Confusion on pornography

[Maathw]

Hi everyone

I am confused with pornography.
Is nudity considered pornographic?
Are sex scenes on movies and series considered as pornographic?
and lastly an image of a shirtless man with some pants on considered as pornographic?

 

[tomo_pomo]

Depends for who. Definition doesn’t matter. If it tempts you to have lustful thoughts then its wrong. If it portrays humans as an objects it’s wrong too.

 

[Prodigal1984]

So some of the art depicting humans nude in the Vatican is porn?

 

[angell1]

no, nudity in itself is not necessarily pornographic, depends on the context.

sex scenes may be pornographic, it depends, for the most part, no though, because, the actors are not usually having actual sex, it’s more implied, and it depends how much is being shown, some can be graphic.

and no, the man with his shirt off may be viewed to be a bit immodest by people, but it’s not pornographic.

this is the definition of pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

 

[Dolphin]

Nudity in and of itself is not sinful, it is a beautiful thing. The response to it which could be lust is sinful

 

[Prodigal1984]

Well the term comes from Greek pornocupia or sexual immortality

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Is nudity considered pornographic?
Are sex scenes on movies and series considered as pornographic?
and lastly an image of a shirtless man with some pants on considered as pornographic?

Pornography generally involves nudity or sex shown simply to excite or arouse people and without artistic value.
Nudity obviously isn’t pornographic in and of itself. Otherwise, a huge percentage of great art in the world would be “pornography”, including stuff like Michelangelo’s David and the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Sex scenes are often either pornography or borderline pornography because they are often not essential to the film and are just thrown in to excite the viewer. But if they have some artistic value, such as being necessary to the plot, then they aren’t pornography, although someone who finds them an occasion of sin (for instance someone who is struggling with purity) might want to avoid watching them.

The shirtless man wearing pants would normally not be considered pornographic because in Western society it’s socially and morally acceptable for a man to be topless in certain settings, such as at the beach or in his own yard or home. If his pants were very low cut or very tight, or he was posed in a very sexual way, it might be porn or borderline porn.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

1. Nude statues are okay, because:
   Statues are not real people, so it cannot behave decent/ indecent. It is indecent human behavior hurts others. And mere statues does not really behave as real humans.
2. Nude real people in photos or videos are indecent behavior
   Real people are not allowed running around naked in public places because it violates other people’s right who prefers decent behavior in public places. So in the same way, nobody should be allowed to show off nudity in the media, because media is public.
3. Real people having sex in pictures and videos are pornographic.
   Sex is private, and for the couple’s eyes alone. Any other eyes are adulterous, hence pornographic.

 

[Greenfields]

For myself I wouldn’t look a nude person in real life,I wouldn’t stand and look at a couple kissing and I definetly wouldn’t look be looking on at a couple being more intimate .'taint manners For me the same goes for looking at images on screen,on canvass and sculptured etc.
This is how I was brought up ,and I’m grateful for it .Anyway,some will.agree,and some won’t :slight_smile:God bless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Nude statues are okay , because:
Statues are not real people , so it cannot behave decent/ indecent. It is indecent human behavior hurts others . And mere statues does not really behave as real humans.

That’s wrong reasoning. A nude statue, nude painting, nude computer graphic etc could be pornographic if it were basically made to excite real flesh-and-blood people sexually who were viewing it, and didn’t have artistic value. For example, there is child pornography that is actually 3D Graphic art of a fictional child, and not photographs of a real child; I don’t think any Catholic would argue that it’s okay to look at it because it’s not a real child in the picture or video. There is a lot of pornographic anime out there too.

The test for pornography is whether it has artistic value, not whether it’s a picture of a real person.