C
carol_marie
Guest
Sounds sort of pornish to me.
- Status
N
noma
Guest
I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.
A joke… quoted from someone I can’t remember…
A joke… quoted from someone I can’t remember…
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Yeah, it was a Supreme Court Justice, who said, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”
X
xenocryst
Guest
I just had an interesting thought… Light behaves differently depending on if it is being directly observed or not, right? (Sometimes waves, sometimes particles.) Maybe the reason no man can look upon God is because he is unchangeable. Going with this flow of thought, a photo from a Sears catalog, which depicts a photo of a woman in one of the bras they sell, may be observed by one person as an ad for a product he thinks his wife might like. It might be used as pornographic material for masturbation by another man. That is a prime example of something becoming what the observer wants.
Consider the statue of David (or any of the beautiful carvings of the time depicting the nude body). Consider artistic depictions of the body today. In both cases “ideal” models of the time are chosen and often times exaggerated. What would Jesus’s feedback be after observing any of those works from the past or present? I’m going to go out on a limb an say that virtually everything created with artistic intent would be considered NOT porn. Since Jesus would know each artist’s intent, his observation would be the final word, wouldn’t it.
Basically, I think that porn shouldn’t be a term for a medium observed by an individual, but rather an affect on an individual by a particular medium. If some one is using the Sears catalog as porn, then it’s porn to them, and a good friend would help that person avoid that section of the catalog.
Consider the statue of David (or any of the beautiful carvings of the time depicting the nude body). Consider artistic depictions of the body today. In both cases “ideal” models of the time are chosen and often times exaggerated. What would Jesus’s feedback be after observing any of those works from the past or present? I’m going to go out on a limb an say that virtually everything created with artistic intent would be considered NOT porn. Since Jesus would know each artist’s intent, his observation would be the final word, wouldn’t it.
Basically, I think that porn shouldn’t be a term for a medium observed by an individual, but rather an affect on an individual by a particular medium. If some one is using the Sears catalog as porn, then it’s porn to them, and a good friend would help that person avoid that section of the catalog.
V
vince2paul
Guest
I agree that there are things that are pornographic in nature, such as materials (books/magz/video) that are specifically made for this reason.
C
CuriousInIL
Guest
Two points.
First, the “I know it when I see it” comment was made by Justice Stewart and relates to obscenity, not pornography.
Second, how about the CCC definition:
First, the “I know it when I see it” comment was made by Justice Stewart and relates to obscenity, not pornography.
Second, how about the CCC definition:
Z
Zooey
Guest
I think it was a US Supreme Court justice who said that, back years ago. I have no idea of the name.
I think your defintion is right on…
M
marybee
Guest
I for one, think that the National Geographic channel is totally pornographic. I mean, all those women running around with their breasts exposed. I bet men watch it for that reason! Yes it definately has nothing to do with how the viewer takes it! That is really verging into relativism, I agree.
J
JimmyV
Guest
??? What are you trying to say, that pornography cannot be defined? It seems it is well defined in the CC and on this forum.
J
johnnykins
Guest
I believe Justice Potter Stewart said he couldn’t define it, but knew it when he saw it.
M
manualman
Guest
Depending on what posture or pose the woman is in in those photos, it doesn’t sound like it is inherently pornographic to me.
HOWEVER, they can still be USED for pornographic purposes. Put them in an art display at a gallery showing amonst all sorts of photographic art, and that is probably not porn. Put giant sized version up on the wall near the dance floor at the Playboy club, and it’s quite another thing!
This isn’t relativism. This is the recognition that sin includes intent of the will.
HOWEVER, they can still be USED for pornographic purposes. Put them in an art display at a gallery showing amonst all sorts of photographic art, and that is probably not porn. Put giant sized version up on the wall near the dance floor at the Playboy club, and it’s quite another thing!
This isn’t relativism. This is the recognition that sin includes intent of the will.
C
CuriousInIL
Guest
No, as I noted above, Justice Stewart’s comment was about obscenity, not pornography.I believe Justice Potter Stewart said he couldn’t define it, but knew it when he saw it.
J
Jay2
Guest
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.)
J
JezuUfamTobie
Guest
“Cultural context” is a concept that could reasonably and easily be incorporated into a comprehensive definition of pornography. It is fine to say something like, “Pornography is media that is intended to provoke arousal in the average member of a specific culture.” It is not ok to say, “What may be pornography to you is not pornography to me.” Pornography and temptation are two separate terms and should not be confused. Personal temptations are highly individual, but pornography can be objectively defined.
K
Karin
Guest
Have you seen how these womans breast “hang” and “swing” around becuase of a lack of support…oh yeah mean are turned on by “sagging boobs”
S
slowbutfaithful
Guest
Interesting reversal of the usual argument. So whose sin is it if I am arosed by a statue or painting of nude images? The artist’s or mine?
K
kbmorri
Guest
From a males perspective, if the advertisement has the purpose of stimulating sexual desires then I would call that pornography. Even if it’s not the sole purpose. It’s so difficult these days when everything is geared towards sex. The “sex sells” stigma of today can be so overwhelming. The only thing we can do is not dwell on it.
J
Jay2
Guest
I’ll agree. The “Victoria’s Secret” catalog is about as close as you can get to mass-marketed pornography… Perfectly built and pretty women in seductive poses. The Sears catalog with average women in “Industrial Whites” is just underwear.
