How to combat porn?

[ThinkingSapien]

Lol. How is it these remote passages are so well known to atheists and most of us who pray, read scripture and heed the teachings of the church never come across them?

Many non-religious people were religious at some point in their life. Also reading the Bible from beginning to end can bring one to all these various remote passages. I’ve got a friend (Christian) that has recently decided to read all the bible and she’s having a bit of a difficult time because now she is for the first time reading some certain passages that were never included in the more guided readings that she had done through the Bible before.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Just goes to show you, one persons ‘porn’ is anothers ‘masterpiece work of art’, and the more time that goes by, society is tending to view the human body as nasty, dirty, something they need to shield their kids eyes from.

I just heard about a story that is still developing. A 57 year old Parisian art teacher posted a picture of a 19th century painting to Facebook by Gustave Courbet. The painting is titled L’Origine du monde (The Origins of the World, i think)and it’s of a nude woman from her breast on down. Facebook removed the picture and suspended the person’s account. While the post was made 5 years ago it was yesterday that France decided to move forward with allowing themail art teacher to sue Facebook.

“This is a case of free speech and censorship on a social network,” Durand-Baissas told The Associated Press in a phone interview. “If (Facebook) can’t see the difference between an artistic masterpiece and a pornographic image, we in France (can).”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“This is a case of free speech and censorship on a social network,” Durand-Baissas told The Associated Press in a phone interview. “If (Facebook) can’t see the difference between an artistic masterpiece and a pornographic image, we in France (can).”

This case doesn’t even seem relevant to this thread.

Haven’t we assumed the thread is about hardcore porn.

By definition, there is nowhere an artistic masterpiece of hardcore porn.

There may be classic porn, but a classic is not necessarily an artistic masterpiece any more than the devil himself is an artistic masterpiece.

 

[Solmyr]

Haven’t we assumed the thread is about hardcore porn.

Since you are unable to provide a definition just WHAT IS hardcore porn, there is no objective topic for the thread. You can only say that object “X” is hardcore porn in YOUR OPINION.

If you consider anything that depicts a reproductive act to be pornographic then all the medical books dealing with the subject are “hardcore” porn. If you make a distinction and consider porn only if it stimulates erotic feelings or urges, then you lost all your objectivity, because some people find an object “stimulating”, other people don’t.

Just like art in general. One man’s masterpiece is another one’s trash. And that is why ThinkingSapien’s post is extremely relevant.

This whole thread is just another example of the widespread hang-up on sexual matters. It is better to stay in your bedroom and practice it, rather than worrying about what other people do in their own bedroom. It really reminds me of the following definition: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This whole thread is just another example of the widespread hang-up on sexual matters. It is better to stay in your bedroom and practice it, rather than worrying about what other people do in their own bedroom. It really reminds me of the following definition: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”.

I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue we live in a puritan culture.

Our culture is hedonistic in the extreme.

Even the Greeks and Romans at their worst never descended to the idiocy of same-sex marriage.

 

[mikekle]

What’s wrong is that anybody should ever claim we are the most Christian nation the world has ever see. Even so, there may be more Christians here than anywhere else in the world at present.

Yet many of them are perfunctory Christians as opposed to authentic ones.

Yes, I think at one time, we were the most Christian nation, but it didnt stay that way for long. I think if there was a way to ‘poll’ the population as to how many real christians there are, it would be quite different than what we think.

 

[Bradski]

I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue we live in a puritan culture.

Our culture is hedonistic in the extreme.

Even the Greeks and Romans at their worst never descended to the idiocy of same-sex marriage.

No wonder you are losing the argument if you think SSM is about hedonism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No wonder you are losing the argument if you think SSM is about hedonism.

SSM is about the hedonistic desire to normalize and sanctify sodomy.

Just as legalizing hardcore pornography is about defending barbaric sexuality.

All right thinking people know you lost that argument long ago.

That we live in an age of sexual barbarity is a given.

 

[Solmyr]

I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue we live in a puritan culture.

Fortunately we don’t. However, some people would like nothing more. Do you know any of them?

Our culture is hedonistic in the extreme.

Not really. It is not significantly different from the Victorian era, or the “do goody” kind of hypocrisy. The only difference is that it is not “hidden” any more. People are not ashamed of their body, or their emotions and acting on them. As a matter of fact, when I am in the mood to see the what the ultra-conservative’s preferred life would be, all I have to do is check out the moral theology forum, and see the incredible amount of frustration and self-hate coming from acting on the perfectly natural actions of the poor people who then feel “dirty” and “sinful” for following their natural desires. I really feel sorry for them.

Even the Greeks and Romans at their worst never descended to the idiocy of same-sex marriage.

Love is love… even if the partners happen to express it in a way which is not accepted by the ultra-conservatives. Any kind of love is preferable to war.

And there is still no coherent definition of what “porn” might be.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And there is still no coherent definition of what “porn” might be.

I’m not surprised that you can’t find one.

Look it up in the dictionary, if you have one.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Look it up in the dictionary, if you have one.

I checked a few dictionaries. The definitions I found were based on intentions. Knowing that the definition is based on intention doesn’t provide a well defined criteria for determining whether or not something is pornography.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I checked a few dictionaries. The definitions I found were based on intentions. Knowing that the definition is based on intention doesn’t provide a well defined criteria for determining whether or not something is pornography.

I’m not following this. Pornography is certainly intentional, but your dictionary surely has to say more than that.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography

 

[Solmyr]

Look it up in the dictionary, if you have one.

