RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> He Says



Message

ex-prodigal -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (5/14/2008 8:58:29 PM)

Kudos to you!!!Great response,LOL[:D]!I haven't seen it either,really don't need to either.I agree with.I hope this doesn't lead men with problems to seek it out if they have not seen it.
quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

What are your thoughts on the new Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover?

Have never cared for it. It's like the dumb guys that stare at the Sears catalog or a Victoria's Secret catalog, why? If you're lusting like that there is real porn.

Are you thinking "It just looks like the rest of the covers, Cosmo......"

Pretty much, sex sells.

Are you thinking "This is too provocative, I'm embarrassed when I have my little boy with me".

No, but then again I don't buy SI.

Are you thinking "She's Hot"

If she is, then she is. I am not blind so I can indeed appreciate a good looking woman without necessarily lusting for her.

Do you think they should yank them off the shelves?

Last time I checked America is not a theocracy so why would I expect "them" to yank it off the shelves? Why would we expect non-believers to act like believers? Seems silly and naive.

Could you just care less?

Eh, obviously I cared enough to go through the time to respond to your questions.



fist.sensei -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 10:32:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rebelyell

who cares if it isnt "real porn." it causes arousal. i am just 15 and i have already been caught in my lust several times because this **** is so easily accessible. when i see a hot lady in almost nothing, yeah, i do actually think, "that's hot." i have to cast my eyes aside though, and not let myself look at these images. it is often hard to do, though.


Umm... when I was 15 *everything* caused arousal. Don't be ashamed of your sexuality, kid. That doesn't mean go sleep around, but be proud you are a man and that everything downstairs is working up to par!



NealIRC -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 1:16:48 PM)

For the original poster and other such women - I have some questions to ask. Would you take your children to the beach?

Would you take your 10-13 year old sons to the beach and expose them to women in bikinis and thong?

...Would you take your daughters to the beach and expose them to men without shirts?

I'm guessing the 1st you don't do, but the 2nd you don't mind.

I think I'd like to draw a line between adult pornography and "eye candy."

Doesn't the Bible talk about all the lust and temptations going on? How is it any different now than thousands of years ago?

2nd part.

I have to agree to the extent that things weren't the same from a hundred years ago.

Getting a bit off topic, take a look at a typical beach in 1910. People were fully clothed. People started showing slightly more skin in the beaches in the 1930s and 1940s. Heck, there probably weren't any beaches in the 1800s. The most attractive kind of women in the 1920s were the flappers.

So I guess some of you women would like things to have been the way it were at those times?

Also, I don't know if it's just my observation (and I don't mean to be impolite), but it seems that most women that object to eye-candy magazines and eye-candy in beaches or in general tend to not be young. When I go to a church with a majority youth-group, I see lots and lots of cleavage. (Now, if I went to an old-people church, it's true, I won't see much cleavage.)

So it seems this is not so much a religious issue as it is a generation issue (since the Christian girls my age show cleavage).

In any event, this topic may make sense if it were about Maxim, not about Sports Illustrated.

If you object to magazines of women in bikinis and thong, then you must also object to women wearing that in the beaches. And you must also object to your daughters in their teens wearing that when they go to beaches/swimming pools.

My thoughts.

Neal C.



NealIRC -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 2:24:51 PM)

As 2 persons before me "bumped" this topic after some 12 months (which I wasn't aware), I pm'd the original poster (last login a month ago), that it was bumped, so she is notified.

Neal C.



violinist_for_jesus -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:07:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NealIRC

For the original poster and other such women - I have some questions to ask. Would you take your children to the beach?

Would you take your 10-13 year old sons to the beach and expose them to women in bikinis and thong?

...Would you take your daughters to the beach and expose them to men without shirts?

I'm guessing the 1st you don't do, but the 2nd you don't mind.

I think I'd like to draw a line between adult pornography and "eye candy."

Doesn't the Bible talk about all the lust and temptations going on? How is it any different now than thousands of years ago?

2nd part.

I have to agree to the extent that things weren't the same from a hundred years ago.

Getting a bit off topic, take a look at a typical beach in 1910. People were fully clothed. People started showing slightly more skin in the beaches in the 1930s and 1940s. Heck, there probably weren't any beaches in the 1800s. The most attractive kind of women in the 1920s were the flappers.

So I guess some of you women would like things to have been the way it were at those times?

Also, I don't know if it's just my observation (and I don't mean to be impolite), but it seems that most women that object to eye-candy magazines and eye-candy in beaches or in general tend to not be young. When I go to a church with a majority youth-group, I see lots and lots of cleavage. (Now, if I went to an old-people church, it's true, I won't see much cleavage.)

So it seems this is not so much a religious issue as it is a generation issue (since the Christian girls my age show cleavage).

In any event, this topic may make sense if it were about Maxim, not about Sports Illustrated.

