Confused on porn

[fakename]

Is pornography intrinsically evil or extrinsically?

And the next question would be how can porn be wrong when it is okay to see naked people?

If we grant that seeing naked people is bad or always leads to bad consequences then it would be a sin to even see nudes but it is not.

If we grant that porn has many senses (some depicts sex, others are nudes, and etc.) then we can say that seeing two people having sex is bad (at least if you are not one of the two people) even if other porn is neutral. Now I will grant this (though the rule has to be better stated for it seems arbitrary that a third person looking in is inherently bad [why because he’s a third?]).

But of course the mere seeing of sex cannot be a sin since there is no real intention in such things, just a correspondence b/t eyes and the object seen.

And of course if porn is only extrinsically bad (it exploits the performers for instance) then it follows that since there are worse sins, the principle of double effect can be invoked to allow someone to see it. Therefore sometimes one can watch porn (indeed, one could perhaps see porn actors who are not exploited).

So all these conclusions seem uncommon. So what is the real deal behind the evil of porn?

 

[PJH_74]

To my view one of the main problems with porn is that it objectifies women for the most part, that’s degrading to the human spirit. I think it also results in unrealistic expectations of women on both the part of men and women themselves. Yes I’ve concentrated on porn involving female images, but let’s face it, that’s the majority of porn in the first place.

 

[bbentrup]

Extrinsically, but associated so widely with evil means or ends as to make it practically always evil. For example, as a rare exception, a police officer or judge may permissibly look at porn in the course of gathering and sifting evidence.

 

[fakename]

Extrinsically, but associated so widely with evil means or ends as to make it practically always evil. For example, as a rare exception, a police officer or judge may permissibly look at porn in the course of gathering and sifting evidence.

what type of evil ends and is that really the only time someone can look at porn? It seems so, but there are worse sins so you would think there would be other times one could look at it?

 

[bbentrup]

Also, lest I wasn’t clear - that was for viewing pornography. Creating pornography is intrinsically evil. Here is the definition given by the Catechism: “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2354. After defining it, the CCC goes on to tell us why it’s wrong: “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.” Id.

If this doesn’t clear up the OP’s concerns, perhaps he could restate them or argue with the definitions here, which in my opinion are not as concise as they could be. Still, we have to keep in mind that this is a pastoral source, not a comprehensive analysis, so there’s a certain wisdom in keeping to generalities.

 

[fakename]

Also, lest I wasn’t clear - that was for viewing pornography. Creating pornography is intrinsically evil. Here is the definition given by the Catechism: “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2354. After defining it, the CCC goes on to tell us why it’s wrong: “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.” Id.

If this doesn’t clear up the OP’s concerns, perhaps he could restate them or argue with the definitions here, which in my opinion are not as concise as they could be. Still, we have to keep in mind that this is a pastoral source, not a comprehensive analysis, so there’s a certain wisdom in keeping to generalities.

Then perhaps I should go straight to the source (I hate how the catechism is sometimes not THE source). Indeed, I don’t quite understand the importance of the subjective in the CCC’s definition (like “intimacy”). For one can easily imagine people feeling intimate even in front of others for, the French have a greater disposition (apparently) of having relations in bathrooms when others are trying to use it, plus I don’t imagine that having multiple wives would be less intimate.

Do you have any sources, since I don’t?

And also, the CCC paragraph is listing the “evil ends” you were talking about right or are even these to be provided somewhere else?

 

[1ke]

Is pornography intrinsically evil or extrinsically?

Intrinsically.

And the next question would be how can porn be wrong when it is okay to see naked people?

Because naked people does not equal pornography.

If we grant that seeing naked people is bad or always leads to bad consequences

We don’t grant that because it is not true.

If we grant that porn has many senses

We don’t grant that either, because it also is not true.

even if other porn is neutral.

Porn is not neutral, it is intrinsically evil.

So all these conclusions seem uncommon. So what is the real deal behind the evil of porn?

The real deal is that if you start with a false premise, it will lead to a false conclusion. Go back to your premise.

 

[Deinceps]

CCC: “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.”

Hate to ask, but suppose the real or simulated sexual acts are removed from the intimacy of the partners but the recording reserved for the use of the partners and the partners alone. Is it still porn in the absence of the intention to display them deliberately to third parties?

