As the carnival is drawing to an end, one major outburst of the fun is yet underway. This is the (in)famous New Orleans style Mardi Gras.

Probably everyone knows what makes the Mardi Gras parades in New Orleans so different from other such events. This is not to say that the New Orleans one is the only place where this occurs, but it surely is the most known one. Locals will also protest that it is not a local tradition, but what can they say if pretty much everyone believes it is?

Here is a couple of links:

A local's point of view: http://www.mardigrasneworleans.com/quartermardi.html#breasts

A visitor's account: http://robwalker.net/html_docs/mardigras.html

How it looks for the police (so no one would flame me, warning: there's a flasher flashing a policeman in the picture): http://www.thisistrue.com/carnival.html

Yet another visitor reflection: http://articles.student.com/travelarticle/mardigras

And another reflection which tends to contradict some of the earlier ones: http://slate.msn.com/id/101500/

Quite clearly, Mardi Gras is a post-French (post-)Catholic tradition, marking the end of the carnival period of feasting and having fun (from after Christmas to Ash Wednesday), with the final outburst just before the Ash Wednesday comes and the penitentiary period of lent begins.

Now, I can't know for sure, but it doesn't really seem probable that the whole flashing for beads could be an import. Even some of the locals' reflections, somewhere between the verses and somewhat reluctantly admit that indeed, there is a local root to that.

It's not just the porn business and prostitutes. It makes me wonder how women who take part in those celebrations can show their breasts to strangers or the general public or kiss strangers in exchange for beads - cheap plastic balls on a cord, and then consider themselves normal, decent and prudent ladies. In some of the pictures, you see crucifixes hanging down those bared chests.

One of such women went to the court when she discovered she was taped when baring herself in public. As follows:

Becky Lynn Gritzke, a Florida State University business major, admits in her lawsuit that she was among the women on the streets and balconies of the French Quarter last year who removed their tops in exchange for Mardi Gras beads and trinkets.

A month later, Gritzke was surprised to find out that she was in a ``Girls Gone Wild'' TV ad, on the ``Girls Gone Wild'' Internet site, on the cover of a video and in the video itself. She said a friend even spotted her in an ad on an Italian billboard.Wasn't it her own choice? Whatever she did there, it was absolutely voluntary and totally public. In one of the articles I linked, there's a short mention of a girl who apparently bared her breasts for a coconut while she was there with her boyfriend, because she thought she had to do that. :rolleyes:

Some guys actually take it for granted that their girlfriends will flash people. For example:

Many boobs were flashed, seen, hooted for, etc. My girlfriend got lots of beads with remarkably little flashing (when she flashed, she got the GOOD beads).(no link because of questionnable material on that site)

So, what do you think about the whole thing?

[ February 08, 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I'm guessing that the flashing wasn't part of the first celebrations. If someone does something in public like that, they risk public humiliation--especially if her breasts were very attractive. If I were there and flashed someone with a camera, those pictures wouldn't likely see the light of day (the gut isn't my best feature...).

She was there, chose to bare her breasts in public, and thus, has to live with the results.

Here it's the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, so I was thinking, WTF? when I read the reference to a girl's boyfriend. Anyways, IMO it should bbe legal for the pictures to be published AS LONG AS
a) Not on a pr0n site or in a pr0nographic publication
b) Not in a way deliberately designed to humiliate.
c) In a group. One person shouldn't be singled out.

I think it is a rather cute and quaint little tradition. A woman who gets upset when her flash get caught on tape should not flash at all though.

Ditto, joacqin. And besdies, the beads aren't just "cheap plastic balls on a string." The good ones are glass and very ornate. They're prized collectibles and can be quite valuable.

No, I don't know this from personal experience. New Orleans (and not necessarily Mardi Gras) is still on my list of "places to go before I die."

However, it is not allowed to use anyone for commercial purposes without their consent afaik. If the tape is aired or sold the agreement of those who are on it should of course be acquired.

@ joacqin - By that logic, a t.v. news broadcast be required to obtain permission from everyone in a crowd that is caught on film. I realize that there is a significant difference in the type of program that we are talking about here but I can't see it as being fair to make an exception for one type of program and not for another.

In my mind, if you decide to make a public exhibition of yourself then you better be willing to live with the public seeing you do it.

I thought about that, but by your logic you can film someone while doing a prank on them and then air it on candid camera for example. Is that legal? Filming a street with people walking by and then air that shouldnt be a problem but zooming in one guy and commenting on his hair and clothes and following him around recquires his assent to air. Or?

Ditto, joacqin. And besdies, the beads aren't just "cheap plastic balls on a string." The good ones are glass and very ornate. They're prized collectibles and can be quite valuable.So it's perfectly normal to bare one's breasts in public to get those, or to kiss a stranger?

I don't know about Sweden, but there are no such restrictions here - a photo featuring a close up of me and one other person made the front page of the local paper once and I had no idea that it had been taken let alone having them obtain my permission to publish it. I wasn't doing anything potentially embarrasing in the photo but that doesn't change the fact that they had no obligation to obtain my approval because the photo was taken in a public setting.

In terms of the practical joke t.v. programs - I rather imagine that they normally do ask permission to air their footage - it is only common decency to do so. So in terms of the Girls Gone Wild video I would say that if anything I would consider it rude for them to have not obtained permission to use the footage.

I am not sure about Sweden either, but as you say it is common decency to ask for permission.

When you were on the first page was it you who was the "main attraction" of the picture or did you just happen to stand in front of something or somewhere which was the main target so to speak? Close up, hmm, what was the following article about? The few times I have been in the local newspaper they have asked me before taking the picture. Arent there agreed upon moral codes for publishers and such?

I was doing volunteer community service type work at the time and they were doing an article on the event that I was working at. The photo was of the "look at the hard working volunteers helping out" type, so yes the two of us were clearly the subject of the photo.

I went to Marti Gras for the spring break of my senior year in college.

Yes, it was lewd and idiotic, it was also a helluva lot of fun. So it's perfectly normal to bare one's breasts in public to get those, or to kiss a stranger?That's the least of the depravity that goes on.

I know, but the rest isn't sort of accepted the way the flashing is.

I'm with Becky Lynn. I think she has every right to go to court. And, yes, this is even though she was acting in public.

First and foremost, she is the one person who has the right on anything depicting her - be it photo or video tape or painting or whatever. Who else should have that right? No one? Nah, can't be. C'mon, where are the conservatives protecting privacy in this matter? You decide where your likeness is displayed; no one else.

And, yes, even though it was a public display, I still think it is a matter of privacy. The argument runs as follows: a tape or picture taken in a certain moment displays just that. One point in time. You may be Becky Lynn, honest working woman, sensible girl, delicate and amiable. Who – at one point at time! – flashed her breasts in public. Out of a certain mood. A mood that may or may not be integral part of her personality. That may or may not grasp her again. For all we know it could have been a singular moment that will never return (and that is already regretted).
However, what do we perceive if we don’t know Becky Lynn (the sensitive girl)? We see a picture of her on TV or on the net that inflates that one moment, that small part of her totally out of proportion. We think “yeah, look at that fuddy-duddy gone wild! I bet she likes it hard, that hussy! Maybe her boy isn’t up to satisfying her needs, hnjahnjahnja…”
Do we want that? I don’t.

Mardi Gras is a special event. Something besides the usualness of the every day life. It should be left there. Don’t drag everything into the light of day – where would be the use of that? It’s not like Becky was promoting nudism and is astonished to find someone looking at her.

The argument runs as follows: a tape or picture taken in a certain moment displays just that. One point in time. You may be Becky Lynn, honest working woman, sensible girl, delicate and amiable. Who – at one point at time! – flashed her breasts in public. Out of a certain mood.Here is my point, Darkthrone: women who flash their breasts in public or French-kiss strangers on the streets during Mardi Grass probably consider themselves perfectly decent normal women outside of it. As I pointed out, sometimes you see a crucifix hanging between those exposed breast of a woman who goes with the moment.

Is that decent or sensitive? There's no way to give a positive answer in fairness here. Is it an integral part of her personality? It must be. It's not like flashing is a common thing and a custom endorsed by the society.

Conservatives make a great deal of privacy laws. But conservatives first of all put forward responsibility for oneself. One is free to make choice but one shouldn't be *****ing about the results. You exposed your slutty side in public? Fine. Just don't be surprised that no one will fall for your innocent girl crap anymore.

Things would be totally different if her top fell off, of course.

However, I agree with you on one: I think she should have a means of making them stop showing her on some conditions. It's still not right to bother the state and make it pay the costs of her stupidity, but if she really experiences embarrassment and regret, she should be allowed to have that photo banned. After all, those who took photos or tapes have no right to people's images, right? But no damages, compensation or otherwise, should be awarded for the whole thing unless they singled her out and distorted the truth about what happened (e.g. suggesting there was more but wasn't taped, or that she did that all the time, etc etc).

Look, I understand there's a need to move on after making a mistake. But the first step here is realising your mistake, owning to it and making a resolution not to repeat it.

Special event or not, people there do something immoral which is normally frowned upon even by themselves. Are people's morals so shallow and superficial that they need venting at least once a year? What point having morals then.

Don't know about you, guys, but if my daughter did that I wouldn't be happy, and I wouldn't say to my woman, "come, let's go to New Orleans, you can get some beads for flashing people, it's a quaint little tradition besides the usualness of the everyday life."

I have pretty leftish policies on some social issues, but my heart is conservative on this one: stupidity is not an excuse and people should pay for it. Joyous indecent revelry is not a legitimate interest and by no means a circumstance speaking in your favour if you want to avoid the consequences. I'm all in favour of moving on and allowing people to get over it, but judicial pardon requirse confession, religious atonement requires confession, why make it special for other situations? Made a mistake, learn the lesson. Shielding people from their mistakes won't teach them anything.

I understand your point. Of course the decency of showing one's breats in public is questionable. If not altogether non-existent. Depends on your moral code. I don't want to call that morality into question, hence I chose to comment on the other side of the matter which, I feel, is quite a seperate issue.

Responsibility: I think that Becky Gritzke is acting in a responsible way. She is taking care of her interests and uses the tools the state is providing her to this end. This is nowhere near *****ing about the results or crying out for mummy. If this was, every lawsuit would be (because one couldn't take care of matters for oneself but had to rely on the power of the state).

Stupidity: Maybe there has been a misjudgement on her side. But: since when does the law have to include a stupidity factor for crimes? A theft is a theft, regardless of anyone being careless with his purse or not. The state has to protect it's subjects even if they are stupid. And if her top just fell off: wouldn't this be even more stupid? To not make sure your top is fastened when you go out on the streets?

