One Mad Mom vs Game of Thrones

[pnewton]

How does Pornhub’s traffic do on Doctor Who premiere nights?

That is a good point. Correlation is not causation. For this to be seen as significant. Similar televised events would need to be examined to see if this is particular to this one show, as well as other factors would need to be examined that might have caused this correlation.

 

[pnewton]

Actually whether it would be considered Sodomy is up for debate. They’re not Christians, they may be married by the definition of their culture, and he is physically lacking the male components to engage in vaginal sex.

This is a Catholic website. Moral relativity is not well accepted here. Sodomy is a sin, always and every where, faux marriage or not.

 

[pnewton]

Don’t fall into the trap of considering all simulated sex scenes as pornography.

decentfilms.com/articles/vaticanfilmlist

Schindler’s List, The Sacrifice, Andrei Rublev, The Decalogue and possibly more on that list have sex and nudity.

decentfilms.com/articles/decentfilms

And as a couple examples.

archive.usccb.org/movies/f/funeralthe1996.shtml
Several graphic sex scenes. Only got a modern day L rating.
archive.usccb.org/movies/m/mouchette1970.shtml
A disturbing rape scene occurs in the movie. Very positive review.
archive.usccb.org/movies/u/underthesand.shtml
Some graphic nudity and a graphic sexual scene. They call the film ‘stirring.’

And so on.

I think you have a valid point here. I am willing to acknowledge that nudity does not always equal pornography and even sexuality does not, any more than watching the crucifixion equals promotion of murder.

On the other hand, the fact that this can happen does not mean it does. It is one thing to show evil in the context of good. For example, a point was made about a sex scene in the context of a loving relationship of two people who had know each other. However, sex in its proper context is still not justification for voyeurism. In a sense, I would say it is more gratuitous. There simply is no need.

 

[Reepicheep]

It seems to be a very popular show. I’ve never seen it, partly because it seems sleazy and partly because I don’t have HBO.

I watched about two seasons, solely because my best friend insisted on watching and I wouldn’t get to spend time with him if I didn’t watch with him. My attitude went from ‘this is kind of boring’ to ‘this is disgusting’.
I think the moment that made the change was the scene in which the Stark boy caught Jamie and Circe Lannister (brother nd sister) having sex. Jamie threw the boy out the window to his death to keep him from telling. (The boy survived, crippled and with amnesia over the incident.)

So, sleazy, pornographic and generally disgusting.

Incidentally TV did the same thing with the novel series “Southern Vampire Mysteries”. The novels were good; actual mystery stories in an interesting setting. The TV adaptation was “True Blood”. Poor quality stories, distorted characterization and sleaze, sleaze, sleaze.

 

[Reepicheep]

How do you square that with the fact that multiple episodes don’t have any nudity or sex scenes at all?

The political intrigue, the action / epic battle scenes… I don’t know why I would watch 60 hours of television for the odd sex scene which isn’t even present in every episode.

It doesn’t have to contain explicit sex scenes in every episode in order to be pornographic as a series.

Also the fact it contains other elements such as political intrigue and epic action scenes does not disprove that it contains porn.

 

[Reepicheep]

I’ve helped and watched worlds being built from the ground up. That’s the difference. I’ve worked with and now work with genius level creatives - concept people. I’m handed a piece of artwork and asked to give that flying creature a name in 5 minutes or less. I am not a passive reader/observer, I understand the fundamentals as a full-time editor, and writer/creature-thing namer on a part-time level. This is what I do for a living.
Ed

We have a professional editor and a random viewer talking about a long-running TV series based on a novel series. With all respect to you, Jharek Carnelian, you don’t get to say that Ed West’s qualifications are not relevant.
Which doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to your opinion. It just means you shouldn’t try to dismiss the expert.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think so. Different people prefer different sexual drugs. Immoral means immoral. A father told his kids he was going to add a tiny bit of dog excrement to their brownies before he finished making them. He said they wouldn’t be able to taste it. None of the kids had any.

It is reasonable to assume the people in charge of this show wanted those scenes in there. To get people used to them. To make them indifferent. And to eventually get people to accept them as if the idea of immoral didn’t exist.

Ed

I think people have become accustomed to having a little porn mixed in with their regular entertainment. It’s one of the effects of TV and mass media. The limits are always being pushed.