If you object to magazines of women in bikinis and thong, then you must also object to women wearing that in the beaches. And you must also object to your daughters in their teens wearing that when they go to beaches/swimming pools.

My thoughts.

Neal C.

Let me answer you:
No,
No,
How does one draw a line between adult pornography and 'eye candy' Don;t both incite lust? Do they edify the body of Christ?


And 100 years ago, yeah, I would LOVE to have those morals back. Compare families back then to what they are now. Compare the country as a whole to what it is now. Yeah...when morality was a priority...

And how can you justify cleaveage in church by using your youth group as an example? Does cleavage edify the body of Christ? Does it glorify God?
No, no, no, no.

And comparing SI to Maxim(I honestly have no idea of what maxim is other then supposedly a soft(?) porn mag?) How do you justify one over the other? They both in the end arouse lustful thoughts.

My thoughts.



NealIRC -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:16:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: violinist_for_jesus

Let me answer you:
No,
No,
How does one draw a line between adult pornography and 'eye candy' Don;t both incite lust? Do they edify the body of Christ?


And 100 years ago, yeah, I would LOVE to have those morals back. Compare families back then to what they are now. Compare the country as a whole to what it is now. Yeah...when morality was a priority...

You might as well argue that we should be back in the time of Adam and Even - before they sinned.

You obviously argue that today, we are still responsible for what Eve, and then Adam, did.

After their sin they became shamed of their nudity and now, lust became an issue.

Ain't God such a loving God? That we're all held responsible for it.

In any event, to a non-religious discussion...

You might as well argue that pretty/beautiful people aren't allowed to wear what they wear in beaches. You might as well argue that ugly and old or fat people are allowed to wear what they wear in beaches (because there is no lust element issue).

I really don't mind someone that prefers the beach styles in 1900 than it is in 2000.

But I would say, when I look at a beach, almost 0% wear a shirt. So in this case, you could argue that Christians (and Muslims) simply don't go to the beach. Otherwise, you want to object to society in whole.

quote:

And how can you justify cleaveage in church by using your youth group as an example?

I don't; it was an analogy, or a comparison.

quote:

Does cleavage edify the body of Christ? Does it glorify God?
No, no, no, no.

Does eating a banana edify the body of Christ? Or glorify God?

What about playing video games? Or stamp collecting.

You might as well object to those too.

quote:

And comparing SI to Maxim(I honestly have no idea of what maxim is other then supposedly a soft(?) porn mag?) How do you justify one over the other? They both in the end arouse lustful thoughts.

My thoughts.

1 is more lustful, imo.

Heh.

Neal C.



violinist_for_jesus -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:19:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NealIRC

quote:

ORIGINAL: violinist_for_jesus


quote:

And comparing SI to Maxim(I honestly have no idea of what maxim is other then supposedly a soft(?) porn mag?) How do you justify one over the other? They both in the end arouse lustful thoughts.

My thoughts.

1 is more lustful, imo.

Heh.

Neal C.

Which, is purely subjective, and depends on the person, no?

Also, one causing more lust then the other, means that the one causing less lust is alright?



NealIRC -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:23:35 PM)

Nope.

I just felt the original poster's argument would have been stronger if she instead used the Maxim magazine instead of "Sports Illustrated."

The difference is intent.



violinist_for_jesus -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:25:38 PM)

In intent? Tell me, what's the difference in intent between the two magazines?



NealIRC -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:28:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: violinist_for_jesus

In intent? Tell me, what's the difference in intent between the two magazines?

Sports Illustrated, seems to do with sports. The "swimming" edition would have to do with swimming.

So the swimsuit people dress in accordance to today's standards of swimsuits.

If this were the 1800s, the style of what they wear in the magazine would be different.

Maxim, on the other hand, is probably completely something else.



violinist_for_jesus -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/9/2008 11:34:46 PM)

LOL, can someone help me here? Didn't Beyonce pose for some SI photos? And then what does she have to do with swimming? And how many of those swimsuits are actually swimsuits! Such as the cover one described earlier in this thread? lol
It's designed to get money into SI's hands, sex sells because it excites lust. If no one lusted, then we'd npt have any market for things like this.



NealIRC -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/10/2008 12:55:36 PM)

I don't actually know Sports Illustrated magazine. Might not have ever looked through 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: violinist_for_jesus

LOL, can someone help me here? Didn't Beyonce pose for some SI photos?

Don't know what that is.

quote:

And then what does she have to do with swimming? And how many of those swimsuits are actually swimsuits! Such as the cover one described earlier in this thread? lol

Is it unusual to hire someone famous to wear the swimsuits for their magazines?

quote:

It's designed to get money into SI's hands,

Well duhh.

quote:

sex sells because it excites lust.

