Define "Porn"

[Big_Willis]

OP here…

Porn is mostly defined by the user and what they view, use, and treat it as. Of course pictures,stories,drawings,etc of people having sex are, but some without sex can be, too. Nude art is fine if you can control yourself. There are many beautiful parts of the body, but don’t make images containing just the aroused genitials. Take caution when just focusing on one part, especially the pubic triangle, breasts, bum, etc. I’m not saying that’s wrong, but it has potential to become arousing.

I’ve got some some beautiful 8 x11-1/2 photographs of the nude female form. Shot in the studio with a professional model, taken by me or shared by my fellow students of photography. 100+ frames, in B&W & Color.

Some are whole body, some are concentrated on the curves of the upper torso & breasts, and some are of the curves of the lower torso (including pubic areas)…

(Artist speak)… Nothing dirty… just the nude female form.
(Public speak)… A NAKED WOMAN… I CAN SEE HER NIPPLES!!.. I CAN SEE HER LABIA!!!

Quite frankly, some of the pictures could cause arousal… Ok, not “arousal” but “thought”… If they don’t I didn’t shoot them correctly… The intent was to show the beauty of the female form… and stir the appreciation of it - without being grossly blunt.

If a man doesn’t have the self-control to distinguish between a studio photo and reality…?

So, am I a pornographer… or an artist?

 

[Chancellare]

With the multiple/multiple x5 posts here about sex, behavior and such… I’m going to stick my neck out about 6 miles here.

What is the common definition of “Porn”?
Not CCC definitions, not Biblical quotes, but a poll of the subscribers to this site of what they consider “pornography”.

The use of images and other forms of media with sexual contents designed to stimulate lust, baser instincts and animal urges of the target viewer for commercial or non-commercial exploitation without regard to the intrinsic human value and dignity of the participants, the viewer and the character ideals of society in which the exploitation occurs.

 

[Chancellare]

It depends on the individual.

Just like some people can drink one beer and that’s it, an alcoholic can’t stop until he’s falling-down drunk. Likewise, some people can look at nude sculpture or bikini-clad women on the beach and be totally detatched, somebody with a porn addiction will have lust kick into high gear when they see lingerie ads or sometimes even fully-clothed women, provided the clothes are clingy enough.

Relative individual reaction is not an accurate rationalization if applied to porn or any other forms of toxic materials like violent media, nicotine, alcohol, guns, drugs, poison or any harmful substances.

The danger of a toxic substance is always there regardless of the relative tolerance of the individual. Therefore such substance cannot be made available to all simply because some can withstand its harmful effect.

 

[djeter]

One of my favorite writers is David Bentley Hart, an orthodox theologian who often writes to Catholic audiences. He addressed a Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Child Online Protection Act in a paper called “The Pornography Culture.” It is an amazing riff on pornography and what it does to us all.

“The damage that pornography can do — to minds or cultures — is not by any means negligible. Especially in our modern age of passive entertainment, saturated as we are by an unending storm of noises and images and barren prattle, portrayals of violence or of sexual degradation possess a remarkable power to permeate, shape, and deprave the imagination; and the imagination is, after all, the wellspring of desire, of personality, of character. Anyone who would claim that constant or even regular exposure to pornography does not affect a person at the profoundest level of consciousness is either singularly stupid or singularly degenerate.”

Unless of course if you’re PBS liberal – (pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/special/eloquence.html). People don’t believe me when I tell them about that site. For sheer stupidity I know of no other that comes closer.

Isn’t that amazing?

Anyways the David Hart piece is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/29/the-pornography-culture/

Regards,

dj

 

[crazzeto]

I guess technically I would say material which is sold expressly for the purposes of the sexual content contained. I.e. you’re selling the pictures of naked people, possibly engaged in certain acts.

Perhaps, though, there is some subjectivity here. A lot of modern magazines and popular media go absolutly as far as they can with out crossing that technical line “actually selling the images”, as opposed to the other content contained in the magazine. I would say you can judge based upon your personal reaction. If you’re thinking "dude, i want to pick up that maxim magazine because it’s got some really hot pictures of ". Maybe if that’s why you’re buying Maxim, then maybe for you Maxim has become porn.

 

[djeter]

It’s astonishing to me that short of the essay I quoted from before there is very little that details the actual harm done by pornography – on the contrary, it’s far more common to run across things like NPR’s hymn the eloquence to porn or its “liberating” benefits.

How many women enjoy getting it off as porn substitutes? But then again, isn’t modern sex equivalent to “getting it off?”

Three messages I would love kids to receive at school

(1) How I regret my abortion

(2) How I overcame (or live with) same sex attraction and live my Christian life

(3) How I lost the only person I ever truly loved because of porn

Fat chance any kid hears those messages in the secular school system.

dj

 

[P_drum]

the etymological origin of the word porn comes from the latin word porneo which means fornification I believe.

 

[edwest2]

invent a new technology for communication and see who uses it first. Chances are, that will be porn. From cave man drawings on walls, to sassy greek urns, to lithography, to photography, to film, to betamax to internet, porn is the first thing we tend to communicate to each other.

And your point is what?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

OP here…

I’ve got some some beautiful 8 x11-1/2 photographs of the nude female form. Shot in the studio with a professional model, taken by me or shared by my fellow students of photography. 100+ frames, in B&W & Color.

