Aesthetics and morality

This is my opinion, you are free to agree or disagree. Portrayals of the nude human form could be classified under four different categories: art, pornography, advertising or educational (science or medical). The difference lies not in the medium but in the portrayal. For example it doesn’t matter whether it is a painting or photograph but how the model is portrayed as well as the intent of the image. If the nude or semi-nude image is intended as a work of beauty or a portrayal of the beauty of God’s creation and the model is shown in a pose that is casual, dignified or empowered, then I classify it as art. If the image is intended to arouse sexual desire then it is pornography and if the model is in a pose that is degrading or portrays them being raped or dehumanized then I classify it as obscenity or smut. If the image is intended to sell a product then I classify it as advertising, such as ads for lingerie or discreetly posed nudes advertising skin care products in magazines such as Redbook or the Reader’s Digest (the latter generally shows more discretion than the former). If the image is intended to illustrate scientific or medical knowledge then it is educational (such as the pictures of nude or topless individuals in their native context in the National Geographic or the illustrations in medical books) Although I strongly disagree with the National Geo’s dogmatic attitude on evolution I do consider it a science magazine and their photographers are among the best in the world and most of the nudity in it’s pages is contextually appropriate. Occasionally there is controversy, for example in the June 2008 issue there is a photo of some Russian schoolchildren at an indoor pool and among them is a girl of about ten years old in a monokini, swimcap and crucifix and although her upper body is no different than that of a boy her age some would accuse the photographer of engaging in child porn.  
In my opinion the only justified context for pornography is boudoir photography in which a wife poses for a picture for the benefit of her husband or a man poses for a picture for his wife. Although if you do pose to create such pictures take caution to not let them fall into the wrong hands. Many people have strongly held opinions on this topic: some feel that all nude images are inherently pornographic or offensive; others feel that all nude pictures are equally O.K.; we all have a right to our opinion. I know of a couple (Jack and Rexella Van Impe) who believe that nudity in most contexts is disgraceful and although I think highly of them and agree with them on most issues I don’t feel as they do in this case. Although I think that genitelia and male buttocks are icky, in general the human body is a thing of beauty among God’s creation. I have a brother who is decidedly more liberal than I am and he and I were conversing on this issue and he indicated his opinion that a painting of a nude in an art gallery is not porn and a magazine centerfold of a woman touching herself is not art. On this I agree.
I once saw a comedian on “An Evening at the Improv” (I really wish that I could remember his name) who stated somewhat jokingly, somewhat seriously, that he didn’t look at porn or go to erotic nightclubs because he found it frustrating to lust after someone that he couldn’t have. I found that extremely wise and insightful and adopted that philosophy. Before he fell into heresy the Reverend Carlton Pearson stated a philosophy that I adopted: that to admire and to desire are not the same thing and one can admire another person’s body without lusting after them.
Attention parents: This is very important to know if your kids are not already grown. It is both natural and inevitable that boys entering adolescence will become interested in the female body, it would be worrisome if they didn’t. At that time in my life my parents would not allow pornography in their house and I agree with that decision as porn distorts a male’s view of women and girls, portraying them as sexual objects rather than people. However I had a natural need to learn about the female form. There were three sources of information in our household from which I studied the female anatomy: The National Geographic, the lingerie and bathing suit sections of catalogs (Montgomery Ward, Sears and J.C.Penny) and La Leche League literature. It was from these that I satisfied my pubescent curiosity. As a result I have an appreciation for women from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds, I like seeing them in lingerie and have an appreciation for fabrics like lace, satin, chiffon etc.; and have a fascination with lactation (but I won’t get into that). If you are the parent of teenagers then you need to realize that boys will become interested in the female anatomy and it would not be wise to attempt to suppress it. Doing so could cause them problems relating to their God-given sexualities and having the kind of relationship that God intended for them to have with their wives later on. Instead try to instill into your sons respect for girls and women and their right to privacy and the sanctity of their bodies and their personal space. Also if you are too squeamish to talk to them about sex and decide to let the public school system do it for you then be prepared for the possibility that the teachers in that system might not share your values and ethics. If your kids are corrupted or indoctrinated by the establishment because you let them do it by forfeit then you have yourselves to blame if your kids grow up without sharing your values about sex.