The difference is that violence can be morally good. Under certain circumstances (e.g. to defend one's family from an aggressor) one can use violence in a completely morally licit way. Likewise, nudity in itself is perfectly moral. For example, displaying one's nude body in order to attract one's husband or wife is morally licit.
However, just as murder can never be moral, the display of nudity in order to sexually arouse persons other than one's spouse is never a moral act. Doing so distorts the natural relationship between men and women (marriage) and damages the structure of society by weakening its fundamental building block (the family as founded upon the monogamous union of husband and wife).
This is why it's okay to show the Good Guy blowing the Bad Guy up with an RPG to the chest and not to show the same Good Guy getting it on with some chick.
(The possibility of imitative behavior is also an issue. Kids are impressionable. They like to copy the actions of those they perceive as being "cool". However, even the most impressionable of kids is unlikely to kill somebody just becaue he or she saw T.J. Hooker kill somebody in a rerun. Killing just isn't something that comes naturally to most people. Sex does. Little Jaden and M'Kaylah might not ever dream of sticking a knife in each other's guts, but there's no telling what they might try when it comes to playing doctor.)
Human sexual behavior is morally licit only as it conforms to the natural order of things -- the union of husband and wife and the procreation of children. Pornography is immoral for two reasons: first, because it reduces its subject to the status of a commodity by divorcing his or her sexuality from its proper place in the natural order of things (i.e. family life); second, because (when used for its most obvious purpose) it tempts its user to engage in morally illicit behavior by divorcing the act of sex from its purpose in the natural order of things (i.e. family life),
I'm not trying to be a prude about this. I'm Catholic, not a Puritan. I'm as guilty as any man when it comes to chicks. I like to look at naked women a lot -- maybe too much, may God forgive me. I see nothing wrong with women (or men) displaying their bodies in a healthy, normal way. Short skirts, bathing suits, muscle shirts -- all these are fine if taken in proper context, i.e. by recognizing the beauty of the body as an aspect of the whole human person. I do not object to men noticing good-looking women, women eyeing handsome men, or harmless tease like cheesecake photos or cheerleader uniforms. It is only when dress (or undress) is used to remove human beings from the status of persons in the minds of the viewer -- reducing them to hunks of meat with no value other than as a means to an end -- that nudity becomes immoral.
As married man, I would never want to see my wife, female relatives, or any future daughters reduced to being spank-off fare for some dirty guy. No man wants his own daughter displayed for the pleasure of other men in a Playboy centerfold or on the strip club stage. But if you think about it, every girl that has ever appeared in a centerfold or popped it on a strip-joint runway is some man's daughter.
"Do unto others..."
So says you. This is merely your opinion.
This is why it's okay to show the Good Guy blowing the Bad Guy up with an RPG to the chest and not to show the same Good Guy getting it on with some chick.
The good guy being defined as 'Us' and the bad guy being defined as 'Them'. Sure, I understand what you mean.
Pornography is immoral for two reasons: first, because it reduces its subject to the status of a commodity by divorcing his or her sexuality from its proper place in the natural order of things (i.e. family life); second, because (when used for its most obvious purpose) it tempts its user to engage in morally illicit behavior by divorcing the act of sex from its purpose in the natural order of things (i.e. family life),
Hmmmm... You speak of the natural order of things as if they were universal throughout human culture. What you mean to say is in the 'natural order of things in Western culture'. In many cultures a woman is and has always has been a commodity. Many within our own culture still treat women as such. So, I'm not sure where you get your 'norm' for modelling natural behaviour against.
In my view, cosmetics are a way to keep women enslaved to this idea of woman=commodity. I refer to cosmetics as a 'Maybelline Burkha'. I think that covers how I feel about cosmetics. If you use them, you are doing this to yourself. I would rather see all women naked than even one single woman with make-up on her face. I think make-up is immoral and not within the natural order of things.
Can you think of a way to dispute that?
As married man, I would never want to see my wife, female relatives, or any future daughters reduced to being spank-off fare for some dirty guy.
Why does the guy have to be dirty? Would it be ok if the guy wasn't dirty? I don't think that masterbation per se makes one a dirty person.
No man wants his own daughter displayed for the pleasure of other men in a Playboy centerfold or on the strip club stage.
This is simply false. I remember watching Playmate of the Year Donna Edmondson's video when it came out and her father was very proud of her. He said so. I know it wouldn't bother me if my daughter or wife was in Playboy. My last wife was German. She had been an athlete all her life and then a doctor. She had a very no-nonsense idea of the human body. She was equally as comfortable naked as dressed- public or private. It didn't bother me. It didn't bother her. I am a man- thus you are refuted in that point. Absolutes in debate will usually corner you. It would be better if you said 'Not many men want...' This way I would quibble over the meaning of 'not many' as opposed to simply refuting your entire point by coming up with just one example contrary to your conjecture.
If I carry the way you feel to its natural conclusions I should want to cover all women from head to toe in a sack so that no other male could possibly get wanking material out of an exposed ankle or wrist.
This is the beauty of freedom. Go your own way. Don't try to make me go your way. I will go mine. When you try to make others go your way and ascribe such words as immoral to my actions because they are different than your own eventually a culture of people like yourself will want to destroy a culture of people more similar to me. This is what is happening in the world right now between Islam and the West.
The way you look at it, I can describe a woman who wears tight fitting clothing or a low cut top or a short skirt as being immoral because she has sexually stimulated me. But think about this:
The biggest turn on for me in a woman is her mind. I find intelligent women to be very sexually arousing. Does this mean they are immoral for having aroused me by displaying their intellect? This is a serious question. Claudia Schiffer is not a hot woman in my opinion but Dr Condoleezza Rice is very sexy and I cannot hear her talk or read about her without thinking of her as 'a sexual object' (if you will). Is she immoral for having made me feel thus?
It is my opinion that at the heart of the Muslim male is the same fear of the sexuality of the woman that lies at the heart of the Westerner who proclaims women immoral for arousing the sexual desires of men. The same. Read that how you will.
You have not changed my mind. And it doesn't matter if I have changed yours or not because.... (Drum roll).... My world view will defeat yours one day. People want more and more freedom, not less. Muslim culture (and all other female fearing cultures for that matter) will dissappear from the Earth. Look at television- you see more and more sex and nudity- not less. This will not change. It will only increase. The world will validate my view more and more with each passing second and yours will fade to non-existence.
In my view, an immoral thing cannot survive. When a century has passed us by, perhaps some future Freepers can look back on this conversation and see what memes have died out and which ones have survived.
I think you're right about one thing. Most people don't do violence naturally but everybody likes a good shag. A good shag will trump violence one day and anything that leads to a good shag will be deemed more moral than whatever leads to a good fight.
Perhaps this Air Force lady has eroded the foundations of your world view. She has done no harm to mine at all. I haven't seen her nude pictures and probably won't trouble myself to look at them. It's just not a big deal to me one way or the other (her nudity).