Now, if someone wanted to sue her for indecent behavior - yes, then it would be totally different if her top fell off. But not in this case - where the issue is whether she had this coming because she was acting in public or not.

And the main reason for this is that there are different shades of "public". As soon as you are not alone one might argue that you are in public. A party at your friend's place: private or public? And if a stranger is there amongst your friends? Still private? OK, how about two strangers? Or six? Hm, difficult. How about a friend-to-stranger-ratio of one-to-five? Public now?

What I'm trying to get at is: yes, Becky was "in public". But it was not a concert in the Royal Albert Hall, nor was it in the metro driving to work. It was a special place with other (for lack of a better term) selected people - all sharing the same mood, all being participants, all having something in common: being there at that time.

Taking pictures of her and making them available for the whole world to see is neglecting this. Is ripping it out of the context. Now there's a new publicity, an audiance that wasn't participating and that was not the intended addressee of Becky Lynn's delicious breasts. This is why I am in favor of her case.

But I'm not unrealistic or worldly innocent. She misjudged the situation, obviously. Still, if a misjudgement leads to a violation of your rights - well, you are free to correct this. No one is to tell you "shut up, you've only got to blame yourself".

"Made a mistake, learn the lesson" would be appropriate even if we were talking about rape. "Yeah, she made a mistake with all that looking cute and going out on friday night all alone. Hope she learned her lesson!" This is wrong.

It's not just the porn business and prostitutes. It makes me wonder how women who take part in those celebrations can show their breasts to strangers or the general public or kiss strangers in exchange for beads - cheap plastic balls on a cord, and then consider themselves normal, decent and prudent ladies. In some of the pictures, you see crucifixes hanging down those bared chests.
To be frank, their brothers get to be recruited to the Swiss Guard, if they do it in Lucerne. And there is no reproach to be made. Things like that our traditional and old and you get the "freedom of fools". You can say and do things, that normally are forbidden, on those special days. No matter where you go, from Germany to Italy, those festivities are "wild". And there is no shadow of doubt, that they are catholic.

The other issue is the way those things get sold out. That's not good. It shouldn't be sold as touristic event. Well, of course it should. But as a hole. The bands are part of it, the costumes are part of it and the speeches are part of it, not only the booze and the boobs.
Special event or not, people there do something immoral which is normally frowned upon even by themselves. Are people's morals so shallow and superficial that they need venting at least once a year? What point having morals then.

You are immoral to think you could judge. It's not your culture and it's not your say and it's not your business. Frankly, it's not even your religion (well sort of not). Your just a foreigner. And if you're in rome, do as the romans. And if it wouldn't be immorally sold as porn, you never would have been led on the immoral path and would have judged other people just because they don't have the exact cumstoms like in your neighbourhood.

And I bet that the woman in question wins the court battle. The rule is, that if are presented as part of a crowd, it's legalt to publish without permission. It's even legal if only one person walks down a square. It's legal because it shows a "public" event, a person walking down a square in this or that city. But it becomes illegal to print a picture without permission, when the person as person is presented. It's the difference between A and THAT. There is no need for permission to publish a picture of A naked woman lying on a beach. But showing a picture of THAT naked woman, needs a permission. (This of course not if the naked woman is the duchess of Y or a famous actress).

And it to me to be clear, that they don't publish a picture of A woman in New Orleans showing what's under her top, but THAT woman's private parts.

[ February 08, 2005, 17:53: Message edited by: Iago ]

I meant a mistake related to doing something actively rather than making oneself vulnerable. If a girl wears revealing or hugging clothes and gets assaulted, it's much different from herself removing her top and being photographed in or after the process. In exposing herself, she meant to be seen. It wasn't even a by-result, but the very reason why she did that. When a girl wears too skimpy or too tight clothing, she means to attract males sexually, but not necessarily to interact with any volunteer. If she becomes the object of indecent remarks and proposals, she has herself to blame, but the road to rape is still long yet, as the rapist needs to break through physical resistance unless he has a lethal ranged weapon.

As for using the tools of the state... well, she does have the legal right to do that, sure. The problem is, she flashes strangers in public and tax payers pay for the taping suit.

As for stupidity, I still think more stupidity is required to bare one's breasts in front of hundreds of strangers than to fail to fix one's top properly. When it comes to answering for one's stupidity before the poetic justice of life, the flashing stupidity seems to be more relevant than the poor fixing stupidity. After all, the latter is negligence (of a very stupid kind, but still), while the former is pro-active stupidity. ;)

As for misjudgement... I don't know. Perhaps she misjudged her act of partial stripping, perhaps she simply didn't take into consideration the possibility of being taped. But it's much much easier to allege silent consent to be taped than to allege that someone who is careless with his purse doesn't really want it.

As for the running to mum factor, well, you're right in saying that demanding the tape to be banned by the court doesn't totally rely on it. But I think that any compensation or punitive damages would. If the porn guys have made any money on the tape, she should be given her share of the profit. And I would agree that it should be increased for lack of express consent and pay pre-arrangement.

Don't you think that what she did with that money would show how much of a normally decent girl who made a single mistake she were? In a symbolic way, it would decide if she wanted her role as a porn actress or not. Giving the money to charity would say not. Spending the money as if it were a normal wage would say yes.

Edit:

You can say and do things, that normally are forbidden, on those special days. No matter where you go, from Germany to Italy, those festivities are "wild". And there is no shadow of doubt, that they are catholic.That they are Catholic there may be no doubt. But that means being Catholic the way Kerry is.

The festivities are "wild", but they are human-made. Religion-based morals tend to have a degree of divine institution. Not even the Pope can exempt you from divinely instituted moral rules in Catholicism before you do something (if every single priest can absolve you afterwards).

The problem is, where divine institution ends and where human-made morals begin. In Catholicism, the case with sex is pretty clear. It isn't believed that Jesus was speaking within the reality of 1st century Iudaea and Israel, but in more general terms. I agree that kissing is not yet sex, but it belongs in the attraction/relationship area and thus kissing a stranger (other than on the hand or cheek in some societies) with whom one isn't considering a relationship is questionnable. Nudity is more complicated, but the purpose is related to sexual attraction and thus touches on the tenets relating to relationships.

I'm not going to shake the Bible at people in the sauna or on the nudist beach, but flashing in public doesn't have any functional purpose, not even a trivial one like avoiding tan lines.

I'm not judging individuals, either. It's God's job. But the act feels wrong to me and gives me creeps. Something is wrong about it, and we aren't talking 18th century Polynesian natives.

You are immoral to think you could judge. It's not your culture and it's not your say and it's not your business.The culture isn't far from my own and my business or my say is irrelevant. I have no say as to whether abortion should be legal because I'm not a legislator and it's not my personal business because I'm not a parent. So what, should I stay away from forming an opinion of the act?

And if it wouldn't be immorally sold as porn, you never would have been led on the immoral path and would have judged other people just because they don't have the exact cumstoms like in your neighbourhood.It's not about the exact same customs as in my neighbourhood. It's about the basic consistency between what one speaks and what one does and what one thinks. Perhaps I don't have a PhD in logics, but logical thinking and comparing things you see or hear is not rocket science.

[ February 08, 2005, 18:37: Message edited by: chevalier ]

It's not about the exact same customs as in my neighbourhood. It's about the basic consistency between what one speaks and what one does and what one thinks. Perhaps I don't have a PhD in logics, but logical thinking and comparing things you see or hear is not rocket science.
Logic lies in the eye of the beholder. No, the problem is, there is the institution of "freedom of fools". It's named "fasnacht" where I come from ant it literally means "fool's night". No sins, laws are are out of place. No closing time in bars, it's allowed to play music at 4 a.m. and so on. Equally, one is allowed to say things under a mask, that wouldn't be decent or allowed any other time of the year. And that all without the interference of the church. The point being, no one doubts the complete legimacy of the whole procedure.

Point being, there is no inconstincency. As the whole thing is under the explicit premise, to do be allowed to do, what your are not normally. That's the whole point of it. The days where everything goes. And this all with the approval of the church. So, there is absolutely no inconsistency and one can continue with being and feeling decent again afterwards. Indecent behaviour without remorse or consequenses is explicitly allowed. Think of it as a singularity. In a singularity, normal rules don't apply.

Moral outrage is completly out of place, as all moral rules (or at least a lot) are offically repealled for a clear defined amount of time. Fools can't be guilty.

(Under the premise, that the rules of New-Orleans don't differ to much from the rules of west-central-Europe).

And I wonder now, how do you intend to argue around the "jester's licence" ?

The point being, no one doubts the complete legimacy of the whole procedure.The church does. The church doesn't believe that it's right to cheat on your partner or flash strangers when you're wearing a mask. There is no such thing as the legitimacy of the whole procedure.

There is no approval of the church for the flashing and the kissing of strangers. Go ask the first Catholic theologian you find.

There is no freedom of fouls in the Christian dogma. There is freedom of will and the consequences of one's choices.

Indecent behaviour is never explicitly allowed by the Catholic church under any circumstances.

There is a world of difference between appearing in the background in a news programme about an event you participated in, and being presented as a character in an entertainment called "Girls Gone Wild". If a for-profit company used her as an extra in an entertainment production, they should have obtained her consent first, and paid her the standard guild rate for extra work. They owe her a fee, and they owe her damages for not obtaining her signature on a release form before using her image that way. Speculation about her morals is utterly irrelevant.

I attended Marti Gras a number of years ago. Showing your boobs is tame. There were guys in my group receiving beads for showing their stuff to old ladies. And there are girls doing *far* more involved acts up on the balconies. Fairly harmless, unless you're considering all the un-protected sex and drug-overdoses (including alcohol). Stay with the crowd, and you're not going to get mugged or raped.

The actual parade is very colorful. I'm sure Rio de Janerio is even more spectacular, but NO's little party is neat.




But, Chev, I don't understand how Louisiana relates to Denmark...

This event makes a interesting case study for psychology. This is quite typical for the behaviour of a crowd; individuals inhibit their own personalities and exhibit the spirit of the moment. She was no exception. With so many other people doing the same, she too followed suit. She just got unlucky and got caught on film.

Despite this, I still believe it was her own choice... but it wasn't for the lousy beads. Her decision was made under heavy pressure. In normal circumstances, I'm sure your average cross-bearing woman would not flash for anything, definitely not for beads. But here, as part of the crowd, the encouragements from guys and the spirited atmosphere made her go with the flow. It takes some courage and will power to swim against the tides and deny what people are expecting. In the worse case, you get that clueless zombie that Chev mentioned with rolling eyes - she thought she had to. I guess Becky didn't have enough resistance in her either, which is her own downfall.

But what's done has been down and now it's between her and the company, which I won't comment on because I'm more fond of the psychology than the politics and law.

