Cartoon / CG "porn"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flopfoot

Guest
Hi all. My question is, if someone was to draw (or 3d model) fictional humanoid characters and animate them performing sexual acts, would this be considered pornography by Catholic standards? Would it still be immoral to create or view such animations?

The CCC paragraph on porn is included below. (Can you hence see why I’m unsure on this issue?)

Apologies if this question has already been addressed on these forums.
**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. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
Click to expand...
 
Yes it would. The CCC is not exclusive and all encompassing. What it says is true. But it does not say everything that there is to say.
 
I’d say yes…

I’m guessing that these artistic creations would depict scenes that would be more appropriate in private between a man & woman?..created to stir “impure” thought & actions? … as opposed to illustrations for a discreet “manual” or “self-help” guide to sex?

Cartoons/CG is a medium no different than oil on canvas, or chisel on stone… just a modern extension, and a faster way of getting the result out to the public.

If Michelangelo or Leonardo painted/carved a couple “doing it”, it’d be no different than the “Hentai” cr*p littering the 'net… regardless of how much time has passed, or the credibility of the artist.
 
East_and_West said:
Yes it would. The CCC is not exclusive and all encompassing. What it says is true. But it does not say everything that there is to say.
Click to expand...
What he said.

Although I’d argue that technically this CCC reference does prohibit pornography of the non-photographic variety.
 
Yes, because as the Catechism states:
It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others.
Click to expand...
Since the public, those who are viewing the film, are being manipulated by the film, then even if it’s just animation, it’s considered pornography.
 
East_and_West said:
Yes it would. The CCC is not exclusive and all encompassing. What it says is true. But it does not say everything that there is to say.
Click to expand...
Cheers. Where do we learn more about this issue from then / how do you know it’s immoral?
 
Flopfoot said:
Hi all. My question is, if someone was to draw (or 3d model) fictional humanoid characters and animate them performing sexual acts, would this be considered pornography by Catholic standards? Would it still be immoral to create or view such animations?

The CCC paragraph on porn is included below. (Can you hence see why I’m unsure on this issue?)

Apologies if this question has already been addressed on these forums.
Click to expand...
Absolutely…it is immoral.
 
I think it depends on the purpose of the animations. For example, if the animations were for instructional videos for married people, to help them have a better sex life in marriage, that would not be immoral. If it were for a biology or medical lecture at a university for doctors, that would also not be immoral. But if it were to be uploaded onto the internet for pornographic consumption, such as ‘Hentai’ or other forms of sexual animation often are, then that is wrong according to the definition in the CCC.
 
I have a question about this too. Though it seems that it has been established as wrong (which is why I’m already banging my head on the wall in guilt as I type this :banghead:), I would just like to ask:

Which is more severe? Live action pornography that uses real live people and actual sexual acts or handrawn images that arouse and have characters that don’t exactly look human (I’m talking about big-eyes, different colored hair etc)?
 
Flopfoot said:
Cheers. Where do we learn more about this issue from then / how do you know it’s immoral?
Click to expand...
If you’ve consulted the Catechism, you’ve just scratched the surface of what the Church has written and taught on a subject. The Catechism is not the end-all definitive statement of the faith. It is the definitive first-tier panoramic introduction to the faith. This is why the Compendium, which is even more concise, is clearly stated to refer the reader back to the Catechism. The Catechism is about as basic as you can afford to get.

If you have questions after reading the catechism, ask your pastor or confessor. Look up the references given in the Catechism, and read those…and so on.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Which is more severe? Live action pornography that uses real live people and actual sexual acts or handrawn images that arouse and have characters that don’t exactly look human (I’m talking about big-eyes, different colored hair etc)?
Click to expand...
Which is worse, drunkenness or drug abuse? Even if you find an answer, you have drawn up a false dilemma. Don’t watch either one!
 
EasterJoy said:
Which is worse, drunkenness or drug abuse? Even if you find an answer, you have drawn up a false dilemma. Don’t watch either one!
Click to expand...
Yeah well, let’s just say I have my own personal reasons for asking which is the lesser of two evils. :coffeeread:
 
Flopfoot said:
Hi all. My question is, if someone was to draw (or 3d model) fictional humanoid characters and animate them performing sexual acts, would this be considered pornography by Catholic standards? Would it still be immoral to create or view such animations?

The CCC paragraph on porn is included below. (Can you hence see why I’m unsure on this issue?)

Apologies if this question has already been addressed on these forums.
Click to expand...
Flop Foot.