 

[clem456]

Pornography is intrinsically evil always and everywhere. It objectifies a human being for the satisfaction of lust.

By the tone of your questions it seems you want some really thorough teaching on this subject. Here it is:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm
Pay special attention to chapters 60-63.

Philosophy aside, my personal experience is that dabbling in pornography is a direct invitation for evil to enter your spiritual house, and as surely as a fish cannot remove a hook from it’s own mouth, it has the potential to trap and destroy you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Is pornography intrinsically evil or extrinsically?

Intrinsically

And the next question would be how can porn be wrong when it is okay to see naked people?

Because, by definition, pornography is a display of nudity and/or sexuality that is deliberately intended to create sexual arousal. There is a difference between pornography and mere nudity. At the same time, though, someone can use images that are themselves not intrinsically pornographic to evil ends. Whether something is to be objectively identified as pornography rests on the nature of the work and the obvious intent behind it.

If we grant that seeing naked people is bad or always leads to bad consequences then it would be a sin to even see nudes but it is not.

As we’ve already established, this is not the case. Nudity does not = pornography.

If we grant that porn has many senses (some depicts sex, others are nudes, and etc.) then we can say that seeing two people having sex is bad (at least if you are not one of the two people) even if other porn is neutral. Now I will grant this (though the rule has to be better stated for it seems arbitrary that a third person looking in is inherently bad [why because he’s a third?]).

The reason watching 2 other people have sex is “inherently bad” is because a) sex is a private act of love and union between TWO people and b) there is no reason for anyone to do so other than to achieve arousal and gratification for themselves, which is selfish and disordered. The same goes with using lesser forms of pornography and even non-pornographic material towards the same end.

But of course the mere seeing of sex cannot be a sin since there is no real intention in such things, just a correspondence b/t eyes and the object seen.

Unless you accidentally walk in on someone, accidentally flip onto a bad channel or are watching a non-pornographic film which happens to include a sex scene, you most likely have INTENTION in viewing other people having sex. It’s not something you just stumble upon while out about town. In the aforementioned cases, it indeed would not be a sin unless you stopped and deliberately continued watching.

And of course if porn is only extrinsically bad (it exploits the performers for instance) then it follows that since there are worse sins, the principle of double effect can be invoked to allow someone to see it. Therefore sometimes one can watch porn (indeed, one could perhaps see porn actors who are not exploited).

This makes no sense at all and is a complete distortion of the principle of double effect. The criteria for invoking this principle are as follows:

*the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
*the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
*the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm

For starters, in God’s eyes, viewing pornography is a mortal sin, and on his terms, there are no “worse” mortal sins. ALL mortal sin separates you from God. Secondly, even if we were to grant that there are worse sins, the principle of double effect, as we have seen, has nothing to do with the moral gravity of a particular act compared to others. The principle of double effect means DOING SOMETHING GOOD EVEN THOUGH A SEPARATE EVIL WILL RESULT. The first criterion is that the nature of the intended act is itself GOOD or MORALLY NEUTRAL. Viewing pornography is neither good nor morally neutral; it is degrading to oneself and those participating in the pornography itself. The second is that the agent (which would be the viewer in this case) intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end in itself. What good effect can one possibly intend from viewing pornography? Selfish pleasure at the expense of his own dignity and that of the models/performers? And third, the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances SUFFICIENTLY GRAVE to justify causing the bad effect (which is the loss of dignity to self and the degradation of the objectified persons as well as separating oneself from God) and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm. As we see that only evil and no good comes of the act, the principle of double effect doesn’t even begin to enter into the picture.

So all these conclusions seem uncommon. So what is the real deal behind the evil of porn?

As already stated, it degrades and dehumanizes the participants; it endangers the soul of both those who make it and view it; it presents a distorted view of human sexuality which says that it’s all about pleasure; the list could go on. Porn has nothing but evil effects.

 

[johnnyjones]

To my view one of the main problems with porn is that it objectifies women for the most part, that’s degrading to the human spirit. I think it also results in unrealistic expectations of women on both the part of men and women themselves. Yes I’ve concentrated on porn involving female images, but let’s face it, that’s the majority of porn in the first place.

Women objectify themselves in porn. Somehow there is always a inference, no matter how small (not that you are actually saying that), that men are making women do these acts. Women are responsible for themselves, it is not slavery. They may enslave themselves however.