Good point, Blog, but I think it's more than just a blind follow-the-crowd case. Pressure was involved at the time, of course, but she's the one who took the initiative to place herself in the midst of that type of environment in the first place, well aware of what happens at Mardi Gras.

It takes more than a suggestion and the surprise factor is removed because, as War Nerve points out, everyone is aware what happens there. I believe the problem is that some people don't just yield to pressure. They use pressure as an excuse. Either this or the clueless zombie that does everything what is told to do ("I did that because he wanted me to do it").

Some guys seem to have no problem with it, but I would dump a girl if we were walking together and she bared herself for a stranger who offered beads for boobs. Same for French kissing.

I agree that there's more exposure in Rio, but Rio is different in three aspects: 1) there's no flashing - what is uncovered is uncovered from start (although it's likely an exhibitionist streak in case of naked samba dancers rather than a question of comfort or innocent appreciation of a beautiful body as in beholding a sculpture) 2) there's no boobs for beads trade, which is a mild form of prostitution (look, nude beauty contest is just it - beauty contest, but flashing for beads is prostitution lite (tm)) 3) there's no custom of French-kissing strangers (alternative to flashing for some women at NO parades).

If those people believe Babylon was disgusting then I don't see much difference than Mardi Gras parades - I am not saying its wrong to go to Mardi Gras but having studied the Bible earlier in my life you cannot deny that Mardi Gras and Babylon sound very very similar!

Funny thing is that its parade season and the Spanish and French parades were more tame yet Europe is considered the 'anything goes' part of the world!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4236005.stm

ejsmith, I am not sure but there is an art museum outside of Copenhagen named Louisiana.

Logic lies in the eye of the beholder.Ok. If I say that 1=0, and say that it is logical, does that mean it is, in fact, logical? You're saying that logic, one of the most objective things, where EVERYTHING can be brought down to true and false, and ones and zeroes, is subjective?
No, the problem is, there is the institution of "freedom of fools". It's named "fasnacht" where I come from ant it literally means "fool's night". No sins, laws are are out of place.COOL! Does that mean I am legally allowed to kill a hundred people, and rape all the women and it will NOT be a sin or a crime?
No closing time in bars, it's allowed to play music at 4 a.m. and so on.Oh, so now closing time in bars and playing music at 4AM are crimes? Logic, thy name is Iago.
Equally, one is allowed to say things under a mask, that wouldn't be decent or allowed any other time of the year.Oh, so saying things under a mask is a crime, except on Fasnacht? Good thing you have at least one night of free speech, but on the other hand, it's incredible how even that is limited to being under a mask. It's like polls, except you don't even know the representative group.
And that all without the interference of the church.I would love to see an example of how the church would preach against bars being open at night, music being played at 4AM, or expressing your opinions freely. Thing is, none of these things is a sin.
The point being, no one doubts the complete legimacy of the whole procedure.

Point being, there is no inconstincency.No incosistency, true. But Fasnacht and its customs are completely irrelevant to Mardi Gras in New Orleans.
As the whole thing is under the explicit premise, to do be allowed to do, what your are not normally.Normally, I'm not a psychotic killer, nor a rapist. Does that mean I can become one during Mardi Gras? This gives a whole new dimension to Sting's "Bourbon Street."
That's the whole point of it. The days where everything goes. And this all with the approval of the church.Oh no you don't.
Here, you have last year's news item:
http://www.catholicworldnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=31713
How about a bit from the Bible?
1 Cor 10:31 KJV: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." I cannot fathom how Mardi Gras "customs" can be done to the glory of God.
Or from the Catechism:
CCC 2339: "Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. the alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end." (Emphasis mine)
(At risk of you telling me I'm wrong):
CCC 2354: "Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. (...)" (Emphasis mine)
Since baring is an element of a sexual act, I would say flashing is an element of pornography. It is, after all, called "softporn."
Now about tongue kissing:
CCC 2351: "Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Tongue kissing is pleasure, and is a sexual pleasure.
So, there is absolutely no inconsistencyWhat if I just proved that there is?
and one can continue with being and feeling decent again afterwards.Decent? Giving in to whims, doing things that are reserved for someone else, and you say you can feel decent afterwards???
Indecent behaviour without remorse or consequenses is explicitly allowed.Quote the source. Where does it say. I've just proven that it is not, at least not according to the Catholic Church, and Mardi Gras is a Christian (esp. Catholic) celebration. Care to explain how it is allowed?
Think of it as a singularity. In a singularity, normal rules don't apply. OK. I'm normally an okay person. But, in a singularity, I decide to murder a hundred people around me. As you said, in a singularity, normal rules don't apply. So I should be decreed completely normal.
And, it is not a singularity. It is repeated annualy. As such, it is a cyclic activity, definitely not a singularity.
Moral outrage is completly out of place, as all moral rules (or at least a lot) are offically repealled for a clear defined amount of time.Officially? Where does it say so officially?
Fools can't be guilty.But they cannot say they are not fools, and certainly not to expect to be treated like ordinary people! Are they foolish or are they responsible? You can't be both. And be even one foolish incident, you are putting your entire responsibility in question.
(Under the premise, that the rules of New-Orleans don't differ to much from the rules of west-central-Europe).WHAT RULES??? This is absurd.
And I wonder now, how do you intend to argue around the "jester's licence" ?Show me the jester's licence.

Interesting to me that the debauchery that is inherent with Mardi Gras grew up in stark contrast to the period of sacrifice and self-reformation that is supposed to begin the following day...Ash Wednesday.

Those darn pagan traditions warping Christian holidays ;) .

It's good to see that we all entered into the new spirit of not bullying anyone in the AoDA/AoLS and ripping his posts apart, isn't it.

*Sigh*

toughluck, do you have any problems grasping the concept of carnival and how it developed historically? PM me so I can give you a few links to do some reading up... or rather... no, don't...

@Darkthrone -- I have replied to Iago. He stated, amongst other things, that the Church approves Mardi Gras practices, and I wanted to show that he is wrong.
And about the concept of a carnival -- it's great of you to think that during a carnival, everyone can do whatever pleases them and everyone accepts that. See, I've made two generalisations that are wrong. What if I said: "I killed John Doe because he asked me to, and his wife and kids approved that." Would you take me at my word, or would you rather want proof?

Wow.. flashing, the world comes to a crushing halt. Personally I dont see it as either offensive or very spectacular, but maybe its because I'm not one of the regular boob-drooling monkeys.

As soon as someone makes money on that girl flashing, I'd consider she'd have the rights to it, at least the few clippings of her in whatever material it might be. If people are displaying a public happening for free, well she was there and sometimes foolish things are remembered, tough luck. Just my 2 cents

Considering the everything goes in europe, well, when everything goes its not exciting, thus no point in it. However I think most european nations have laws against nudity in public. As for how many actually cares, well I dunno.

toughluck, do you have any problems grasping the concept of carnival and how it developed historically? PM me so I can give you a few links to do some reading up... or rather... no, don't...Sorry, Darkthrone. Middle Ages have always been my specialty period in history and I've done some classics as well, if you're going to reach that far back. While you could claim that moral standards were officially unbinding on certain days in Rome or Greece, or Babylon, or ancient Sumer or Egypt, this will not hold for the ancient Israel or mediaeval Europe. At the very most, you will find people drinking, dancing, roaming the streets and having fun. However, adultery or even simple fornication has never been "allowed" in the Catholic church under any circumstances whatsoever and even when you're being raped, you're supposed to alienate yourself from the sexuality of the act and not experience the raw excitement of it. In this view, even if a single bishop or theologian allowed that, it would be an obvious exception. However, I can think of no such theologian or high-ranking ecclesiastic except a couple of heretics disavowed by the Church of Rome. Of course, you will find documented incidents of public nudity even among royals at their parties, but you will never find a document endorsing something which is normally considered a sin against the sixth. Indeed, mediaeval theologians seem to have had an obsession with sexual sins and the policies were much, much stricter than now.

We could argue day and night about nudity without arriving at a conclusion. The point is, however, that flashing in NO isn't simply people losing their garments and playing around like children happy because of being liberated from their clothes. Perhaps sex is not implied in the very concept and the idea relies on girls showing bodies and comparing the signs of appreciation they have got from men. However, in practice, it's not about just looking the way you look on a nude sculpture or painting and then indicating the degree of your approval through the quality of the trophies you give. It's concentrated on obtaining beads in exchange for showing private parts. Essentially, the more private the parts are, the more lavish the beads. While we could argue that with a specific mindframe in a society, this doesn't necessarily have to be bad, as everything depends on the connection between nudity and lust, it stands a fact that lust typically lies at the base of it, that people who are not single are not supposed to bare themselves before other men or women, and that the purpose of it all is basically live soft porn.

While we could argue that in some given cases it really looks somewhat harmless, I doubt many of us would agree that someone's girlfriend or wife showing her naked body in public or to specified strangers is harmless. Especially if it's done for pay, which resemble the world-old ritual "sacred" prostitution.

As for kissing (and I'm not speaking of kissing on the cheek which is what the shy or more modest girls over there do), how is kissing a stranger going to be considered acceptable? If you're immediately attracted, like I don't know... love from the first sight? Maybe. But frenching random strangers for material pay? One can make various things of a simple kiss - it can be a sign of peace or friendship or non-erotic love. However, open-mouth kissing with tongue is hardly a sign of friendship, let alone peace, and while it doesn't have to be a thoroughly lustful act when it happens between people who are in love (I think), in this instance it doesn't stand for any feelings and as an empty gesture is simply a sign of poor conduct and likely a pretext to indulge in lust. It's not done within the frame of an abstract example of a culture in which tongue-kissing is equivalent to our handshake. Within the frame of our civilisation, it contradicts the twofold emotional and physical aspect of love (obtaining or providing the physical side for pay without an emotional bonding) and monogamy. Those are central in Christianity and that's why the frenching of strangers in exchange for gifts is hardly Christian.

Perhaps the intellectual, emotional and spiritual attitude of a person towards an act can make the act something different from what it is for someone else, but an attitude of expected impunity ("come on, we aren't going to be punished" or "there's no Bible thumping priest around") is not really what makes it.

The ritualistic showing of boobies is pretty harmless, Chev. When your wife (speculatively) hits 40, and she's going through that crisis thing, a bit of risque flashing and groping will help her feel 15 again. I can understand the no-kissing part.


Anyway, back when I went, "body paint" wasn't much in style. There were some streaks and stuff on people's face, but that was about it.

However, I recently came across some fairly interesting pictures, where a fairly young female was as naked as naked gets, with a shirt and shorts "painted" on her. It was very artistic, as the people walking near her didn't seem to notice much (the ones that did notice, were obvious). It was extremely creative...and, you know...naughty, too.

