't really matter but was related.

Still, to kind of get the discussion back on topic.... I think pornography is something that is so engrained into society that it will never go away. The industry is too powerful to be removed. It's like the tobacco industry.... no benefits, a lot of drawbacks.... but it still exists because it has enough money to keep politicians from getting rid of it. Sure it's taxed but like that actually fixed anything....

--------------------

some people don't think that is a drawback.... just a lifestyle choice

--------------------