Mardi Gras flashing customs - lewdness or idiocy or what?

Remove all ads!

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.

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.

There'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.

One gets pretty much used to that given some time.

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.

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):

As for a Pope saying (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.

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 not a time to fornicate. Not a time to cheat in marriage.

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 to those who want to do that sort of thing. It's lewd, it's idiotic, but it's fun.

For those women who decide to VOLUNTARILY lift their tops for a few pieces of plastic in front of obviously drunk men holding camaras and camcorders -- congratulations you've just been put on the internet (and sometimes in videos). I don't think they deserve any additional payment (hey, they only wanted the beads...).

Women turn down the offers of beads all the time. Some people like to let loose at MG, some just "like to watch" (to quote Peter Sellers). For those who don't like this stuff at all -- don't go.

 

I think one can't speak of "our civilisation" in that context. I am quite positive that every European country is it's own universe of its peculiar mores, customs and behaviour rules. That goes from the timing of the simple-handshake, the distance between persons involved in a small-talk to what is seen as decent or indicent exposure of body-parts. Various sets of rules that are very hard to grasp, are confusing and can lead quickly to a faux-pas. I know vaguely some concepts of my neighbouring countries and I don't have the feeling I completely understood them. Italians dress extremly open-hearted, displaying a lot, yet are way more conservative in sexual matters, while we dress more conservative as them, but are more liberal in our attitudes. The French on the other hand seem to have no problem with nudity at all and their opposite are the British, that are extremly sensitive to any nudity. And I've been told, that Brasilians also have a strict dress-code, it just seems to be too subtil for me.

I think the problem with New Orleans is the country its in. For one, it's singled out. I don't know of any place in the US similar traditions are adhered to. And the US is the homeland of the Porn-Industry. These factors probably let to the way, that the carnival in New Orleans is similar marketed as Thailand is in general, a sex-tourist happening.
All other Carnivals are touristic events too. But I know of none that is reduced to it's sexually interesting parts. Not Cologne and not Rei de Janeiro. All are marketed as exotic events in their enterity.
If it wouldn't be marketed as sex-tourist event, that all would be a funny event. Fast done, fast forgotten. So, the custom itself can't be blamed for the sell-out mentality of our time.

 

The custom is inherently reproachable as payment in form of material gain in exchange for abandoning modesty or performing a sexual service is intrinsic to it.

 

No. All human relations are based on reciopricity. There is always some kind of "reward". You could also say, that marriage is a matieral gain, an in advance payment for sexual pleasure, as the contract of marriage includes exchange of assets in return for "life-long reciprocal possession of the sexual faculties of the involved". You merry to get your spouse to abandon modesty. A purchase with exclusive rights. Marriage itself is nothing but mere prostitution.

 

I have to disagree. As Saint Paul said to the Hebrews (chapter 13):

Therefore, marriage is honourable, not defiled in its nature and substantially different from fornication. The difference can decide as much as inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven (Ephesians 5):

Further Ephesians, speaking on the sacrament of marriage:

(more on marriage being a sacrament, especially - obviously - for Catholics, is contained in the Code of Canon Law:

That's substantially different from fornication or adultery, which is for the sake of sex and lust. And you don't get much of indissolubility in random sex on the street, especially for someone married or promised to another.)

In 2 Cor. 6, he actually says that Holy Ghost is in chastity. In Christianity, chastity is understood as abstinence from unlawful intercourse - hence, as a rule, consensual marital intercourse does not violate chastity. Here's the text:

In the Old Testament is said, "thou shalt not commit adultery," which is Exodus 20, 14 aka The Sixth. It's one of the fundamental teachings. This is not to say that whosoever violates a commandment is not Christian or cannot be a good Christian. However, whatsoever custom is in defiance of a commandment, is inconsistent with Christianity and is not Christian in nature.

Jesus is pretty clear on this one (Matt. 5):

It is not material adultery to drool over someone's wife's breasts, as there is no sexual act involved. However, what else it is than looking on her to lust after her? French kissing actually is material. Not the same as full-on intercourse and not always based on lust. However, if someone kisses after this manner many men or women, even strangers, on the same day [edit: added "day"], what motive drives it? Is it not already harlotry? If there is difference, the difference is in degree. The concept remains the same. I am not judging those people who call themselves Christian and engage it that as whores or whoremongers, I am far from that, as I don't know their hearts and they often look somewhat misguided - and ultimately because it's not my job to judge - but the act is merely of lesser weight than harlotry, not of a substantially different nature, and paves the way for it. People who do that are not often married to another. However, many are promised to another. Next important thing is that some acts, such as kissing, signify love and some sort of devotion to the person - most likely a relationship which is intended to be permanent, at least if it works. Performing such acts with many different people on the same day hardly meets this purpose. It blatantly contradicts monogamy and God created them one man and one woman.

Again Saint Paul (1 Cor 6):

Essentially, in the sexual act, the man and the woman are united in one flesh. Who commits fornication or adultery with a harlot, becomes one body with a harlot. Perhaps frenching someone is not the same as full-on intercourse, but you get the idea. An important message to guys who call themselves Christians and pay women to do stuff, I would say. They could also read Proverbs 6:

Is it really worth it?

Back in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6):

Doing things to incite or satisfy lust in exchange for material gain is different from regular prostitution along with regular intercourse in degree, and perhaps in pretence, but not in nature.

That's why the very custom itself is inconsistent with Christianity or with Catholicism. Mardi Gras as a principle is perfectly OK - so long as the principle doesn't include such things as happen in New Orleans.

[ February 17, 2005, 13:47: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Some days I look at the posts that chev makes...and I have no other response but to say "Put him in charge, man"

(any fans of 'Aliens' will know what I mean)

 

lol!

Moral relativism is one of my favorite things in the world. If there's anything funnier, I've yet to encounter it.

 

What I find particularly entertaining is that, according to moral relativism, if your culture dictated the torture of moral relativists, that would be ok.

They really didn't think that one through, did they?