I'd like to go back to Marti Gras just to see what they do with the body painting stuff like this.

@ejsmith:
I will assume chevalier is similar to me, and has a similar taste in women.
1. Accepting what comes with life and with age is a Christian virtue. When there is a crisis, it should be accepted and experienced, not artificially averted and there is no point in trying to avert it by doing stupid things
2. There is always an alternative. There is really no need for living this crisis sulking, you can find a lot of uses for that build-up of energy.
3. Flashing and groping would lead my fiancee to an actual crisis -- in this case, an identity and dignity crisis. And that is more important.
4. Fifteen? It's great of fifteen year olds to flash and grope. I didn't know fifteens were actually like that. Oh, and my fiancee's example again -- when she was fifteen, she wasn't flashing and didn't allow herself to be groped. The conclusion -- flashing and being groped would not allow her to feel fifteen.
5. 15 years of age is below age of consent in most countries. Fantasising about flashing fifteens borders on paedophilia.
6. This one is perhaps stupid -- during Mardi Gras, everyone seems to get aroused by flashing, etc., but I think that is limited to young women. I doubt anyone would look at an older one, who's of their mothers' age. This would lead to acceptance crisis.

Anyway, it would leave a very bad aftertaste.

[Warning over the style of posts in this thread pending.] -Tal

[ February 10, 2005, 15:02: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I think that Sprite brings up some excellent points. I think the main problem is not that her image is shown in the media, but that there is a company that is actually profiting from the use of her image. Not only is she contained within the video itself, but that her image is being used in the advertising of the product. Similarly, her image is being used in a billboard in Italy.

Now as far as I know, the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over Italy, so any U.S. civil case she brings will not affect what billboard she happens to appear on in Italy. However, in the U.S. it is clearly illegal to advertise or make money off someone's likeness (or in this case actual person - not even a likeness) without their consent and giving compensation to that person.

As an example look at the Folger's Guy. Folger's has used an image of a guy drinking coffee on the front of their cans for years now, and thereby indirectly profiting from this man's image. The man (years later) sued Folgers and won millions in court for Folgers using his image without his consent.

So bottom line, when it comes to the "Girls Gone Wild" video, she definitely has a case. Somewhat off topic, the problem I have with the bead ceremony is a great many women participate, and many of them, you wish they wouldn't participate. For some participants I would gladly give them a set of beads if they put their top ON.

I think the main problem is not that her image is shown in the media, but that there is a company that is actually profiting from the use of her image. I can't think of any time that any form of the media would not be attempting to profit from the use of any given image. The news isn't prepared for the noble purpose of educating the masses as to what is going on - it is run so that the people producing it can make money whether it is from selling copies of a newspaper, earning advertising dollars, or ensuring sufficient customers to continue to receive public funding.

Yes JSSB, networks are in the business of making money. However, in the case of the news, the profit they make is from the commericals they show, not from the contents of the programming. Granted, people don't tune in to watch the commercials, but the network can legitimately claim that they aren't profiting by showing someone walking down the street - regardless of whether or not they happen to be wearing a shirt.

However, a commercial has a different point. Unless it's some type of public service message, the point of the commerical is generally to influence people to buy a product or a service. If the use of your image influences the person to purchase said product or service, they are profiting from the use of your image.

I think a similar thing can be said for the print media. While there is a nominal charge for a newspaper (generally under $1), the majority of the money is not made from the sale of the paper (which is usually not even sufficient to cover the printing cost of the newspaper) but rather from the advertising and classified sections on the inside.

@Aldeth: Here I agree, they have no right to profit from her image, although it's not really reasonable that she should be able to flash in public and then go to the court complaining someone has taped that. She obviously deserves a share of the profit, but, as I said, it could be a check to see what she does with the money: if she takes it and spends it on her own, she practically reconciles herself with the porn actress role, if unwilling. If she gives it to charity, it's different.

@ejsmith:

Glad we agree on kissing (to make my point clear with kissing: I can accept closed-mouth kissing in some circumstances, such as between good non-romantic friends, but open-mouth kissing is much different).

But so far as flashing and groping goes, I have to reject groping outright. Groping is gross. And it is sexual, no matter how you put it. All sexual touching with strangers is unfair towards the partner or spouse unless under force.

If plain nudity goes, I'm not really a bigot and I don't have a phobia or anything. I often don't really care, it's not like it moves me all so much. The point is, it's different for different people and during events such as Mardi Gras sexual context is a given. Depending on the person, I don't think I would make a hell on wheels for getting a nude portrait or going to a nudist beach, but flashing is sick. I can't come up with an example where it wouldn't be culpable for someone from a non-savage culture who isn't single, if done voluntarily.

As for body painting, it can have a lot of artistic value and be a nice sight to watch for reasons other than raw excitement. But the raw excitement is a problem and the person showing himself or herself carries some responsibility for inciting lust in the lookers. If because of that rise in a perverted mind a person gets raped, the body pointing model carries some responsibility for the rape. How much I don't know and surely nothing close to par with said pervert, but still some. It won't hold in a court of law because it's too far removed and abstract, but it's still there. And what if the rape victim commits suicide? Would the flasher ever flash again after learning the story?

It was extremely creative...and, you know...naughty, too.Naughty is where I have the problem. Perhaps being a little naughty around people who won't give in could actually not be wrong, but during such revelries events are too closely tied together. Whoever publicly incites lust in such circumstances cannot disclaim a certain degree of moral responsibility for the abuse that happens. It also encourages other individuals to incite lust in a similar way and those will indirectly push perverts into abusing, as well as encourage further individuals to be naughty... It's an infinite string. An example is it moving on from giving or taking beads for showing breasts to better beads for more private parts. Then there's the "may I touch?" urge and from there tends to be a short road to petting, from where tends to be a short road to sex.

I wouldn't make too much of body painting shown in civilised circumstances, but during a street revelry, it's what I said above. However, even if done in civilised circumstances, exposing oneself like that before random strangers still tends to appear inconsistent with considering oneself a decent person, or a good Catholic to me. I say appears because I don't know their hearts and it's not my job to judge them. It's not like I have all answers, either, but it still seems to me to be something more objective than simply my personal opinion.

If a Catholic person prayed and meditated and after considering the problem in the light of proper doctrine decided it were proper for him or her to show himself or herself this way, I would try to rely on that person's conscience. However, amidst a drunken revelry reeking with gratuitous sexual content, I don't see a possibility of this reasonably happening.

On to toughluck's points.

1. Accepting what comes with life and with age is a Christian virtue. When there is a crisis, it should be accepted and experienced, not artificially averted and there is no point in trying to avert it by doing stupid thingsI wouldn't really mind a cosmetic surgery to eliminate the visual effects of aging, but wanting to feel young and crazy is no excuse for irresponsible, indecent, let alone immoral behaviour. By this I don't mean it doesn't partly excuse the specific individual from guilt in the moral sense, but it doesn't make the act right and proper.

2. There is always an alternative. There is really no need for living this crisis sulking, you can find a lot of uses for that build-up of energy.That is correct and essential to consider. There is always an alternative. There is always a hobby, there is always the energy to be found in sharing one's experience with the young people, and there is the caring for the latter things for a believer. Heck, there's even that cosmetic surgery. One doesn't have to become sexually accessible to strangers.

3. Flashing and groping would lead my fiancee to an actual crisis -- in this case, an identity and dignity crisis. And that is more important.That is also correct. Engaging in licentious behaviour, whether full-on intercourse or just flashing and groping, makes the person an object, a sex object. Not a sexual person, but a sex object. That's an ancillary role and it's hard to expect it to bring about joy and self-fulfillment, let alone self-respect.

4. Fifteen? It's great of fifteen year olds to flash and grope. I didn't know fifteens were actually like that. Oh, and my fiancee's example again -- when she was fifteen, she wasn't flashing and didn't allow herself to be groped. The conclusion -- flashing and being groped would not allow her to feel fifteen.That fifteen year olds could be partly excused because of their immaturity and lack of experience (which still depends on the specific individual), doesn't make it right and proper for them to act like that. It's correct that adolescents are curious and all and that without proper supervision, they might display promiscuous tendencies, but in proper development this doesn't happen. Or, more precisely, in proper development, adolescents don't give in to such urges. Does the world come to an end if a fifteen year old girl lifts her shirt? Well, no. But she does need proper instruction.

6. This one is perhaps stupid -- during Mardi Gras, everyone seems to get aroused by flashing, etc., but I think that is limited to young women. I doubt anyone would look at an older one, who's of their mothers' age. This would lead to acceptance crisis.The event being bent on arousal is the crux of the problem. If it were simply showing the parts of body which are normally considered private for the sake of even aesthetic visual pleasure, without the sexual context and in some spirit of respect, I would be the last person to whine or even care.

Judging from what I've read on it, it's not exclusively limited to young women. It's supposed to be, but it isn't. And it's not limited to the most attractive of women, either. Here's the catch: it isn't porn where everything is ostensibly exaggerated and everyone knows the stuff is, well, porn (which is not to say porn is good, unless anyone asks). It's a live show (and not just show), it has real people and whatever happens is very real.

I didnt read all of what you wrote chev but as I understand it you are saying that women have have themselves to blame for being raped if they are a bit naughty and show some skin?

@ Aldeth - I think we will just have to disagree on this one. By subjecting yourself to the advertisements you are paying to see to the content of the news - it may be a bit more indirect than shelling out money for a video but it makes no difference in my mind.

By your logic, if the Girls Gone Wild had aired as a t.v. show it would be o.k. where it is not o.k. to sell directly on video which in my mind is flat out silly.

joacquin, you didn't read all of what chev wrote. If you did, you'd understand what he means.

How am I going to reply to something like that?

But the point is indeed interesting.

I would go even farther than that. I would say that a woman who takes part in that revelry and arouses a man who rapes even a different woman, she needs to consider her own contribution in the act. She carries some guilt towards the raped woman for arousing the rapist into raping her and even a certain degree of guilt towards the rapist himself for helping bring him in that sorry state.

Here's the catch: There was also someone who gave her the bad example or otherwise corrupted her into arousing the rapist. Likely some guy who offered her beads. Or maybe another woman exposing herself.

If the raped girl commits suicide, the rapist will have her blood on his hands. If the raped girl's boyfriend or brother or father kills the rapist, the rapist will be responsible for his own death and for bring his killer into the state which made him kill (and likely pay for it with a life in prison).

Let's suppose a shopkeeper seels alcohol to John, aged 16. John gets drunk and gives beads to Ann to expose herself. Mark's arousal increases and when the boiling point is reached, he rapes Alice. Alice commits suicide. Her boyfriend kills Mark. Mark's father kills himself. His wife gets a stroke and dies. Their other son ends up in orphanage and ultimately on the street. He becomes a guy like John and eventually a shopkeeper who sells alcohol to youngsters. The circle closes and everyone all the way down carries some guilt. While we can't really stretch such accountability ad infinitum, this shows that people need to consider the consequences of their actions and that they are responsible for what they do and that it can and will affect others. It also shows that certain acts are not so harmless as they may seem.

Basically, you can't really actively take part in the more saucy part of that event without taking some of the responsibility for the associated abuse on yourself and assuming your own place on the circle.

chev is right on this. Some of the 'big' evils in our world seem to spring from the little things that you shake your head and snicker at...check out the story of the Oklahoma City bombers.

Nothing that we do in this world, no matter how silly and minor, is in a vacuum. The smallest pebble will make waves in a lake that break upon a distant shore.

I personally don't take a hard line on the actions of others...I have too much trouble keeping track of my own actions...but innapropriate nudity, a misplaced kiss are still little errors that can have a huge effect on a distant shore. They may not. They may truly mean nothing...but they may also have an impact for the negative on others.

In chev's example...Mark is completely responsible for his decision to rape Alice...nothing relieves him of that burden...but Anne bears a burden of her own for her personal behavior...as does John and the shopkeeper. That responsibility may never be brought to bear in a Court of Law...but the burden still remains on the person.

In short...keep your darn shirts on and your bodies to yourselves.

Whatever you do...pretend your Grandma is watching.

The way I see it you may arouse anyone to any extend you like. We are not animals. Well, I always thought so anyway.

Moreover, you are allowed to change your mind. At any given time. No one is going to tell you "Well, you lead me here, honey, now there's no turning back anymore. I'm aroused big times. My pants are bursting and you are responsible, so better play your part, baby!"

But as long as people pretend that any raped woman may bear a certain burden of her own there's no way the extend of wrong-doing on the side of the rapist will ever enter his head fully. After all, he's not the only one responsible, isn't he? He was aroused, wasn't he?

I can't stand this way of thinking. But if it suits you...

You're responsible for your own actions. Period. I don't care if mother molested you, father got drunk and beat you daily, the woman you raped wore a short skirt, flashed some skin, whatever. You're your own person. Act like it.

Committing a crime is a choice, like any other. It may be influenced--hell, will be influenced--by other people, events, and so on. But at the end of the day, it's your choice. No one else's

By subjecting yourself to the advertisements you are paying to see to the content of the news - it may be a bit more indirect than shelling out money for a video but it makes no difference in my mind.
But that's just the thing - in the case of shelling out money for a video you are PURCHASING it, and thus supporting the company. I think there is a HUGE difference.

Take this as an example - I watched three televisions programs last night: CSI (a forensic crime show), ER (a hospital show) and the nightly news. In no way did I feel that the content of the show was influencing me to purchase forensic equipment or hospital equipment. I will grant that the contents of the show will affect the number of viewers who will watch, and that furthermore the number of viewers determine how much the television station can charge for commercial time, but this linkage is very indirect at best.

As I said, I guess we will just have to disagree about this. The producers are still getting paid for the content - whether it is by you directly giving them money or someone else giving them the money in exchange for your being exposed to advertisement makes absolutely no difference to me.

Bah, I am just repeating what I have said before - lets just let this die.

@Darkthrone, AMaster: Yes, the actual perpetrator's guilt is out of question, but as you both say, everyone is responsible for his own actions and the consequences thereof. Therefore, whoever teases and plays on lust is responsible for the consequences of it. Parents who are culpable in ill-bringing up a child, carry some moral responsibility for the child's adult actions and so anyone who provokes someone to do something bears some blame. There is no liberty of acting without regard to possible consequences. In this sense, victims who provoked their perpetrators had their time contribution in the crime, similarly those who supplied alcohol to underaged offenders, and crime perpetrators contract guilt for victims committing suicide in despair falling victim to a crime such as rape or severe mutilation or destruction of all property. That responsibility, as Hacken Slash pointed out, will not make it to a court of law, but it exists on a moral and a social level.

So far as the reduction of the perpetrator's guilt is concerned, we are on a slippery ground. However, it must be said that, as we would consider the perpetrator of a provoked assault to be less guilty (if only slightly less), logic dictates that perpetrators of provoked sex assaults should be considered less guilty than those of unprovoked ones. What makes the difference is the victim's contribution. Here the path separates in two and we can either consider the difference to be a result of a mere fact, or consider it the victim's own contribution. It will most likely be a low degree of contribution. Who knows, maybe just a couple percent or less. It's not a crime, it's not intentional, it's negligence or lack of care. Negligence may be culpable or not, but lack of care about the consequences of one's actions is all but plausible.

Perhaps it's not enough to attribute part of the crime to those who gave the hint, provoked an assault with their behaviour without a direct intent or unwittingly provided the means of it. However, a reasonable and responsible person must give it a thought.

I would have to say anyone who finds a few seconds' exposure to a bare bosom so arousing that they even *think* about rape has a pretty serious problem. Should we sue National Geographic for creating sexual predators? People in Afghanistan and Iran think hair incites lust the same way people in this thread seem to think bared boobs do. If a man from a country in which women's hair must be covered to comply with decency laws comes to Canada, sees my exposed hair, and goes on a berserker rape rampage, is it my fault for wearing my hair uncovered in public? If anything, I'd say that excessive modesty standards cause men to fetishise female body parts in a way that probably leads considerably more to a culture of rape than nudity does.

As for the difference between news and entertainment, my knowledge of entertainment law is pretty scanty, but I have done enough modeling to know that clients *have* to get my written permission before they can use my image, while at the same time, I've seen myself on the news and in newspapers without having been asked to sign a release. And the Actor's Guild has standard union rates that must be paid to people appearing in the background in films and television. So there must be some kind of legal distinction, but I don't know what it is.

I would have to say anyone who finds a few seconds' exposure to a bare bosom so arousing that they even *think* about rape has a pretty serious problem.That's perfectly right, Sprite. I fully agree. But if seeing enough bare breasts (along with the specific atmosphere created by flashing) puts perverts in rape mode, each single act of flashing contributes a little share to setting said pervert in said mode.

Should we sue National Geographic for creating sexual predators?No, of course not. And we shouldn't sue newspapers that print Mardi Gras photos for informative purposes. Please also note that I specifically said it was not a "suing" kind of responsibility but a moral one. National Geographic doesn't act with any sexual purpose in mind and their photos don't have a sexual character.

If a man from a country in which women's hair must be covered to comply with decency laws comes to Canada, sees my exposed hair, and goes on a berserker rape rampage, is it my fault for wearing my hair uncovered in public?If you realise the danger of his reaction being so and you still choose to go ahead, then, with all respect, yes. If it's just a matter of cultural difference or there is no reason to suppose his reaction could be strong, then, of course, no.

If anything, I'd say that excessive modesty standards cause men to fetishise female body parts in a way that probably leads considerably more to a culture of rape than nudity does.The problem is not with a specific act being licentious or not in the culture, but with the flasher choosing to do an act which is licentious in her culture, in this case, flashing. If it weren't for modesty standards, she wouldn't be flashing. If we didn't have modesty standards, her breasts would already be naked or she wouldn't care to make them so. It's not about it being precisely breasts or anything, it's about the flasher taking beads for violating modesty standards as they are. If we had different modesty standards, she would be violating those.

As for news and entertainment, the difference is that entertainment is that news is supposed to be informative, so they don't have to ask your permission. If they make the news specifically about you, they might need you permission if you aren't a public person. When they're using your image to promote something or to fill a role in a movie or otherwise bring about profit, they need your permission. It's more about the financial side of the matter, like they need to pay you if they're going to profit from using your image. Being an actor in an event being reported is also different from being an actor in a movie. That's why it's considered to be public unless they take some peculiar focus on you (e.g. if you're getting a medal, they can make news about you along with photos without permission, but if they come round to make a story about your life or your business, they need to ask).

That's why I believe the girl should only get damages if they ostensibly focused on her or took it out of the context (in which case she should get a share in the profit and some compensation for non-monetary losses). If they simply taped the parade without singling her out too much, she shouldn't get any money even if they published it on porn sites, even if they made money on it.

Please also note that I specifically said it was not a "suing" kind of responsibility but a moral oneIt's not even a moral responsibility.

Or, if it is, it's also a moral responsibility not to drive expensive muscle cars, wear fashionable clothing, display wealth of any kind, ever show anger, and so on. After all, you may be "provoking" someone to steal by displaying your (theoretical) wealth. You may give someone the idea to use violence by visibly displaying anger. And so forth.

Right?

What you seem to be arguing is that your actions influence other people, and that therefore you're somewhat respnsible for other people's actions if you do something that may "provoke" someone or give them ideas.

Except, anything can influence someone. Literally anything you do. Or don't do. With very few exceptions, you cannot know what influence on others your own actions will have.

Yes, it's clear that molesting a child will have a negative impact on a child. That carries with it moral responsibility for negative actions the child may undertake. It's not at all clear that flashing your breats to a crowd at Mardi Gras will...what? Cause one member of the crowd to rape someone? It doesn't carry moral resposibility for the simple reason that it's impossible to establish a reasonable relationship between action A (flashing) and B (raping).

It's not even a moral responsibility.

Or, if it is, it's also a moral responsibility not to drive expensive muscle cars, wear fashionable clothing, display wealth of any kind, ever show anger, and so on. After all, you may be "provoking" someone to steal by displaying your (theoretical) wealth. You may give someone the idea to use violence by visibly displaying anger. And so forth.

Right?Perhaps not. There's no moral responsibility for being attractive and there's no for possessing wealth or using it (how you got it is another story). But there's a difference between spending more on clothes, cars, hi-fi stuff and the like, and behaving in a sexually provocative way, especially if it's taken to extremes. A comparable extreme would be waving banknotes in front of people who don't have enough money for their bills and groceries. And yes, that would be morally reprehensible and culpable. You must also remember that the human sexual drive is much stronger than the desire to possess things, even if people tend to give in to the latter more frequently. That's because sex assault is clearly more gross than simple assault or property theft. To violate someone's property is not the same as to violate his body, let alone in a sexual way. One can't even compare material loss from theft to harm done by rape. In being ruled by his drives, a rapist is also closer to a primitive animal than a thief. Except animals don't rape nearly as often as humans do.

Showing anger? Normally, it's showing your emotion and as such it's morally neutral. It's also better to show it than to harbour it inside. But sure, if you use it instrumentally in your family relations or take it out on your underlings, causing fear and loss of self-esteem in them, then that's culpable. Anger breeds anger. In families, if parents take it out on children, children harbour it and hide it until they are strong enough and then the outburst comes and they turn against the parents or against the society which they blame for their problems.

Similarly, someone who promotes the culture which makes a dogma of giving in to one's drives, is responsible for the results. Similarly, a sexuologist or liberated writer who says that betrayal in marriage is normal and something to be expected, he is accountable for people's broken marriages and broken lives. Those who advocate and even actively promote promiscuity and random sexual contacts, they are responsible for the dichotomous result of either abortion or children growing up with a single parent.

Chiefly, it can be said about those who develop that culture, steer it, profit from it. But it extends all the way down to those who merely make it possible for it to develop or drag more people into it by providing example. Men who go to prostitutes are responsible for women taking up the oldest profession in the world and those women are responsible for corrupting the men. It's a circle.

In this sense, people who willingly and intentiously (or negligently, especially if it's willing negligence) go to great lengths to tease other people are responsible for pushing the latter into sexual frustration, which is often taken out by going to prostitutes - whether male or female is not important - or buying porn mags (and supporting the porn industry) - or even rape. It's not an overwhelming responsibility - it rarely equals, let alone exceeds the responsibility of the perpretrator of the act, and it very rarely suffices to ascribe the authorship of the act to such a person. But, let's say someone contracts 1% responsibility for a rape, or a theft or a murder or whatever. Does it add up to one fully owned act? Not in the physical sense, but look on the figures.

What you seem to be arguing is that your actions influence other people, and that therefore you're somewhat respnsible for other people's actions if you do something that may "provoke" someone or give them ideas.Correct. This spans from a tiny little contribution which only matters in a metaphysical sense to provocation recognised in courts of law.

Except, anything can influence someone. Literally anything you do. Or don't do. With very few exceptions, you cannot know what influence on others your own actions will have.That is also correct. Therefore, what a reasonable person would do to avoid such culpability? A reasonable person would try to predict at least some of the possible consequences and eliminate dubious behaviour, especially when it relies on testing people's patience and the control they have over their drives.

Yes, it's clear that molesting a child will have a negative impact on a child. That carries with it moral responsibility for negative actions the child may undertake. It's not at all clear that flashing your breats to a crowd at Mardi Gras will...what?But doesn't the child have his own free will? Isn't the child, especially when it grows up, a totally separate and independent person from the molester? You seem to recognise that our influence other than direct interaction can influence people. And, when something is not clear to be harmful, does it automatically make it harmless? If there is doubt, is it not better to abstain from taking the risk, especially if there is no good coming out of it?

It's not at all clear that flashing your breats to a crowd at Mardi Gras will...what? Cause one member of the crowd to rape someone?The influence is more abstract here and there is no ostensible person to person relation. But what if in our molested child wasn't subject to a couple of gross acts but instead to a large number of acts of lesser weight? What if the girl (supposing it was a girl and not a boy) didn't have one teacher who wanted sex for a passing grade but a number of schoolmates who wouldn't take a no until repeated the 15th time and wouldn't go away without at least groping her or slipping a rude comment?

If 30 boys achieved what a single grown man in a position of authority would, does it not split the load into 30 parts? Doesn't it, in a way, make each of those rude boys 1/30 of a grown molester?

Now let's take a future rapist. Perhaps one of those 30 boys. Let's establish that he didn't fall under the influence of a gang leader telling him to steal, rape and kill. Suppose he watches a lot of pornographic and violent movies, reads all those leaflets telling school children sex is normal for teenages, parents and religions are wrong and so on. He also every day sees girls dressed like whores and behaving like whores. He listens to the bragging of his old friends. He decides he needs sex, wants it and has to get it. Perhaps he won't start from raping, but maybe he will first "work" on a girl telling her stories about how he loves her and pressing on her to give in, even though she doesn't want it ("show me that you love me", "if you love me, you have to do this" - ever heard these somewhere?). When he gets what he wants, he says, "Sorry, it's time to move on," and indeed moves on to another girl. His next line might be, "Do this or I'll dump you," "Do this or I'm driving home alone and you'll have to walk," or even "Do this with me or I'll cut myself," (there are losers who use this line) or whatever such. It's clear abuse and close to rape. How close? How many percent? I don't know how much, but surely some. And it spreads among those people who have contributed to him becoming what he is. How much of the guilt rests with them? Even 0.01% is more than 0. Either this, or we can blame it on the culture and the civilisation. But it's all of us who form the culture. The figure rises the moment the boy turns into an adolescent rapist, then a brutal grown rapist and who knows what next.

Did all those people on his way who helped him make little steps want this result? No. Probably none of them wanted it. Some weren't giving a damn, some were negligent, some weren't mature enough to notice any potential bad effects (this applies not only to underaged people). Some of those, if they heard the full story would show deep regret and strive to avoid repeating their mistakes (likely those with least degrees of guilt), some will insist they can't be held accountable, some will run into silly excuses like "hey, I was just having fun, I wasn't doing anything wrong, leave me alone!" Some won't still notice any links. Their attitudes and their awareness will modify their personal guilt - most likely reducing it, often to near-null. But little or no personal guilt doesn't make the act itself legitimate. Also, some of those excuses will only work first time.

We can excuse lack of awaraness, we can tolerate extensive levels of negligence, we can get over mistakes in the generic sense (something that in the end turned out to be different intended), but not giving a damn isn't a legitimate excuse.

it's impossible to establish a reasonable relationship between action A (flashing) and B (raping)It's impossible to establish a reasonable ground to make the flasher totally responsible and the rapist innocent, I agree. We won't find anything like absolute compulsion. Perhaps for you or for me there's no number of flashers, strippers, porn mags or whatever to push one into sexually assaulting someone. But it doesn't work like this for all people. Flashing amplifies sexual tension and a certain level of sexual tension is required to push someone into raping another person. It's not just aggression.

Granted, this perhaps won't be true for a girl who gets rid of her top at a party for a group of MBA students, lawyers, medical doctors, policemen, whatever. Most likely, there won't be any rape and everyone will treat is as only a harmful joke. But what if one of those guys will start groping his workers, telling rude jokes in work or regarding his wife as an object of his own sexual satisfaction?

You can't predict all such events, yeah. I agree. And such an event is not a normal consequence of the act in question, yeah. I agree again. But, statistically, someone is bound to underreact and someone is bound to overreact. With the number of spectators increasing, increases the number of potential perverts and weak people. Sure, someone who's just playing around is not a moral philosopher in his library, but it doesn't take much thinking to realise what's going on during licentious feasts and it doesn't take a tremendous effort of will to try and keep decent.

This isn't to say that flashers and others are all so evil or inalterably stupid. Heck, no. People aren't infallible or adamant and they make mistakes. So long as they aren't devoid of consideration for others and compassion, they will actually give a damn and try to avoid doing further harm. The point is, however, to avoid repeating mistakes and learn the lesson. As I said, the level of extended moral culpability will likely be reduced somehow, but will rarely be altogether extenuated. Even if it actually would, the problem of the legitimacy of the act itself stays along with the range of potential ramifications seen from an objective perspective.

A link between French-kissing a stranger and the stranger ultimately raping someone could also be establish. Let's take a guy, name him Mark (again). Mark has some beads and gives them to girls who will kiss him with open mouth and tongue without even thinking he could be someone's husband or boyfriend. He moves on and on and with each subsequent kiss he is more aroused. By virtue of the surrounding atmosphere, he remains under impression that money will buy him everything and that it only really takes to ask kindly and offer some beads to make a girl do what you want. At some point he starts openly asking for more. A girl who has just so willingly exchanged oral bodily fluids with him without caring who he was and in exchange for a material item, now suddenly has some unexplained compunctions against going further down the logical road and having sex with him for some special, unique beads. What could his reaction be, especially after a tequila or three?

You could say that none of those girls wanted him to be someone's boyfriend or to push him further down the road. But what is a girl thinking when she's playing with a guy's drives and leaves him hanging? Such is the nature of sex drive that the more you give, the more the person wants and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that French-kissing will make the guy want more and not everyone is strong enough to suffice with just French-kissing. This may be true for a romantic couple, but for strangers who are doing it for the thrill and the excitement (and the pay)? Excitement and arousal is the focal point of it.

Yet another concern relating to decency is the strong semblance with prostitution. If we are talking Christians or people who feel some affiliation with Christianity (wearing a crucifix), there is an obvious inconsistency as prostitution is not compatible with Christianity and the favour being lesser than sexual intercourse modifies the degree, but not really the nature of the act (or custom) and definitely not the spirit behind it. The secular side of our civilisation doesn't consider prostitution to be morally plausible and in most countries, if not all, prostitution is still against good mores. As such, it must be inconsistent with decency. A special day or celebration doesn't really make a good excuse for that. If anything, it shows that decency standards are weak and prone to modelling as to fit one's current needs.

Edit:

The above considers responsibility from the point of view of an act that has already happened and has happened as a result of more or less negligent actions on someone else's part. Essentially, this is responsibility for a specific act from the point of view of its cause. However, if we consider a more abstract responsibility for said cause itself as a separate act (and there is no doubt that e.g. flashing is a a separate act from sexual assault, let alone rape), the presence or absence of the potential result has no bearing on responsibility as it in no way modifies the act itself. Whether the result happens or not does therefore not reduce or increase guilt. Thus, rape happening during or after such a celebration doesn't make a flasher more culpable for his or her negligence, which indeed needs to be stressed. However, even if no such vile act takes place, the negligent licentious behaviour remains. This points us in the direction of the following conclusion: what matters is the probability of a certain result's happening and the possibility of this probability being assessed. As I said before, this will likely reduce the guilt to low levels, but not always. However, as I also said before in this post, this doesn't make the act legitimate, nor does it make it objectively right and proper to commit the act or allow it or tolerate it.

If we take a more balanced, humane approach, it will occur to us that it's not all about avoiding moral culpability and emerging totally blameless in the end. That is not doable and if we wanted to avoid doing anything wrong, we would have to stay home alone for all our lives, and it's still not sure if it would actually not have wrong results for us or other people. As I said, we are bound to make mistakes and it is natural for us. But the key is to realise those mistakes and try to avoid them; to show some care, some consideration, some prudence. It's about attitudes.

[ February 12, 2005, 16:33: Message edited by: chevalier ]

what matters is the probability of a certain result's happening and the possibility of this probability being assessed.Well well. I'm agreeing with Chev.

I think my self esteem is ruined :(

;)

Broadly, I agree with what you said in your last post. I disagree about some particulars, but, hey. That's good enough for me.

