Is this objectively pornographic?

[Lepanto]

OK, supposedly pornography is hard to define but one knows it when one sees it…yet I’m not sure if this is pornographic or not:

bodiestheexhibition.com/bodies.html

Yes, these are real human bodies.

Of course, this exhibition is NOT pornographic in a sexual context, but some might consider it pornographic in that they believe that this exhibit debases human dignity.

On the other hand, some might think that this exhibition has scientific and educational merit and even exalts God’s greatest creation: man.

Judging the morality of this exhibition using biblical principles and the catechism, do you consider it to be OBJECTIVELY pornographic? Why or why not?

 

[Karin]

Not pornographic…as porn applies to the human body and sex…these bodies are not being displayed for sexual arousal so IMHO they are not pornographic

Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφια pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica.

CCC#[2354](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2354.htm’) **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.

 

[Lepanto]

Not pornographic…as porn applies to the human body and sex…these bodies are not being displayed for sexual arousal so IMHO they are not pornographic

Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφια pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica.

CCC#[2354](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2354.htm’) ***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.

I guess I define “pornography” to also mean anything that debases or degrades human dignity.

But, disregarding the semantic nuances, would you consider the exhibition to be morally objectionable?

 

[Karin]

But, disregarding the semantic nuances, would you consider the exhibition to be morally objectionable?

Nope…I have seen the show when it was here in NYC…loved it found it very educational and I had no issues with it.

 

[Karin]

Do you have issues with dead people that donate their bodies to science too?

 

[hasikelee]

I don’t understand, how can dead bodies donated for research of internal anatomy be pornographic?

 

[Lepanto]

I don’t understand, how can dead bodies donated for research of internal anatomy be pornographic?

Based on the information provided on the Bodies website, I have no reason to think that the primary purpose of this exhibition is “research of internal anatomy.” Although ostensibly promoted as educational (which it is), I think the primary purpose of the exhibition is commercial gain.

All of the venues used by this exhibition are tourist hot-spots, not medical schools, hospitals, or research institutions.

 

[Karin]

Based on the information provided on the Bodies website, I have no reason to think that the primary purpose of this exhibition is “research of internal anatomy.” Although ostensibly promoted as educational (which it is), I think the primary purpose of the exhibition is commercial gain.

All of the venues used by this exhibition are tourist hot-spots, not medical schools, hospitals, or research institutions.

this is still not “pornographic”…you have to find another word to use other than “porn”…as that deals with sex and this show does not!

Also from the webage you linked to…

Through the **sensitive presentation of actual whole-body specimens and individual organs, this awe-inspiring exhibition will reveal how your body works by exploring it
from the inside-out.
**Bodies… **The Exhibition examines the intricacies and complexities that lie beneath your skin **through the use of a unique polymer preservation process applied to real human bodies. You will leave with a greater understanding of your own physical makeup and with a deeper respect for the machine that gives you the power of life.
Both fascinating and beautiful, this eye-opening exhibition is an unforgettable
experience for inquisitive minds of all ages.
Bodies… The Exhibition will change the way you view yourself forever.

 

[Lepanto]

this is still not “pornographic”…you have to find another word to use other than “porn”…as that deals with sex and this show does not!

Please don’t get hung up by the word “pornography.” As stated in the third post in this thread:
Disregarding the semantic nuances, would you consider the exhibition to be morally objectionable?

And regarding the citation from their website, to reiterate what I said in the seventh post:
Based on the information provided on the Bodies website, I have no reason to think that the primary purpose of this exhibition is “research of internal anatomy.” Although ostensibly promoted as educational (which it is), I think the primary purpose of the exhibition is commercial gain.

All of the venues used by this exhibition are tourist hot-spots, not medical schools, hospitals, or research institutions.

 

[Karin]

Please don’t get hung up by the word “pornography.” As stated in the third post in this thread:
Disregarding the semantic nuances, would you consider the exhibition to be morally objectionable?

as stated earlier …NOPE no moral objection to this show

All of the venues used by this exhibition are tourist hot-spots, not medical schools, hospitals, or research institutions.

they put the show in hot spots (touristy areas) for a reason…since when does a hosptial, medical school etc. hold shows like this unless you are a medical student?? This is show is for the ordinary person…so those that have not benefited from sitting in an A&P class can see the human body in all of its beauty!

If you have such issues with this type of thing …do not go.

 

[Aleii]

Based on the information provided on the Bodies website, I have no reason to think that the primary purpose of this exhibition is “research of internal anatomy.” Although ostensibly promoted as educational (which it is), I think the primary purpose of the exhibition is commercial gain.

All of the venues used by this exhibition are tourist hot-spots, not medical schools, hospitals, or research institutions.

This is a unique opportunity for the public to see what is under the skin. The human body is truly fascinating. I remember the first time I held an appendix in my hand in my anatomy class. That was pretty amazing. It had to take a lot of man-hours to be able to prepare these bodies for this type of presentation. The funding has to come from somewhere. Someone from the lay public usually can’t just walk into an anatomy classroom and explore a cadaver; they’d have to pay to get into the class. Nothing wrong with the Bodies show charging fees to see this and looking to be successful with their product and to help a large amount of people understand the wonders of the body better.

And no, it doesn’t appear pornographic at all.