I really don't see a correlation between sex and magazines inciting lust. For example, do the women models give out their numbers so they can have sex for the customers that buy the magazines?

Do you think if people decided to have sex more because of those magazines, that the magazine companies should be held responsible?

quote:

If no one lusted, then we'd npt have any market for things like this.

So the problem is the people, not the market.

This is like when people use weapons to hit someone, we convict the people - not the weapons. Or when there are car accidents - we convict the driver, not the car.



Coffee_Drinker -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/10/2008 1:11:50 PM)

What are your thoughts on the new Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover?

Not into sports. Haven't seen it.

Are you thinking "It just looks like the rest of the covers, Cosmo......"

I've seen a lot of "borderline porn" magazine covers. The highlighted article title leave much to be desired.

Are you thinking "This is too provocative, I'm embarrassed when I have my little boy with me".

Honestly, at my age. I don't seem to get embarrased very often anymore. Generally, I just don't pay them any mind.

Are you thinking "She's Hot"

My wife is "hot" and she is "not."

Do you think they should yank them off the shelves?

I think I would like to see Jesus come... really, really soon!

Could you just care less?

I could care more. Unfortunately, I don't believe I could care less.

....................................................................................................

It is the world we live in. I am not a big fan of it but I do have to live in it until God tells me otherwise. I do what I can to do the right things. I try to do according to God's will. Sometimes I wish he would just slap me upside the head and tell me to pay attention but God doesn't seem to work that way. So I try to do the best I can according to his will.



DreadPirateRandy -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/10/2008 4:07:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL

So the problem is the people, not the market.


It's the market promoting the lust of the people.



figmentPez -> RE: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazine (6/13/2008 10:02:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NealIRC

Would you take your 10-13 year old sons to the beach and expose them to women in bikinis and thong?


Different situation. Going to a beach where there might be women who are immodestly dressed who are also present while you are there for the beach is completely different than a magazine that is focused on showing off the bodies of the models. A more apt comparison would be going to a wet T-shirt contest, or a bikini competition. Those are immoral activities, the purpose of which is to show off the bodies of the women involved.

quote:

Doesn't the Bible talk about all the lust and temptations going on?


Yes, the Bible does teach about lust and temptation. It has this to say about lust:

Matthew 5:28
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

2 Timothy 2:22
Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.

1 Corinthians 10:14
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

It has this to say about temptation:

Matthew 6:13
(we should pray to the Father)"... do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

James 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

1 Thessalonians 3:5
For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain.

Matthew 18:6
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

There is a reason why the devil is referred to as "the tempter" and why it is strongly said that God does not tempt. It is SINFUL to entice others to sin!

quote:

When I go to a church with a majority youth-group, I see lots and lots of cleavage.


Then that youth-group is severely in need of being instructed in godly living.

quote:

I just felt the original poster's argument would have been stronger if she instead used the Maxim magazine instead of "Sports Illustrated."

The difference is intent.


The intent of both are exactly the same, when we're talking about the Swimsuit Issue of SI.

quote:

Sports Illustrated, seems to do with sports. The "swimming" edition would have to do with swimming.


Swimsuit issue. The issue is devoted to models wearing "swimsuits" (sometimes, the "suits" are body paint, or other materials that aren't practical for swimming.) The issue is not about swimming, and the suits featured rarely have anything to do with sports. If the SI issue in question was focusing on the new technology in competitive swimsuits (like those causing controversy concerning the upcoming Olympics), then it would be a very different matter. However, the SI Swimsuit Issue is about showing off female sexuality.

quote:

Is it unusual to hire someone famous to wear the swimsuits for their magazines?


No, it's quite common for them to feature all sorts of women famous for their bodies. What is rare is their featuring women known for their athletic skills (which should be expected in a magazine about sports).

quote:

I really don't see a correlation between sex and magazines inciting lust. For example, do the women models give out their numbers so they can have sex for the customers that buy the magazines?


Well, maybe you don't see the correlation bewtween sexualized images, and the lust they are intended to inspire, but the very word "pornography" does. From the root words "porneia" (which means illicit sexual intercourse, and/or idolatry) and "graphos" (meaning something written or drawn). Pornography is literally writings, drawings and images that have immoral sexual content. Any photograph that is intended to arouse lust is pornography. The purpose of the photos in the SI Swimsuit issue is clearly to cause sexual thoughts and desires. It doesn't matter if it's actually possible to have sex with the women pictures, lust is about desiring what we cannot (or should not) have.

quote:

So the problem is the people, not the market.


Uh, the people are the market.

quote:

This is like when people use weapons to hit someone, we convict the people - not the weapons. Or when there are car accidents - we convict the driver, not the car.


Cars are not sold for the purpose of intentionally causing accidents. The SI Swimsuit issue is sold with the intention that the men who look at it will be incited to lust.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI