Yes, but think of St. Augustine, which I think is a good intercessor for this kind of thing. Or of St. Ignatius. Both horrible sinners in sins related to this, but both became great saints. Great trials followed St Ignatius and I imagine St Augustine as well, and most people will not be able to go through those trials, but those that do are fearsome opposition to the enemy. I do not deny that some things can be un-seen. I do not deny that innocence is lost forever. I do not deny that the enemy sends such images at inopportune times, which corrupts your participation in relationship of any kind (earthly, liturgical and/or divine). But with true repentance, which is not just feeling sorry for oneself for offending God, but rather a complete turning away from one’s sinful ways. Libera me, Domine.I think some things can not be “unseen”. Once you have seen them, your “innocence” is lost forever. Porn provides scenarios which are against a healthy sexuality, and once experienced, the images can come to you at inopportune moments, denigrating your intention in prayer, in communion, in relationship, in all sorts of things.
You are rationalizing. You believe that you can look at pornographic images from a “relatively unmotivated position?” Really? I think you are just trying to pretend that those images are “relatively unmotivating.” The reality is that a real person took off her clothing and did sexual things in front of a camera, for money. Whatever you feel or don’t feel as you look at them, the entire practice is WRONG and SINFUL. The porn industry is also surrounded by the drug and alcohol culture, and by organized crime money. It is degrading to the person who poses for the pictures or makes movies, and ruins the people who view it. You are supporting grave sin, this is fornication. And looking at porn is FOR the purpose of sexual arousal in the viewer, usually culminating in masturbation, another grave sin.It is a sin to look lustfully at something: to take an inordinate enjoyment from the desire of sexual pleasure.
If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position: looking, not gazing, as it were, is this sinful? If it is, why, and which class of sin?
Thank-you.
Let’s not delude ourselves (and by ourselves, I mean all of us, myself included) shall we? One cannot look at pornography neutrally.It is a sin to look lustfully at something: to take an inordinate enjoyment from the desire of sexual pleasure.
If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position: looking, not gazing, as it were, is this sinful? If it is, why, and which class of sin?
Thank-you.
The eyes are the windows of the soul. Put impurity in your eyes and you put impurity into your soul.It is a sin to look lustfully at something: to take an inordinate enjoyment from the desire of sexual pleasure.
If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position: looking, not gazing, as it were, is this sinful? If it is, why, and which class of sin?
Thank-you.
You are only kidding yourself if you think that is possible!!It is a sin to look lustfully at something: to take an inordinate enjoyment from the desire of sexual pleasure.
If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position: looking, not gazing, as it were, is this sinful? If it is, why, and which class of sin?
Thank-you.
Looking at art or at nude images for morally-licit scientific/medical reasons isn’t sinful. Those two types of nude imagery aren’t pornographic. Pornographic images have been made with the intention of inciting lust and they should always be avoided. Non-pornographic nude images may be a near occasion of sin for some- those who find them tempting should be cautious. If they are not a near occasion of sin, looking at nude images in art or scientific/medical sources is just fine.It is a sin to look lustfully at something: to take an inordinate enjoyment from the desire of sexual pleasure.
If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position: looking, not gazing, as it were, is this sinful? If it is, why, and which class of sin?
Thank-you.
“If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position”…If you’re “unmotivated” then why are you looking at all?It is a sin to look lustfully at something: to take an inordinate enjoyment from the desire of sexual pleasure.
If we look at pornography from a relatively unmotivated position: looking, not gazing, as it were, is this sinful? If it is, why, and which class of sin?
Thank-you.
What about erotic art? The art that emphasizes sexuality, but retains the artistic quality?There is a difference between art that happens to have nudity and pornography. The difference is this: Pornography focuses on the sexual aspect of humanity; art focuses on the humanity itself. Even here, pornography is a fracture, a splinter.
If you like art, go to Rome. If you like pornography, don’t. While on principle, I agree with Fighting Fat, I do not think the damage done is permanent. You can be repaired, but it requires long hours for a long weeks of long months or even years of struggle. And just when you think you’re free, you’re sucked right back in.
Looking at pornography is a concession with the enemy. You are either for him or for Him, forever. This lifetime is a test. In choosing to view something in a positive light (even the positive light of non-negativity) that is a corruption of His design for us, you or anyone else are choosing him-who-was-cast-down instead of Him-Who-lifts-you-up.
The word ‘erotic’ says it all. If it was meant to stimulate the senses, then it is pornography whether it succeeds or fails in being erotic in the eyes and minds of the viewer. I do get what you’re saying, though. Being an artist myself, I understand how if I were to draw nudes, even tasteful nudity, and the figures were not doing anything sexual, or the poses they were in were not sexual or sexually suggestive, but they were indeed together in the artwork and both were drawn to be as attractive as possible (particularly if the figures were two women together), then is it pornography simply on account that they COULD or MIGHT arouse someone the wrong way? It’s not black and white in this case. You cannot possibly know what the person, especially on the internet, is thinking or feeling or how they react. Everyone is different, some have restraint, some don’t; some would tempted to sin, some would not; some would be sexually aroused and may possibly masturbate; some may look at the art, appreciate it for what it is and that’s all, others may save the artwork and use it for repeated sexual release because for THEM it’s pornography…are we responsible for that? I want to say no…if the honest intent was merely to display your ability, as the artist, to draw human figures (be they male, female, males and females, or two females or multiple females) then there’s nothing wrong with that.What about erotic art? The art that emphasizes sexuality, but retains the artistic quality?
Suppose the OP was asking a philosophical question. Just about everyone who replied accuses the OP of sinning rather than responding to the merits of the question.Yes!! Stop it!! :tsktsk:
Read this: shelleylubben.com/truth-behind-fantasy-porn
Porn degrades women and damages male understanding in a way that will permanently damage you! It’s not harmless, ever!
“erotic art”? Like what? Art that is called erotic is designed for a specific purpose.What about erotic art? The art that emphasizes sexuality, but retains the artistic quality?
Intent is behind everything we do. And in those cases where we do not know the artist’s intent, we NEED to judge the work. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.The word ‘erotic’ says it all. If it was meant to stimulate the senses, then it is pornography whether it succeeds or fails in being erotic in the eyes and minds of the viewer. I do get what you’re saying, though. Being an artist myself, I understand how if I were to draw nudes, even tasteful nudity, and the figures were not doing anything sexual, or the poses they were in were not sexual or sexually suggestive, but they were indeed together in the artwork and both were drawn to be as attractive as possible (particularly if the figures were two women together), then is it pornography simply on account that they COULD or MIGHT arouse someone the wrong way? It’s not black and white in this case. You cannot possibly know what the person, especially on the internet, is thinking or feeling or how they react. Everyone is different, some have restraint, some don’t; some would tempted to sin, some would not; some would be sexually aroused and may possibly masturbate; some may look at the art, appreciate it for what it is and that’s all, others may save the artwork and use it for repeated sexual release because for THEM it’s pornography…are we responsible for that? I want to say no…if the honest intent was merely to display your ability, as the artist, to draw human figures (be they male, female, males and females, or two females or multiple females) then there’s nothing wrong with that.