FWIW I've got so much real estate going now that I've decided to start subletting. That's why I'm the King, baby!
Posted on 02/16/2014 2:15:20 PM PST by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
The annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue arrives on newsstands Tuesday. It features three semi-nude babes on the cover.
The issue is eagerly awaited by much of SI’s readership. However, let those of us who are Christ followers not deceive ourselves: the magazine’s swimsuit issue is nothing more than softcore pornography.
Indeed, SI’s cover, celebrating the 50th anniversary of its swimsuit issue, actually is more sexualized than the cover of the latest issue of Playboy, which marks the skin magazine’s 60th anniversary, and which features the model Kate Moss in a bunny costume.
What particularly offends about SI is its hypocrisy.
The magazine’s writers and editors pride themselves in being on the right side of controversial social issues that transcend sport. But they have been silent about the sports media’s shameless exploitation of young women for the lustful pleasure of men (and boys).
To wit: SI recently published a fawning cover story about Michael Sam, the former Missouri college football player who came out of the closet as a homosexual, who hopes to become the first openly-gay player in the NFL.
“America is ready for Michael Sam,” SI declared.
Then there’s SI’s campaign to compel the Washington Redskins to change its team name to comport with the magazine’s politically correct sensibilities. In fact, the mag’s NFL writer Peter King decided last football season he would no longer reference the franchise’s team name.
“It has nothing to do with calling anyone racist.” said King. “It’s just I’m uncomfortable using the name.”
Yet, SI’s writers and editors think it perfectly acceptable to pander to its preponderantly male readership with lascivious pictorials of young women that are seminude or fully nude (save for body paint).
MJ Day, the madam of sorts who edits the mag’s swimsuit issue, even goes so far as to suggest that the cover shot of models Nina Agdal and Lily Aldridge, “clad in orange thong bikini bottoms,” as the New York Daily News described their skimpy attire, and Chrissy Teigen, in a “barely-there pink bikini,” was perfectly wholesome.
As to the models themselves, who’ve sold their souls for fame and fortune, “They’re really good girls,” Day told the Newark Star-Ledger. “They’re the girl next door.”
Well, really good girls do not take their clothes off for the titillation of millions of men. And girls next door don’t strike come hither poses suggesting that they’re inviting a sex acts.
Of course, most of SI’s male readers look forward to this Tuesday’s arrival of the swimsuit issue. They can’t wait to ogle the scantily clad models therein.
But for those us who are Christ followers first, sports fans further down the list (behind family, country, et al.) we are instructed to be not “conformed to this world,” where soft core pornography has been mainstreamed by the popular culture.
No, we will not go to hell by viewing the risqué photos in SI’s swimsuit issue. But we certainly will be conducting ourselves outside of God’s will.
Indeed, in the Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus declared, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
That’s why the men among us who are committed Christ followers will bring every lustful thought into captivity to the obedience of God. And that means avoiding SI’s soft core porn issue.
Reading minds, attributing motives and making the thread "about" another Freeper individually are all forms of "making it personal."
Accusing another Freeper on the RF of being immature or having a shallow faith are both "making it personal."
And this post?
“eah that’s what I thought...Let me ask you something... when you stand up in the market square and call things Sexualized Garbage, Im curious how you are displaying the Love of Christ by doing that? When the woman caught in adultery was brought before Christ did he stand up and scream at her and what she did? Or was his response Mercy and Love? Do any of those models, photographers, editors, printers, advertisers etc have a relationship where they want to express a purity in their lives by not producing photos like that? Er... no... So how specifically will standing up and condemning them call them into a relationship of Christ? Christ is not obsessed with Sin. He already paid for it in full....”
By your standard you should delete it
For instance, "Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal whereas "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Oh so I could have said are you immature?
Yes, and your correspondent could have asked if your faith is shallow.
oh my
FWIW I've got so much real estate going now that I've decided to start subletting. That's why I'm the King, baby!
Senator, I served with the jello sheriff, I knew the jello sheriff, the jello sheriff was a friend of mine...so I must ask ----> who made you the jello sheriff, of the house?
Yes it is different. This was a case of public indecency. The restaurant personnel were mortified. The argument is if you dont want it dont look. Kinda difficult in todays society when all kinds of indecency are so common that soft core porn can be seen at 6 pm on the wall of a family restaurant where they were just playing the news. There is and should be a standard for what is considered decent in public. If people want to look at it they should go look for it. Dont assault families with it at every turn. Its in commercials, on billboards, on the news, in the mall, in the checkout lane at the store. Look around. As a mom trying to raise a son who views women as more than objects for sexual gratification, it is maddening. As a mom raising daughters to view themselves as more than objects, it is maddening. I never said they didnt have the right to print it. Just dont appreciate seeing it everywhere.
Do you feel that having the 10 Commandments or a Bible displayed in a public place is acceptable? What about a Nativity Display at the local school?
The argument that you make against the SI cover is EXACTLY the same argument that people make regarting public displays of Christianity.
I am sorry but there is no way you can’t equate words or a Christmas display with public nudity.
Don’t apologize, just understand that your definition of obscene differs from another person’s.
Be realistic as well. The girls on the cover of SI were not and are not nude. Their butt cheeks were showing just as the girls at a public beach display.
They were all topless and the girl on the left had her breast showing. I think we can all agree that nudity is indecent for public.
With one of the women there was but a hint of the underslope of her bosom. No breast aureoles were visible on any of the three. The entire toute ensemble was tasteful and understated.
I am still unable to apply the word `indecent’ to the female bosom. Not in such circumstances as these.
`Grizzard’s prayer’ applies here. The beauty of a woman’s figure is G-d given and worthy of thanks & celebration by His humble faithful.
Your approach sounds familiar ... like the one used to defend abortion on demand, or the normalizing of sexual degeneracy. When a culture loses its taboo structure it has uncovered its demise.
And you know this how?:)
Not a secret
We will have to disagree. I take the account of Genesis and its assessment of nakedness over Grizzards’s prayer. I agree that nakedness of the human body is beautiful but in its proper place. Public is not the proper place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.