Getting back to the original post (not that I haven't been enjoying you guys' exostential little exchange). I am from Louisiana, have been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans numerous times, and have even lived in New Orleans (however, I am glad that I am no longer there, but I digress). There is a dichotomy that exists in regards to this particular holiday, and even though it is something of an oversimplification, the difference is timing. During the day parades, there is little to no flashing going on. Even though they have lost some of their "family atmosphere," the day parades are basically picnic type events to which the whole world is invited. People will show up three to four hour ahead of the parade and begin setting up. Tents, barbecue pits, blankets, the whole nine yards. The parade passes by, and everybody has a pretty good time (also the throws are pretty much for the kids at this type of parade, which is another reason why there is an absence of flashing).

The parades that run at night usually turn into something else entirely. The folks who were hungover or still asleep for the day parades have had more than ample time to get juiced back up and stumble out to the parade route. I'm not going to say that these are categorically tourists and visitors because that wouldn't be true. However, it is safe to say that the majority of these folks are not natives of the state. So by simple proportionality, the majority of the flashers are not Louisianians. There seems to be some sort of mentality that is adopted on the way to Mardi Gras by people who have "heard all about it." Unfortunately, drunken debauchery seems to be all that gets passed on in the descriptions carried away by visitors. I'll stop now before this becomes a rant.

Moving on to the girl who "Went Wild" and then sued: Good points have been made by both those who support her effort as well as those that think she is paying for her foolishness. First of all if she is trying to stop people from finding out she behaved irresponsibly (which she did), why sue? The media have turned this into a circus, and now many more people than just the Girls Gone Wild purchasers know about it. If she had kept quiet about it, only those who bought the movie would know (and they probably would not even know her name). It's not like it would come up in a job interview.

"Hey don't I know you from somewhere?"
"No. I don't believe we've met."
"Oh yeah, I remember.......Nevermind!"

(Now, I'm not advocating taking no action. She should have made some effort to contact the company and have the images removed first.)

Also, she knew her picture was being taken while she flashed, she probably couldn't see for a minute or two after all the flashes went off. It was more than likely taken by dozens of cameras, cell phones, digital devices, etc. To be so naive as to think that these picture would not be circulated via email or wind up on some pervy site is simply asinine.

Should the company respect her wishes and remove them, yes. Will they? Probably not. They are out to make a few bucks off of this venture anyway. Additionally, I read an article on this a few years ago, so I don't know whether this policy is still in place or not, but from what I remember they approach most of these girls and let them know what the deal is and give them t-shirts in exchange for their cooperation. Supposedly, many of the girls wore the shirts as though they were some kind of trophy.

I don't know whether this policy is still in place or not, but from what I remember they approach most of these girls and let them know what the deal is and give them t-shirts in exchange for their cooperation. Supposedly, many of the girls wore the shirts as though they were some kind of trophy.Yeah, like in a scene:

-- Hi mom! I'm back!
-- Did you have fun in New Orleans, honey?
-- Yes, mom, all the stuff there, like, cool, like!
-- What's that shirt you're wearing?
-- I got it from a very nice gentleman!
-- What does it read? "I'm a girl gone wild." Honey, we have to talk.:shake:

Chevy wrote: The church does. The church doesn't believe that it's right to cheat on your partner or flash strangers when you're wearing a mask. There is no such thing as the legitimacy of the whole procedure.

There is no approval of the church for the flashing and the kissing of strangers. Go ask the first Catholic theologian you find.

There is no freedom of fouls in the Christian dogma. There is freedom of will and the consequences of one's choices.

Indecent behaviour is never explicitly allowed by the Catholic church under any circumstances. I answer with a quote:

Lent has always been a time of penance and fasting. People have come up with all sorts of symbolic and practical ways of marking our Lent as a special of re-conversion. Throughout Europe from about 1200 Lent was heralded in with a "Carnival of Sin". The Carnival took place during the three to five days before Ash Wednesday. It was a brief period when everybody stopped working and paraded the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, anger, avarice, gluttony, sloth and lechery. The idea was to expose all these sins and bring them to light. In practice it meant that people had a really good time eating and getting very drunk before the rigorous fasting and penance of Lent.

During the feast it was obligatory to eat and drink a great deal. Apart from eating and drinking too much, people also had to generally behave in appalling ways. A lot of sexual display and obscene insults were required and people paraded through the street with large sausages as well as bears, cockerels and other symbols of lechery. There was also a fair amount of organized violence with mob riots and early forms of football which often turned quite nasty.

http://www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/html/article387.html

Go ask the first Catholic theologian you find.

I'll take Geiler von Kayserberg: „Die Christliche Catholische Kirche erlaubet eine ehrliche recreation und Wollustbarkeit, damit ihre geistliche Kinder desto williger seyn, die heilige Fasten zu halten.“ -> The Christian Catholic Chruch approves of an honest recreation and voluptuousness, in order that her spirital children will more docily keep up lent.

The whole thing has to do with the concept of living through the civitas diaboli and then purification through the times of lent to get to the civitas die.

Toughluck wrote:

Ok. If I say that 1=0, and say that it is logical, does that mean it is, in fact, logical? You're saying that logic, one of the most objective things, where EVERYTHING can be brought down to true and false, and ones and zeroes, is subjective?
Who told you that logic is objective ? Logic means reasioning and is the attempt to classify and order arguments. In praxis, that boils down to "my syllogism looks lovlier than yours", as most things don't turn around axioms and proven facts, practilly all that is relevant, is neither axiom nor proven.

[ February 14, 2005, 23:43: Message edited by: Iago ]

Lent has always been a time of penance and fasting. People have come up with all sorts of symbolic and practical ways of marking our Lent as a special of re-conversion. Throughout Europe from about 1200 Lent was heralded in with a "Carnival of Sin". The Carnival took place during the three to five days before Ash Wednesday. It was a brief period when everybody stopped working and paraded the seven deadly sins: pride, envy, anger, avarice, gluttony, sloth and lechery. The idea was to expose all these sins and bring them to light. In practice it meant that people had a really good time eating and getting very drunk before the rigorous fasting and penance of Lent.

During the feast it was obligatory to eat and drink a great deal. Apart from eating and drinking too much, people also had to generally behave in appalling ways. A lot of sexual display and obscene insults were required and people paraded through the street with large sausages as well as bears, cockerels and other symbols of lechery. There was also a fair amount of organized violence with mob riots and early forms of football which often turned quite nasty.There's a lot of "generally", "all", "appalling" and "sexual display", but nothing there is acute, let alone specific. It only shows organised events like that would take place, but there's not a word of the church's position on them, let alone in them.

During the feast it was obligatory to eat and drink a great deal. Apart from eating and drinking too much, people also had to generally behave in appalling ways. A lot of sexual display and obscene insults were required and people paraded through the street with large sausages as well as bears, cockerels and other symbols of lechery. There was also a fair amount of organized violence with mob riots and early forms of football which often turned quite nasty.And again, eating and drinking in excess is quite general. As it is, the relevant sin of gluttony and drink, relies on exceeding the limits normally acceptable in a situation or technically feasible for your body than some abstract absolute line. A feast, while not taken to the extreme of abomination such as routine daily feasting of lack of observance of lent, creates an opportunity to eat and drink and dance.

A certain degree of what one could consider sexual in a given culture but what in fact was not so in any absolute sense could take place. However, there is still nothing about the Church's institution of bad customs or even any other kind of tolerance than just letting the faithful vent and realising that some abuse will inevitably occur while it won't be a show of total general stupor and random fornication and adultery (there's nothing concrete except bringing to daylight the sexuality which was normally hidden and tabooised - sexual conduct sort of happens between spouses, as well). Even if.

However, your theologist runs into heresy if he states that the Church approves of something which is objectively a sin. Such as giving in to carnal desires, which leads to adultery and fornication, is.

I could quote Pius XII's Humanae Vitae on you, where it's expressly stated that it's not licit to do evil in order that good may come out of it. Both Canon Law and the Catechism will not agree that any church authority has any authority to allow beforehand for a sin to be committed. There no such institution whatsoever. A sin can be pardoned in the sacrament of renconcilliation, but only after it has happened. Limits imposed by the very church itself can be relaxed with regard to an individual or a group, thus removing the sinful circumstance of an act, but this does not refer to regulations of divine positive law which are outside of any human authority and legislation, such as fornicaton or adultery. The church on occasion finds herself in need to "tolerate" one evil for the time being in order to avoid a greater evil. However, tolerance does not imply allowance and neither does the evil thus become good. To say the Church could ever approve of a sin is heresy. It could be a theological gaffe and misfortunate miswording on the part of an unbeliever or an enudacated (in theology) believer, but it doesn't seem likely to happen to a learned theologist.

Here's from the Catechism:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

- by protecting evil-doers.Approving of a sin doesn't even make a new generic sin, it actually makes one cooperate in the sin being approved. Not teaching that a sin is a sin when there's an opportunity also falls under here. Protecting evil-doers (such as assailants) so they could escape with impunity also falls under here.

More on sins and confession:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

On the laws which can be changed and those that cannot:

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/chanchur.htm

Dispensations in Canon Law:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PA.HTM

Canon Law:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

[ February 15, 2005, 11:34: Message edited by: chevalier ]

There's a lot of "generally", "all", "appalling" and "sexual display", but nothing there is acute, let alone specific. It only shows organised events like that would take place, but there's not a word of the church's position on them, let alone in them.
Yes. I just wanted to get back to the basics. So, you agree that in nearly all the Catholic lands, a carnival is celebrated. Famous ones in Cologne, Venice, Rio de Janeiro and, of course the biggest of the middle ages, Rome. Do you agree further, that those festivals were extremly... open-hearted.

And all those festivals are tightly knoted to the Catholic Calendar, one of the reasons Catholics have such an huge amount of holidays in the years. That there is a theological concept, binding the carnival to the lent. The reasion why it's called Mardi Grass in some places, the evening before Ash Wednesday.

Well, I guess you agree, as you don't dispute any of these points factually. You only mention that the quoted summary is summaric. Hm, you could make a city trip to learn more about Catholic Festivals.

Actually, you don't even dispute the delibaretely wrong etymology, used to depict the festivities as completely Christian pre-lent celebration.

And I value your mediavistic knowledge too much, to lenghten this post with accounts how in places like rome, the Church lied taxes upon the people to finance the festivals. I have a feeling you know that very well.

However, your theologist runs into heresy if he states that the Church approves of something which is objectively a sin. Such as giving in to carnal desires, which leads to adultery and fornication, is.
Well, you might be tempted to think so. But I think his words have more authority in these questions as yours. He has a page devoted to himself in the Catholic Online (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06403c.htm) Encyclopedia. Do you have one too ?