Unless you are a sexual ed teacher and you are going to use those illustrations in class to explain what takes place when two married people come together to unite, then I dont see why you would make such models…
Whats the intention? Can you draw them and look at them without getting sexually aroused? I don’t think so.
So putting your self in that situation is damaging to your self and to Christ as well as to your future bride. Please stop doing it.
You are going to eventually commit fornication in your heart and will be tempted to masturbate if you dont stop this hobby of yours. You are playing with fire and its not worth it.

Grace 🤷
 
Porn is porn.

The only distinction between written porn and graphic porn is that in the mind of an accomplished pervert or deviant the written word can paint a more imagined and intensely vivid image and sequence of actions and fantasies that infinitely exceed the resolution of the pixel and screen resolutions of pornography drawn electronically on the canvas of CRT phosphors & printed paper that have replaced the pencil and paper stick figures drawn by prepubescent children on scraps of paper while getting “educated” in grade school.

Put any two or more pixels on the CRT in a suggestive orientation with or without a supporting caption and in an infected and depraved mind any illicit fantasy can be conjured.

With porn all we are talking about is differences in relative resolution and whether or not the lights are left on to invite others to watch. 😊

Jame
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Yeah well, let’s just say I have my own personal reasons for asking which is the lesser of two evils. :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Unless your eyelids won’t close anymore, I’m not sure what that would be! :rolleyes:

OK. Let us say this is a “purely” theoretical discussion. If someone is going to watch one or the other, the cartoons at least didn’t demean the bodies of any actual people while being made. In terms of the effect on you, the difference may be nil. In terms of the industry, I suppose the cartoons are the lesser of two evils. But the cartoonists are not unaffected by coming up with stuff like that, so we are not talking an order of magnitude difference, here.

Eeew. This is kind of icky to even discuss. We are talking about fantasies in which sons and daughters of God, made in his image and likeness, are degraded into objects! Making it a cartoon doesn’t help much. Do make that very clear, if you argue this point with anyone.
 
EasterJoy said:
OK. Let us say this is a “purely” theoretical discussion. If someone is going to watch one or the other, the cartoons at least didn’t demean the bodies of any actual people while being made. In terms of the effect on you, the difference may be nil. In terms of the industry, I suppose the cartoons are the lesser of two evils. But the cartoonists are not unaffected by coming up with stuff like that, so we are not talking an order of magnitude difference, here.
Click to expand...
Well, actually that’s the thing. I merely wanna discuss this on a theoretical level for I have long thought about this issue. Despite the fact that both are still wrong (for both have effects that are described sinful), the difference these two have in methods and styles leaves a nagging thought in my head and leads me to question if people should be really equating one with the other. I mean in the industry of live-action pornography, people go as far as to use third-world prostitutes. However, in the hentai industry, all one really needs is drawing skill… and a shamefully pervy imagination. -_-;;
Eeew. This is kind of icky to even discuss. We are talking about fantasies in which sons and daughters of God, made in his image and likeness, are degraded into objects! Making it a cartoon doesn’t help much. Do make that very clear, if you argue this point with anyone.
Click to expand...
There’s a little problem though with the way you say ‘made in God’s image and likeness’. I think that only applies when condemning real live pornography since only the whole likeness of the human anatomy can really capture the way we are made in God’s image and likeness.

Cartoon porn like hentai however… well let’s face it. As much as I wish it, I don’t exactly see an anime character when I look at myself in the mirror if you know what I mean. ^^;;
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
There’s a little problem though with the way you say ‘made in God’s image and likeness’. I think that only applies when condemning real live pornography since only the whole likeness of the human anatomy can really capture the way we are made in God’s image and likeness.

Cartoon porn like hentai however… well let’s face it. As much as I wish it, I don’t exactly see an anime character when I look at myself in the mirror if you know what I mean. ^^;;
Click to expand...
What I meant is this: if you look at the next woman you see differently as a result of having viewed those cartoons, or even if you failed to take an opportunity to rehabilitate how you habitually see her, then you have perverted how you see the image and likeness of God.

Pornography is not wrong only because of what it does to the person who was exploited in its production, although that is objectively serious. It is wrong because of how it twists the perceptions of the viewer, too.

And truly, I’ll tell you: a woman who walks into a room and sees a guy watching stuff like that…that is a message to her about her function and value. It is not affirming in any positive way, let’s put it that way. Seeing that it is “only a cartoon” isn’t terribly consoling. We’re not stupid.
 
If one were to describe a pornographic scene using only words, would this be acceptable? I mean very descriptive verbiage that would entice the imagination and lead to arousal. Now, we must remember that words are not viable human beings. In a parallel example with artistic representations of porn, which neither example utilizes actual people, would this not constitute an evil activity?? Don’t both point right to the source of sexual immorality which is the misuse of our sexuality as a gift from our Creator??

Just my :twocents: …teachccd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top