Some are whole body, some are concentrated on the curves of the upper torso & breasts, and some are of the curves of the lower torso (including pubic areas)…

(Artist speak)… Nothing dirty… just the nude female form.
(Public speak)… A NAKED WOMAN… I CAN SEE HER NIPPLES!!.. I CAN SEE HER LABIA!!!

Quite frankly, some of the pictures could cause arousal… Ok, not “arousal” but “thought”… If they don’t I didn’t shoot them correctly… The intent was to show the beauty of the female form… and stir the appreciation of it - without being grossly blunt.

If a man doesn’t have the self-control to distinguish between a studio photo and reality…?

So, am I a pornographer… or an artist?

What do you intend to do with these photos? Display them in a gallery? Post them online? Make copies and sell them?

Peace,
Ed

 

[LilyM]

PORN: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

I disagree - I’m sure a book like ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ would have plenty of literary and artistic value. But at the same time there is no doubt a lot of people, if not most, would primarily if not solely read it to be titillated by the graphic sexual descriptions.

I’d modify it a bit - ‘creative activity where the literary or artistic value is of secondary importance, and the primary value or function is as a means of stimulating sexual desire’.

 

[edwest2]

It depends on the individual.

Just like some people can drink one beer and that’s it, an alcoholic can’t stop until he’s falling-down drunk. Likewise, some people can look at nude sculpture or bikini-clad women on the beach and be totally detatched, somebody with a porn addiction will have lust kick into high gear when they see lingerie ads or sometimes even fully-clothed women, provided the clothes are clingy enough.

Don’t see it. A photo of a nude woman is a photo of a nude woman. The same with women in bikinis. Bikinis are not worn to encourage detachment in those looking. The same with plunging necklines, bare midriffs, and the current disgusting trend of showing the bottom of the breast on otherwise normal magazine covers. I recently saw an example on a guitar magazine I picked up. Those perverts are doing everything possible to show body parts while staying just this side of the line of indecent - for too many people. I consider it totally indecent and unacceptable. It’s obviously not enough for them to include such photos in what are called men’s magazines, they have to spread it as far as they can.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

This “it depends on the viewer” stuff has a strong smell of relativism. I don’t think we should define what something is by who is gazing upon it. God is still God, even if an atheist looks at Him.

Even if pornographic or non-pornographic material has varying effects on the wide variety of individuals in the world, it is completely possible to (and indeed we should) define these terms in an objective manner. We do not have the right to our own definition of words, or words become meaningless. The definition of pornography could legitimately involve the content of the material and the intent of its creator–but it should not incorporate the idiosyncracies of the individual consumer.

I think we can all agree that if X goes to the local adult store and watches a pornographic video that fails to arouse or tempt him, the video remains pornographic.

In regard to gray area material (like semi-racy fashion magazines), we should keep in mind that just because something doesn’t fall completely/technically in the category of “porn”, we can’t assume it to be good or even harmless.

Exactly right. Whatever is found in an Adult Bookstore is there for one purpose - sexual arousal.

Not long ago, a Sports Illustrated “swimsuit” issue was pulled from the shelves in one location when it was pointed out that the model was not wearing anything.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Anyone watched the movie “Medicine Man”… with Sean Connery & Lorraine Bracco?? They’re down in South America (Amazon country) and have found the cure for cancer. They enlist the help of the indiginous tribe to gather/process the plants containing the “secret ingredient”.

The camera is panning along a long table of “natives” helping break up the plants… boob, boob, boob, boob, Western gal in a tank top & bra, boob, boob, boob, boob… The native women don’t wear tops. The Western woman does. It’s a matter of what the local culture deems “proper”…

(BTW - another attendee of the photo-class (now friend) took some fabulous photo’s while in Kenya recently. One of the most moving shots is a shot of a little baby boy. The picture is of the mom from her face down to about her midriff, with the baby centered between her breasts. This little dude is snuggled in asleep with such a peaceful expression, and the Mom is just radiating this wierd mixture of pride and inner-concern… you just have to see the photo.)

Oh boy. Unless we have people here from Kenya or some other foreign country, it does not matter. Do you think missionaries did not encourage native women to cover their breasts? Come on, folks. This is just another example of diversion.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I guess technically I would say material which is sold expressly for the purposes of the sexual content contained. I.e. you’re selling the pictures of naked people, possibly engaged in certain acts.

Perhaps, though, there is some subjectivity here. A lot of modern magazines and popular media go absolutly as far as they can with out crossing that technical line “actually selling the images”, as opposed to the other content contained in the magazine. I would say you can judge based upon your personal reaction. If you’re thinking "dude, i want to pick up that maxim magazine because it’s got some really hot pictures of ". Maybe if that’s why you’re buying Maxim, then maybe for you Maxim has become porn.

Magazines like Maxim are purposely designed to attract men and they have an image designed to appeal to men. Their own advertising states, in part, “sexy photos of celebrities, hometown hotties and the Hot 100.” Maxim does cross the line into getting men to view women as objects.

There is ZERO individual reaction nonsense here. The stated purpose of the magazine is to cause arousal with their “sexy” photos. This, in comparison to average snapshots of attractive women that you might see in non-Maxim type magazines.

God bless,
Ed