I was talking to my friend last night (he's really cool, and he's Mormon for reference. I consider him an intellectual equal, for what it's worth) and I said we should watch American Beauty.

My friend had a problem with it when I mentioned that there were 2 scenes of nudity. This launched into a long discussion about art, because I claimed that American Beauty was a work of art, and that he should watch it even though the nudity might compromise his mind (don't make jokes, because this is his belief system and I respect it).

I made the argument that he could look at a nude statue in the name of art, but we ended (turned to another topic) on the fact that his church decrees (the LDS church has a fairly innovative system wherein they can make new laws as God wills it, so they're a lot more modern thano ther churches) on the fact that his church discourages watching rated 'R' movies.

Obviously the argument isn't over. What are your opinions? What can I say to get him to accept that he's allowed to look at nudity, violence, and all the sins in the book if it's for artistic development? He's in AP Literature with me and we've read several books with explicit scenes of violence, but this doesn't seem to carry weight with him.

Interesting discussion at least.

Condensed: If art has sin in it and merely observing sin increases the possibility of sinning, is it OK to look at art?

Breathing air increases the chance of sinning, so does eating. Must he then eat/breath as little as humanly necessary to stay alive?

Anyways, if he has no problem reading about sin, then I'd say the problem is not reading or seeing sin, its what the sin entails. I'd say he has no problem reading violence, because in his mind he believes he's far from acting it out, on the other hand, he may believe he's susceptible to lust.

Ask him why he sees no problem in reading explicit sexual encounters in the bible, ( asuming he's read them) but not seeing them?

Thats exactly the thing- most censors in the west (esp. the USA) have no problems with movies full of violence being shown to 13 yr. olds. But for some reason swearing and nudity are so much worse, regardless of context. Why?

I'd rather have kids that can handle sexuality and nudity with a bit of of maturity rather than continual generations that are desensitized to violence and told that it's fun.

How does your friend feel about looking at religious paintings some of which show women with one bare breast?

Depends on the person, the faith, and how passionate that person is to their faith.

What makes a certain scene of nudity or a display of violence sinful is the context in which the scene is displayed. It is not the essence of nudity in and of itself that is sinful, but the purpose of expressing that nudity. This is a principle your friend seems to not have understood completely as of yet.

A man taking off his shirt can evoke sexual thought in a woman, but not necessarily a man. Is a man taking off his shirt inherently sinful? No; it's the context in which it is expressed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/n_ight_vision/Moremanp3nd.jpg

/\ Art?

\/ Art?

http://www.praxis-art.cl/2003/campuzano/images/grand/imag6.jpg

lol one is art one isn't. blows away the whole theory.