Non-Pornographic things Porn?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pisces_Adonis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pisces_Adonis

Guest
A while back I asked this question on Yahoo Answers. Read the two links, technically the same question but they were asked in different sections and got different answers.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtTIy1mSI0OpwQmlGAfYkEUjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20121016072312AAg1yIN

answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuA8bTByx9j_hFkb1EJ_YNsjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20121016073010AAv8arq

I was reminded of the latter link as soon as I read these 2 posts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9937544&postcount=64

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9937749&postcount=68

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9937798&postcount=70

To repeat what I stated from the American Government thread,
Pisces_Adonis said:
As for porn being obscene, to begin with what is “porn” is truly subjective at the core. For example if I have a catalogs of pretty nude models but I intend to use it to purchase products, that wouldn’t be porn.

If I’m watching a TV show full of dead-drop gorgeous nuns in a Catholic-themed story, its arguable thats pornography because they obviously chose such pretty young girls as the nuns to attract young male viewers (including those anti-Catholic and Irreligious folks).No matter how heavily clothed from arms to legs these nuns are and no matter how much “Catholic Values” the TV program espouses :p.

If I were to watch such a TV program, I’m technically committing LUST as I’ll be gazing upon those LOVELY Nuns and Fantasizing Romance with them :D.
Click to expand...
Basically under the definition the people in the"Is the American form of government inherently wrong?" thread were using, a Bra Catalog or a TV show with dead drop gorgeous Sexy women (even if they were fully cloathed?) would be porn?
 
Porn = nudity and sex usually. But you can still be fully clothed and producing porn.

This is different from impurity like showing cleavage for money or going around in a bikini.

I don’t need to define porn. I know it when I see it.
 
I would argue that pornography is defined by the person who creates or distributes the material - if the attempt is to incite lust, then it would be pornographic.

If pornography is defined by lustful feelings in the viewer, then almost anything and everything could be considered pornographic. Just look at the modesty threads that pop up here sometimes - perfectly innocent women (and men) would be accused of pornography.

That being said, I do think the line is incredibly blurry. Is an ad that inspires lust to sell an unrelated product pornographic, or does the lust itself have to be the “product”?
 
If it evokes lustful, sinful thoughts or behavior, it doesn’t matter what label you put on it, no?

.
 
I think peoples definition of porn has changed and we have become desensitised. I remember as a small boy watching Elvis movies in the theater and being turned on by womens midriffs and navels

How far have we come.
 
I think marketing and displaying fornication is pornography.

Bikini girls or whatever isnt pornographic, but it is lustful.

As another poster mentioned, what does it matter? Theyre both wrong.
 
In the words of former-Justice Potter Stewart: “I know it when I see it.”
 
All in the eye of the beholder. If a girl is sitting opposite me on the train and showing a lot of leg, then that tends to draw the eye. If the same girl was topless down on Bondi, I wouldn’t give her a second glance.
 
It’s all in the eye of the behold like many have said. If something provokes lustful thoughts in you, then it’s probably best to stay away. If you’re admiring beauty, then that’s okay. As long as admiring beauty doesn’t turn to lustful thoughts.
 
Sad. The word porn is used in different FALSE ways. The military and the media are both experts at not describing something accurately. In other words, in using a word that sounds pleasant or neutral to hide something disturbing, immoral or just plain wrong.

Casualities: Yeah, we had 16 killed and 30 injured in our last combat mission.

Anything that is an offense to human decency and the dignity of the human body is usually porn, that is, creating lustful thoughts.

Any woman who sees depictions of women that focus on emphasizing, say, their breasts, in a ridiculous way, - no woman with any sense of self respect would allow herself to be portrayed this way - can and does lead to lust and could be called porn.

Some people post here looking for the “exception to the rule” example. Or to make things sound vague when the answer should be crystal clear. Even in cartoons - to portray a woman’s breasts as if they were bullets or balloons, is wrong. Period.

Where are the woman who want to be treated with respect? Why are they not protesting the gross exploitation of the female body?

Porn star - PROSTITUTE.

Peace,
Ed
 
Brothers/sisters,

For anyone struggling with pornography: Please visit settingcaptivesfree.com Thousands are free through their Bible based course including myself after 13 years of bondage!!!
 
edwest2 said:
Porn star - PROSTITUTE.
Click to expand...
Quite. As you said, the media loves its euphemisms. Instead of calling something what it truly is, they try and glamorise prostitution on video by calling the participants “stars”. It is like lending an air of legitimacy to something about which no one should be proud.

(Of course, both the male and female participants are equally deserving of the term.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top