And even worse, he has papal backing:

Papst Martin IV. empfahl im Jahre 1284, die Gläubigen sollten "etliche Tage Fastnacht halten und fröhlich sein". -> Pope Martin IV recommended 1284: (Believers should) have many days of carnival and be happy.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/ankeschmitt77/Eifel/Karnevalsvergleich/Karneval.htm

To say the Church could ever approve of a sin is heresy. It could be a theological gaffe and misfortunate miswording on the part of an unbeliever or an enudacated (in theology) believer, but it doesn't seem likely to happen to a learned theologist.
Oh, don't get me wrong here. I have no doubt that is a plausible theological interpretation. Actually, it's the one of the reformators. Sinfull Catholic festivities were among the things that aroused their hot-blooded temper and passions, to extinct in the lands under their authority any trace of unchristan christanity.

But: For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven... a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance. And as long as you don't get to be advisor to the pope or pope, I can't see how you ever could reform old Cristian traditions and abolish the 5th. season of the year.

Yes. I just wanted to get back to the basics. So, you agree that in nearly all the Catholic lands, a carnival is celebrated. Famous ones in Cologne, Venice, Rio de Janeiro and, of course the biggest of the middle ages, Rome. Do you agree further, that those festivals were extremly... open-hearted.Of course. Even such stuck-ups as I go to parties in the carnival and drink and dance... Well, maybe not on the streets for various reasons, but still.

There's nothing wrong with the carnival so long as people aren't taking a leave from the ten commandments or otherwise divine law. Even the Pope himself can't issue any sin permit or however we would call that. Dispensations and privileges and anything such can only apply to "a merely ecclesiastic law" (Canon Law).

I know of the abuse that happens. Sure. However, the carnival is good for the general enjoyment and mostly righteous if not strikingly decent fun, not for the aberration, the abuse, the negative extreme.

Also, none of those events is advertised for any sexual kind of fun, let alone approved by the church in such a character. There is a relaxation of decency standards, indeed. However, the decency standards that are being relaxed are just it, the society's own conservative morality. When it gets to fornication and playing around with lust, it's divine positive law. In the Catholic church, this is considered a matter of the sixth commandment alongside with adultery. There is no relaxation here. There could be less of stern mores regarding the display of healthy attraction, perhaps some tolerance for jokes - however, when a church sponsors an event, it always disavows any abuse of alcohol or sexuality in advance. Heck, I've been to a dancing party which was on the holy ground. In fact, in the church itself. In a place were the Holy Mass is said on occasions (a large room in the sort of basement which is in fact more of a ground floor, formerly the main church room, now used for lectures and other events sometimes with a mass) and there was nothing wrong with that. Maybe there was no alcohol, but that was because about a half of the people were 17-18, and it's not like the females were wearing ankle long dresses with no cleavage. There was, however, no overtly seductive dancing, no tight, revealing or transparent clothing in "strategic locations", no such stuff. If the church were able to regulate a massive open space event with such a faculty as an indoors party, it would look like that. Perhaps with some alcohol for the adults.

As for Rio, I'm aware that samba dancers are less than fully clothed. The culture is somewhat different, however. I'm trying not to be judging, but I'm still somewhat reserved towards the habit of those girls dancing without even underwear. Heck, it's true that a small bikini covers not much more than nothing, but the "strategic places" are covered. We could argue that King David was indeed dancing naked in public after the Arc of the Covenant was recovered (plus a couple of other biblical references). Consequently, we could even claim that lust is in the eye of the beholder and that shame goes to whom thinks indecent thoughts. After all, it was David who was the bad guy for looking and not Urias's wife who was the bad woman for bathing nude probably in sort-of-public if the King was able to see her from his window. Then there's the fact that God doesn't create evil, wrong or even morally dubious things. God created them man and woman, naked. And it was good. The problem started with them actually clothing and not disrobing. In Genesis, God didn't make them with "shameful" parts. All the body was one whole and it was good. Also, one could argue that in ancient Israel some people simply couldn't afford clothing. Farmers probably worked naked. Ritual cleansing baths were probably public. Prophets would go naked for years. There was a lot of a problem with overly lavish clothing, but not really with nudity. It seems clothing served a decorative purpose and likely created more sexual tension than nudity potentially did, in fact.

Of the more recent examples, one could quote nude baptisms for early Christians probably until the fall of the Western Empire on the West, although I'm pretty sure it still occured in the middle ages. In Eastern Christianity, nude baptism for adults is still an option. In many medieval houses there was one sleeping room for the whole family and they weren't always wearing anything to bed - guests who stayed in the house slept there too. People did swim nude even if simply because there were no swimsuits until the 20th century. I suppose the Fins had coed saunas, too. What else... there were those reports of Irish gentlewomen receiving guests while not being fully dressed even in the 19th century. If just breasts go, in the early 17th and then probably the whole 18th century, the cleavages were so deep that nipple slips were probably all but uncommon. No self-respecting lady would show the point of the shoulders, but they didn't really seem to care about breasts. In the rigid Victorian times, it was actually proper for a woman to breast-feed in a church, even if showing a clothed ankle was bad. I think I could come up with more ideas if I really wanted, without even resorting to exotic cultures.

However, the times were different. There was no sex obsession in the culture. We can talk about all those situations were nudity is not indecent, or when it can't be decent or indecent per se, even in our civilisation, but the influence of the sexual revolution and porn industry has created and maintained a certain influence, rendering most people at least suspicious towards nudity, as it is so easily exploited for a lustful purpose. So they are distrustful even if there's no obvious lustful intent or no unhealthy exhibitionism on the part of the individual in question. However again, we are responsible for the effect we have on other people and it's better to avoid harmful side-effects. Nothing which is not intended for a wrongful purpose and doesn't have a wrongful primary result can be wrongful per se (and in so far as it's the goal which decides, the act doesn't have to be wrongful on its own, with merely the goal "sufficing"), although there is a certain social responsibility for unnecessarily exposing people to temptation, even if the temptation is a product of the corruption in their minds (#1 were we perfect beings, there would be no question temptation #2 it's not nudists who are the pervs, it's the textiles with spyglasses and vide cameras hiding in the bushes). My improvised probability vs assessment potential equation might apply.

I am not judging, I can't say. Perhaps those girls are totally innocent and whatsoever happens can be blamed on the males. I don't know. It must also depend on the way they act.

But with the Mardi Gras in New Orleans, that is different. There is not much of a connection between flashing and casual nudity. The whole context is sexual and it verges on glorifying prostitution. The reason why it's done and the manner after which it happens is ostensibly not right. There's no question of conservative mores or lack thereof, it's just lust playing. The nudity has an aura of unmerited exhibitionism and the kissing has an aura of promiscuity.

Remember we aren't talking about a peculiar savage culture or even a different civilisation. We aren't talking nudists, either. Nudists don't make fuss about showing parts of body, they just strip bare for sunbathing, swimming etc. We are talking about something which has arisen within the confines of our civilisation and is no ancient custom, either. There is a huge if not entirely outspoken emphasis on liberation from the traditional sexual mores in no such matter as what you can wear or not, but on with whom you can engage in sexual conduct (nudity per se is not a conduct, although removing your top in a sexually rebellous fashion in exchange for material gain actually is), and in this case this is strangers. Adding material payment makes it not much different from ancient revelries reeking with gratuitous sexual content.

And all those festivals are tightly knoted to the Catholic Calendar, one of the reasons Catholics have such an huge amount of holidays in the years. That there is a theological concept, binding the carnival to the lent. The reasion why it's called Mardi Grass in some places, the evening before Ash Wednesday.Yes, the carnival is believed, although not as a matter of a generic religious belief, to be the last outburst of joy and fun before the lent. This means people get fun "in advance", but they can't sin in advance. Perhaps carnival is a mitigating circumstance, but there's never been even any official advance allowance for sinning and no exemptions from the Decalogue.

You only mention that the quoted summary is summaric. Hm, you could make a city trip to learn more about Catholic FestivalsThere's a certain restriction on calling events or organisations Catholic. It takes at least the local bishop ordinary to issue permission for that. I guess some of those could be called Catholic in a loose sense, after the religion and tradition of the people who attend them, but without any implication of endorsement by the Church. Well, and you could read the Catechism and the Canon Law in the parts relating to sin, reconcilliation and dispensations.

Actually, you don't even dispute the delibaretely wrong etymology, used to depict the festivities as completely Christian pre-lent celebration.One gets pretty much used to that given some time.

And I value your mediavistic knowledge too much, to lenghten this post with accounts how in places like rome, the Church lied taxes upon the people to finance the festivals. I have a feeling you know that very well.Yeah, wine from fountains in Rome. Probably tithes or Church Estates tax money because what else? Not like they used to money to buy contraception herbs for the participants. ;)

Well, you might be tempted to think so. But I think his words have more authority in these questions as yours. He has a page devoted to himself in the Catholic Online Encyclopedia. Do you have one too ?The page says several interesting things, such as the man being a priest and one devoted to moral purity and fighting for a moral reform among the faithful and the clergy. He was also very well versed in theology. The use of a phrase like "the Church approves of fornication, adultery and all other sexual sins during the carnival" or anything giving that same sense is unlikely. It is noted that only a fraction of sermons attributed to him was really written by him. There is a possibility that phrase is not from him or has been misinterpreted or taken out of context. I have no idea what he could mean by "honest voluptuousness", but adultery is not honest and neither is fornication considered to be.

Here's what Paul VI says in Humanae Vitae (sorry, I mistakenly attributed it to Pius XII, probably because of reading a lot on Tridentine missals overnight):

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.As for a Pope saying [i](Believers should) have many days of carnival and be happy[/quote], I wholeheartedly agree. But does the Pope anywhere say "everything that happens in the carnival is good" or "believers should kiss many other believers with open mouth" or "believers should bargain beads for showing private parts of their bodies"? Naaah. He did say have a lot of fun and all, but he didn't say the Decalogue wasn't binding during the period.

Oh, don't get me wrong here. I have no doubt that is a plausible theological interpretation. Actually, it's the one of the reformators. Sinfull Catholic festivities were among the things that aroused their hot-blooded temper and passions, to extinct in the lands under their authority any trace of unchristan christanity.Possibly, but in many Churches born in the reformation era (not all), there's no more any such sin as fornication and there is divorce. For some of them (not all), Catholics are still the lustful sinners and Rome is the Babylon.

But: For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven... a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.But not a time to fornicate. Not a time to cheat in marriage.

And as long as you don't get to be advisor to the pope or pope, I can't see how you ever could reform old Cristian traditions and abolish the 5th. season of the year.Showing private parts or French-kissing strangers is not an old Christian tradition.

And carnivals don't have a Christian genesis, they're much older than Christianity.

[ February 15, 2005, 21:45: Message edited by: chevalier ]

I went to Mardi Gras FOUR DAYS after my divorce was finalized -- had a great time. More power t