Nudity vs. pornography

  • Thread starter Thread starter friendlyperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

friendlyperson

Guest
Is nudity in videos always pornography? Is it always a mortal sin to watch a video containing nudity? When is nudity actually considered pornography?
 
Last edited:
Nudity in and of itself isn’t sinful because we are created in the image and likeness of God. Viewing nudity knowing it causes sexual feelings or lust or viewing the person as an object is pornography.

View the nude person as your sister or daughter or brother or son and then ask yourself if it’s pornography or okay.
 
Last edited:
So if it’s just nudity but not in a sexual context and not being watched for any sexual reason, then it’s not considered pornography?
 
Give an example, I would also ask your priest
 
Last edited:
I’m not really comfortable giving an example. I’m more just wondering about general principles and what the difference is. I’m so used to hearing nudity=bad, that I’m trying to really get out of that line of thinking so that I can understand the actual teaching better.
 
Last edited:
Nudity is not bad in and of itself. Our bodies are holy, they are in the image and likeness of God and are temples of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies are beautiful and made to be beautiful. But this beauty should be viewed in the right context
 
I guess one example could be in a movie. Just some movies off the top of my head, Titanic, The Schindlers List, The Shining. Could a Catholic watch the nudity scenes in these movies in good conscience? Or would this be considered pornography?
 
Dolphin said:
Nudity is not bad in and of itself. Our bodies are holy, they are in the image and likeness of God and are temples of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies are beautiful and made to be beautiful. But this beauty should be viewed in the right context
Click to expand...
Consider Delacrolix’ painting, “Liberty Leading the People.” It depicts Liberty with an exposed breast. Is that pornographic? I would say no.

I suspect the only valid definition of pornography is how it affects YOU – do you feel sexually stimulated and view it for that reason? Then it’s pornography.
 
This makes sense. So whether someone is guilty of the sin of pornography depends on his or her intention behind watching it?
 
There’s no way the nudity in Schindler’s List is pornographic.
 
The catechism definition seems to refer more to the people who create and distribute pornography and not to the people viewing it. So this definition does not really answer this question.
 
If you can’t figure out the criteria here, I second the advice to ask your priest.

If you don’t feel comfortable asking him, I’d go with pornography.
 
Talk to your priest, not here. Even if it’s over the phone.
 
But you could say “I didn’t intend to view it to be sexually aroused” but you became sexually aroused viewing it. You gotta be honest with yourself and know what will arouse you
 
In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it , and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Click to expand...
It is hard to define the difference, but usually you know.
 
People definitely know. No need to cover up the issue. Women are being exploited and there is no outcry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top