Quote:
Originally posted by subterranean
It's kinda funny that the discuccion is focused merely about woman's beauty and lust. So I suppose that there'd be such thing as sin for woman when she looks at a man. I remember a line in this movie "People vs Larry Flint", Larry argued with his phoographer who refused to take a picture of this she-model's womanhood. Larry said that it's a sin to refuse to take such a "beautiful" thing since the same God (whom the photographer believe, which is Jesus) was the one who created it. Of course, Mr. Flint said that as justification of his own hidden intention.
I want to comment what Stanislaw said that "sex is just for procreation". There's a philosophical arguments about this issue and I agree with this thingking by Christine Gudorf , a Christian theologian.
Gudorf said: The study of human anatomy and physiology yields insights into God's plan and design, and that human sexual behavior should conform with God's creative intentions. If we take a careful look at the anatomy and physiology of the female sexual organs, and especially the clitoris, instead of focusing exclusively on the male's penis (which is what Thomas Aquinas did, and therefore He stated that sex is only for procreation), quite different conclusions about God's plan and design emerge and hence Christian sexual ethics turns out to be less restrictive. In particular, the female's clitoris is an organ whose only purpose is the production of sexual pleasure and, unlike the mixed or dual functionality of the penis, has no connection with procreation. Therefore, the existence of the clitoris in the female body suggests that God intended that the purpose of sexual activity was as much for sexual pleasure for its own sake as it was for procreation.
Not that I was particularly bothered about what God, or rather the Church (which are unfortunately 2 very distinct things) say about pleasure, but reading this really made my day :D