Generic dictionaries are not useful for a specialized subject. I am interested in YOUR definition, especially in telling the difference between erotic material and hard-core porn. If the difference is between the reaction of the viewer, then you only have a subjective difference - just like with any form of art.

There is no such definition. One man’s beautiful art is another man’s disgusting porn. And that is the point that you do not wish to acknowledge. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

One Biblical and ecclesiastical suggestion is to get married. Easier said than done in this disastrous age, but maybe someone will be helped if they can turn their focus on a worthy vocation. From an older thread:In Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body there is the section under “Concupiscence” and “Gift from God”. In it, he recalls 1 Cor. 7:2, which reads, “Still because of the danger of incontinence, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” This is the passage leading up to verse 9: “But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”

Even in Paul, he views marriage as a remedy of sorts for lustful concupiscence. JP2 writes: “Does the Apostle in 1 Corinthians see marriage only from the point of view of a ‘remedium concupiscentiae [remedy for concupiscence],’ as one used to say in traditional theological language?” He then goes on to talk about how Paul nevertheless praises those who live “as I myself am” as a virgin. But uniting the 2 strains of thought together, JP2 concludes: “One can therefore say that, while the Apostle in his characterization of marriage from the ‘human’ side (and perhaps even more from the side of the dominant local situation in Corinth) strongly highlights the motivation in view of the concupiscence of the flesh, at the same time he brings out, and with no less strength of conviction, also its sacramental and ‘charismatic’ character.”

Thus, I think part of what is neglected is the Church’s effort to help lead singles called to marriage into marriage. I have ever rarely heard petitions during mass for singles called to married. Perhaps once ever. Most of the time, I hear prayers for married couples and prayers that singles answer the call to the priesthood. Those are, of course, good prayers. But I rarely if ever hear prayers for singles to answer the call to married life. This is a crisis of our time as many theologians, clergy, and other concerned Catholics have voiced. I have been unsuccessful in getting my local parish to add such a prayer even occasionally for such singles.

So anyway, it is frustrating no doubt for many singles that advice against lust, in this age where souls are bombarded with temptations and images at every turn, that Church pastors or teachers often emphasize some sense of recourse to married life as a weapon against lust, and yet seem to have a tone deafness to the disaster that is the enterprise toward marriage.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is no such definition. One man’s beautiful art is another man’s disgusting porn. And that is the point that you do not wish to acknowledge. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

That’s just about the equivalent of arguing, after a parade through town of cattle pooping on the street, if you don’t like it, don’t smell it.

It’s clear you are a moral relativist, but this thread is not about moral relativism. It’s about how we can combat at porn. If you think the stench of hardcore porn does not exist anywhere but up the nose of those who can not distinguish porn from beautiful art, that is a curious perversion of this thread.

If you want to start another thread about whether porn is eve definable, go ahead.

I’ll join you there.

One of the first things you’ll have to explain is why pornography is defined in every dictionary

 

[Solmyr]

That’s just about the equivalent of arguing, after a parade through town of cattle pooping on the street, if you don’t like it, don’t smell it.

Sure, take another route. Besides, the smell of the poop is only unwelcome to humans. Dogs have a much more acute smell and they don’t mind it… everything is relative, as usual.

It’s about how we can combat at porn.

How can you combat something, if you cannot even tell it apart from something else?

If you think the stench of hardcore porn does not exist anywhere but up the nose of those who can not distinguish porn from beautiful art, that is a curious perversion of this thread.

If you can tell the OBJECTIVE difference, go ahead.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How can you combat something, if you cannot even tell it apart from something else?.

I’d say the vast majority of mankind can distinguish porn from non-porn.

For the life of me, I can’t see what’s blocking your vision!

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you can tell the OBJECTIVE difference, go ahead.

What is the objective definition for identifying love, or virtue, or greed, or altruism, etc… There is actually no objective reason why pure objectivity is the only way to identify a truth.

Thus, it is fair to say something is pornographic in that is a depiction (hence the “graphic” part) and dealing with the sexual faculties in some explicit sense, usually to elicit arousal. Just as it is fair to say “altruism” is a trait exhibited by persons who do some act of kindness independent of their own gain. Or just as it is fair to say greed is a trait exhibited by people who have an excessive desire for something, typically wealth or power.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not following this. Pornography is certainly intentional, …]

Thats the part that introduces ambiguity. Depictions of sexual acts without the intention to stimulate someone sexually would not be considered porn. It can’t always be known what ones intentions were in producing or transmitting a work (the case against Facebook is an example of this). Right now it seems that you are seeking to ban something that doesn’t pass your match your feelings of what is acceptable.

 

[Solmyr]

What is the objective definition for identifying love, or virtue, or greed, or altruism, etc… There is actually no objective reason why pure objectivity is the only way to identify a truth.

If one wishes to “fight” against something, then there MUST be an objective way to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”.

There is no OBJECTIVELY beautiful picture, or music, just like there is no OBJECTIVELY well-salted dish. All these are subjective categories.

Thus, it is fair to say something is pornographic in that is a depiction (hence the “graphic” part) and dealing with the sexual faculties in some explicit sense, usually to elicit arousal.

Actually the “visual” part is not important. A well written story can be just as affective. But the question is: why is that a problem? We are sexual beings. Consider the statue of Rodin, the “Kiss”. For some people it might elicit arousal. Does that make it “porn”?