 

[LightBound]

Women objectify themselves in porn. Somehow there is always a inference, no matter how small (not that you are actually saying that), that men are making women do these acts. Women are responsible for themselves, it is not slavery. They may enslave themselves however.

Nearly every women involved in porn movies, prostitution, or stripping were sexually abused as a child or teen. They need prayers, self-esteem, and a way out of that lifestyle. Sadly, sex is usually all they have known from a young age.

 

[J_Peterson]

A priest in confession put it to me this way. By watching porn you are letting these people into your house to tell you how to feel and it’s impossible to think of God while watching it. Simple but true.

 

[The_Bucket]

Nearly every women involved in porn movies, prostitution, or stripping were sexually abused as a child or teen. They need prayers, self-esteem, and a way out of that lifestyle. Sadly, sex is usually all they have known from a young age.

Even in the cases where they had a good family life, there’s probably something else going on. Sometimes it’s desperation. Sometimes it’s illogical rebellion.

And even in those rare circumstances where women have enslaved themselves, we should still have pity for them just as we should pity the alcoholic or the drug addict. They are still human beings and worthy of our prayers and care. That doesn’t mean you enable them but it does mean that they’re just as much children of God as you and me.

 

[LightBound]

Even in the cases where they had a good family life, there’s probably something else going on. Sometimes it’s desperation. Sometimes it’s illogical rebellion.

And even in those rare circumstances where women have enslaved themselves, we should still have pity for them just as we should pity the alcoholic or the drug addict. They are still human beings and worthy of our prayers and care. That doesn’t mean you enable them but it does mean that they’re just as much children of God as you and me.

 

[Joe_5859]

Intrinsically.

Because naked people does not equal pornography.

We don’t grant that because it is not true.

We don’t grant that either, because it also is not true.

Porn is not neutral, it is intrinsically evil.

The real deal is that if you start with a false premise, it will lead to a false conclusion. Go back to your premise.

 

[clem456]

Women objectify themselves in porn. Somehow there is always a inference, no matter how small (not that you are actually saying that), that men are making women do these acts. Women are responsible for themselves, it is not slavery. They may enslave themselves however.

I think you’re outsmarting yourself here.
Pornography is designed to objectify a person for the satisfaction of disordered desire (lust), Your distinction is in the willingness of the woman to go along. Doesn’t matter if she is “willingly” participating in the evil, it is still evil.

And I would dispute with you whether or not she is enslaved. She is definitely enslaved to sin. Her conscience, virtue, and will are probably compromised from various factors, and she is participating in a “structure of sin”, which is talked about in the CCC.

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root

Slavery is not always coercive, it can insidiously permeate one’s life.

 

[johnnyjones]

Nearly every women involved in porn movies, prostitution, or stripping were sexually abused as a child or teen. They need prayers, self-esteem, and a way out of that lifestyle. Sadly, sex is usually all they have known from a young age.

Many have been but not “nearly all”. That would be a scale of abuse that rocks the foundation of humanity.

That was the “old model” your refering to. Women today just see fast money and the sexuality of women is promoted as equal to men and women see it as , “hey a man does his thing, I’ll do mine.” . Porn sites today are filled with literally hundreds of thousands of women.

 

[clem456]

Many have been but not “nearly all”. That would be a scale of abuse that rocks the foundation of humanity.

That was the “old model” your refering to. Women today just see fast money and the sexuality of women is promoted as equal to men and women see it as , “hey a man does his thing, I’ll do mine.” . Porn sites today are filled with literally hundreds of thousands of women.

Not quite sure what your point is…
Do you disagree that women are objectified? Or that porn is not evil?

 

[johnnyjones]

I think you’re outsmarting yourself here.
Pornography is designed to objectify a person for the satisfaction of disordered desire (lust), Your distinction is in the willingness of the woman to go along. Doesn’t matter if she is “willingly” participating in the evil, it is still evil.

And I would dispute with you whether or not she is enslaved. She is definitely enslaved to sin. Her conscience, virtue, and will are probably compromised from various factors, and she is participating in a “structure of sin”, which is talked about in the CCC.

I said they may enslave themselves however. You skiped over that part? You sound like you want to be the real answer man. I am not saying the willingness does not make it evil.

My point is responsibility. It’s on the women too.