I consider myself a photographer, not a pornographer.
Well, none of my photos depict a sexual act - real or simulated - (unless you go as far as considering being naked a sexual act), and my photos are not for sale or public display.
I consider myself a photographer, not a pornographer.
D
didymus
Guest
Not a joke, sorry to say. That’s a quote from a concurring opinion by Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter in Jacobellis v. Ohio:
P
pickguard1
Guest
"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. "(CCC)
OK, I’ll jump into this thread. I would say that the CCC’s definition is the best here (as it should be) as the depiction of the naked human form is not sinful in and of itself. (Hey God created us naked - at least that’s how I remember my kids being when they were born). Depicting the marital act outside of marriage is obviously sinful (and I mean showing people ACTUALLY doing the marital act), since it is a sin against the sacrament of Matrimony and chastity. Also, even if the actors are married to each other, the selling or distribution to third parties removes the intimacy of the act, as stated in the definition.
I would say that nude or semi nude depictions of the human body as it is, in various poses (not depicting sexual activity) is NOT pornography, since it doesn’t infringe on the dignity of the conjugal act. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that such a picture couldn’t be a sin against chastity if the primary and even sole purpose (i.e. intent) of the photo is to elicit a sexually arousing response (i.e. lust) in the viewer. This would be a sin for the photographer and model. A person who views such a photo may be able to see the beauty of the human form and appreciate the wonders of God’s creative ability, or view it and become sexually aroused. If a person viewing it becomes lustful towards the model, this is obviously a source of temptation and should be avoided. If not, no harm to the viewer.
If the primary purpose (i.e. intent) of the photographer and model is to depict the beauty of the human form, there is no sin against chastity, so long as both are able to avoid impropriety (i.e. lustful thoughts). If niether could do this, obviously they should find other professions! Thus a beautiful nude photograph of the human form can be taken without any fear of commiting sin or being “pornographic.” A viewer of this photo may be able to see the beauty intended by the photographer and the model (no sin), or a viewer may be prone to get excited at the depiction of the nude form and this would be a near occasion for that viewer and should be avoided.
Some posters have said this is relativism - I heartily disagree. Just as one person can look at a cake and eat one piece, so another might be tempted to eat until the point of being sick (Gluttony - a mortal sin). That doesn’t make the cake evil, or the baker a sinner.
Likewise with medical professionals (especially OBGYN’s) one must look at all the aspects of sin to determine it (full knowledge, intent, and consent.) There may be doctors (and some have been prosecuted) who take advantage of their position to exploit patients. This doesn’t mean that the practice of obstetrics is sinful, or that a woman receiving a pelvic exam commits a sin, per se. It could be if she intended to derive illicit sexual pleasure somehow, with full knowledge and consent. (however unlikely)
We are each called to a deeper self-knowledge. And while certain behavior can be objectively identified as sinful (fornication), whether a specific photo of a person, whether clothed or nude is sinful has to address all the components of sin.
OK, I’ll jump into this thread. I would say that the CCC’s definition is the best here (as it should be) as the depiction of the naked human form is not sinful in and of itself. (Hey God created us naked - at least that’s how I remember my kids being when they were born). Depicting the marital act outside of marriage is obviously sinful (and I mean showing people ACTUALLY doing the marital act), since it is a sin against the sacrament of Matrimony and chastity. Also, even if the actors are married to each other, the selling or distribution to third parties removes the intimacy of the act, as stated in the definition.
I would say that nude or semi nude depictions of the human body as it is, in various poses (not depicting sexual activity) is NOT pornography, since it doesn’t infringe on the dignity of the conjugal act. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that such a picture couldn’t be a sin against chastity if the primary and even sole purpose (i.e. intent) of the photo is to elicit a sexually arousing response (i.e. lust) in the viewer. This would be a sin for the photographer and model. A person who views such a photo may be able to see the beauty of the human form and appreciate the wonders of God’s creative ability, or view it and become sexually aroused. If a person viewing it becomes lustful towards the model, this is obviously a source of temptation and should be avoided. If not, no harm to the viewer.
If the primary purpose (i.e. intent) of the photographer and model is to depict the beauty of the human form, there is no sin against chastity, so long as both are able to avoid impropriety (i.e. lustful thoughts). If niether could do this, obviously they should find other professions! Thus a beautiful nude photograph of the human form can be taken without any fear of commiting sin or being “pornographic.” A viewer of this photo may be able to see the beauty intended by the photographer and the model (no sin), or a viewer may be prone to get excited at the depiction of the nude form and this would be a near occasion for that viewer and should be avoided.
Some posters have said this is relativism - I heartily disagree. Just as one person can look at a cake and eat one piece, so another might be tempted to eat until the point of being sick (Gluttony - a mortal sin). That doesn’t make the cake evil, or the baker a sinner.
Likewise with medical professionals (especially OBGYN’s) one must look at all the aspects of sin to determine it (full knowledge, intent, and consent.) There may be doctors (and some have been prosecuted) who take advantage of their position to exploit patients. This doesn’t mean that the practice of obstetrics is sinful, or that a woman receiving a pelvic exam commits a sin, per se. It could be if she intended to derive illicit sexual pleasure somehow, with full knowledge and consent. (however unlikely)
We are each called to a deeper self-knowledge. And while certain behavior can be objectively identified as sinful (fornication), whether a specific photo of a person, whether clothed or nude is sinful has to address all the components of sin.
- Status