Define "Porn"

[Jay2]

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”.

 

[carol_marie]

Isn’t there some famous quote… can’t describe it but I know it when I see it?

When I think of porn, I think X-rated magazines, obviously… and X-rated films where the whole point is to show people having sex or, in the case of the magazines - to show graphic pictures of the sex body parts.

 

[Karin]

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

 

[carol_marie]

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

I like her definition better. Change my answer to this one.

 

[CRW]

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”.

Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey – more at FARE, CARVE
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence

 

[Karin]

I like her definition better. Change my answer to this one.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I have heard one author go so far as to say that art which makes you want the thing instead of art which makes you contemplate the thing, that is pornography. In other words, he thought advertising was pornography…art made with the purpose of stimulating desires.

I think that art which stimulates a desire for gratification instead of a desire to contemplate the form or, in the case of motion pictures, the meaning of the work, is pornography. I would also say that art which would be expected to wound the innocence of children is pornographic.

Therefore, in order to define whether or not something is pornographic in a strict sense, you have to ask, “Who’s looking at it?”

In a civic sense, though, I think you have to invent a set of reasonable people at various stages of life as the standard.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

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

I don’t like this definition myself, because it leaves an opening for the porn maker to say, “Oh, but I also mean to convey x, y, and z, not just to stimulate sexual desire.”

My own definition would be more strict. How about:

Pornography: any creative output which commonly elicits sexual covetousness, arousal, or desire in the consumer, or any creative output intended for such purposes.

I think that steamy sex scences in R-rated films and the Sport Illustrated Swim Suit Issue should fall into the category of “porn”, so my definition is wide enough to include them. Does anybody see any holes in my definition?

 

[Karin]

I don’t like this definition myself, because it leaves an opening for the porn maker to say, “Oh, but I also mean to convey x, y, and z, not just to stimulate sexual desire.”

My own definition would be more strict. How about:

Pornography: any creative output which commonly elicits sexual covetousness, arousal, or desire in the consumer, or any creative output intended for such purposes.

I think that steamy sex scences in R-rated films and the Sport Illustrated Swim Suit Issue should fall into the category of “porn”, so my definition is wide enough to include them. Does anybody see any holes in my definition?

Yeah…I would not see the Swim Suit issue as Porn…also some people may lump Michelangelos “David” and other Master’s art as porn

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

…also some people may lump Michelangelos “David” and other Master’s art as porn

Now that I wouldn’t do. But I tend to think of things like swim suit mags as being porn for those in denial or too shy to seek out something more explicit. I know a lot of people think my view is extreme, but I take this view because some of the pictures are pretty much exactly the same as what one would see in soft core pornography (the pose, the gaze, the background, etc.), except with a tiny piece of cloth added. It is created for and serves the same purpose as far as I know. I guess I find it kind of silly that American pop culture considers revealing a whole breast in a commercial photo to be porn, but as long as the nipple is covered, it isn’t?

 

[Valke2]

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.

 

[manualman]

I like Karin’s definition too. Except that I might change it to “primary literary or artistic value is to entice arousal” instead of saying it has NO literary or artistic value. If an exceptionally talented photographer tooks some stunning photos with amazing lighting effects, softened backgrounds, etc, it could still be porn.

“David” on the other hand, is rather NOT an obvious case of an artist merely looking for the change to sculpt male genitals. A healthy adult should be quite capable of appreciating this masterpiece without either arousal or revulsion.

Intent has a larger role than artistic quality.

 

[Jay2]

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?

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

I don’t know if that’s objectively pornography, Jay. I think most people would say it isn’t. But if I had a husband with such an “art” collection, I’d feel sad and undervalued. I wouldn’t want him actively trying to appreciate the naked body of another woman. I’m not a man, but to me it seems inconsistent that most men tell us that they’re visually stimulated and need us to dress modestly, then some of those men purposefully look at nude art. I mean, a nice, innocent girl who accidentally shows a little cleavage when bending over is a threat to a man’s chastity… but he can supposedly gaze at a nude artsy photo with no ill effect? Huh?

I’m just not sure how to define the difference between that kind of art and the ceiling of the sistine chapel, the latter of which I have no problem with, whatsoever. I guess the bottom line is that I truly believe that some level of objectification is going on when a man seeks out a nude photo (or a beauty contest… or a swim suit mag) even if physical arousal isn’t present. Objectifying a person or group of people isn’t the same sin as lust or coveting, but it is a sin of the same family, as all are rooted in utilitarianism.

Would these particular photos encourage the average person to contemplate the dignity of the human person? Or just to admire the physical characteristics of one specimen?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

OP here…

So, am I a pornographer… or an artist?

Jay,

The Questions to ask are - Do the pictures you’ve taken lead to the worship and glorification of God and to wonderment at His creation, or does it lead to the objectification of the women in the photographs in your collection? If we show these to a group of young men, will they go to Mass, or will they commit some form of Mortal Sin? If we show these to some newly married husbands, will they cause them to honor their wives, or will they cause them to compare their wives to the “perfect” women in the pictures? And, If some newly married wives saw these in their husbands’ drawers, how do you think the wives would really feel?

The answer to your question will be found in the answer to those questions.

We belong to God, and our talents belong to him and are given to us so that we may glorify Him in what we do and how we do it.

That we often fail miserably doesn’t mean that isn’t why we are here.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Jay2]

I just re-read my previous… ooops… To clarify I don’t have 100+… that was the collective total of the class. I shot about a 1/2 dozen. My wife has seen them, and doesn’t have a problem with it. Most of the class was about composition, lighting, and shadow, and used a nude female model. I took the class long after I was married, and it had an equal number of men & women attending.

I don’t consider this pornography, but I can see how some might think otherwise. I wouldn’t show them to my young son, or anyone under 21 for that matter, they are nudes.
As for what another man might do after seeing them, that would be up to their own self-discipline to determine.
If a wife or girlfriend sees them, or starts questioning the depth & validity of their relationship… then those two people need to talk.

 

[vince2paul]

Actually, it depends on the viewers themselves. I often read fashion magz when sometimes the models are exposing their breasts. Well, I don’t see it as a form of pornography. However, the same photo given to a person who never sees such image before might view it as pornography and misuse it.

 

[Wolseley]

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.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

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.

 

[mystified]

When you figure out how to put your finger on a blob of spilled mercury, you are ready to define porn.

I have a friend who defines professional medical publications as porn because human nudity is sometimes included. I contend that the human body, made in God’s image, is not pornographic. Porn is the perversion of the proper use of the the human body.

A lady called the community newspaper where I worked and complained to the editor about the porn on the front page: a picture of the local beauty queen in school clothes, a demure blouse and a school-approved miniskirt. The revealing of the teen’s knee was porn according to the caller. The editor responded that we did not publish pornography because none of us made enough money to afford a “pornograph”:tsktsk: .