 

[Reepicheep]

Actually whether it would be considered Sodomy is up for debate. They’re not Christians, they may be married by the definition of their culture, and he is physically lacking the male components to engage in vaginal sex.

Sodomy is sodomy no matter who does it.

Catholic understanding of marriage requires the ability to consummate the marriage (it does not require consummation, but it does require the ability). By being a eunuch he would be incapable of marrying.

My understanding of sodomy would include what he was doing to her. Perhaps others would disagree, maybe there is room for debate over that. Regardless it would still be sinful and most importantly of all:

It is still porn.

They aren’t Catholics. They aren’t Christians. Christianity does not exist in their world.

The scene in question may still be porn; I haven’t seen it and don’t intend to. But to argue that a pair of fictional characters can’t qualify as married in their own world because they couldn’t have a Catholic marriage in the real world seems to me unreasonable.

 

[Reepicheep]

By this “logic” the Bible (and numerous other works) is porn too.Just read it and see for yourself. And not only porn but a really disturbing snuff (cutting babies from women’s wombs coz their tribes didn’t want to worship Judeo-Christian god etc etc)

That is simply false reasoning. Recording events in words does not equal seeing them acted out.
Ed

Also the difference between a historical account that says thus and such happened, and a graphic and lovingly detailed description with dialogue.

Genesis tells us that Pharaoh ordered Hebrew boy babies to be drowned. Genesis does not give us a detailed scene depicting the drowning of a Hebrew baby complete with the grief-stricken mother’s pleadings and the cruel laughter of the Egyptian midwives.

2 Samuel at the end of chapter 16 tells us that Absalom raped ten of his father’s concubines. It does not give us a rape scene.

 

[Reepicheep]

You can’t refute a claim that something is pornographic by pointing out that it’s artistic. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Art can be pornographic. Porn can be artistic. Porn is still porn.

Edit: And ‘this contains porn’ is not the same as ‘this is porn.’

 

[Monica4316]

I’ve never watched GoT… If it has all those impure scenes or nudity, then I won’t ever watch it.

 

[Reepicheep]

And I was addressing a poster who was verging on saying any simulated sex in art is porn.

Any detailed or graphic depiction of the sex act in media is porn. It may be art: it may be high quality art. It’s still porn.

And no. A man kissing a woman is usually not enough to qualify as porn. There’s nothing wrong with public kissing as such in real life.

 

[Reepicheep]

Vatican film list. Decentfilms.com. The USCCB film reviews. Lack of any condemnation by the Vatican about any of the former, especially the first.

As a priest I knew once said ‘don’t deify the Catechism.’

Lack of condemnation is not the same as advocacy.

 

[edwest2]

I think people have become accustomed to having a little porn mixed in with their regular entertainment. It’s one of the effects of TV and mass media. The limits are always being pushed.

I know. I’ve been watching the decline into the pit and gradual poisoning of the public for years. Human Dignity requires Human Decency. If a society accepts such a lack of respect for the human person as “entertainment” then what follows as more limits are erased? Something good? Definitely not.

Becoming accustomed to such a drug, like a drug addict, leads the heart and mind away from the truly good and beautiful.

Ed

 

[Sarcelle]

I know. I’ve been watching the decline into the pit and gradual poisoning of the public for years. Human Dignity requires Human Decency. If a society accepts such a lack of respect for the human person as “entertainment” then what follows as more limits are erased? Something good? Definitely not.

Becoming accustomed to such a drug, like a drug addict, leads the heart and mind away from the truly good and beautiful.

Ed

Good point.

 

[Reepicheep]

I think people have become accustomed to having a little porn mixed in with their regular entertainment. It’s one of the effects of TV and mass media. The limits are always being pushed.

I know. I’ve been watching the decline into the pit and gradual poisoning of the public for years. Human Dignity requires Human Decency. If a society accepts such a lack of respect for the human person as “entertainment” then what follows as more limits are erased? Something good? Definitely not.

Becoming accustomed to such a drug, like a drug addict, leads the heart and mind away from the truly good and beautiful.
Ed

I stopped reading comics in the 1990s partly because of this. I gave up my TV a few years ago, partly because of this. It isn’t enough. The poison has spat itself everywhere.
We are in the End Times, or nearly so.

 

[Joe_5859]

I came across another blog post that I think makes the point much better and less abrasively than that of the article in the OP:

alannaboudreau.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/gee-im-glad-i-saw-that-sex-scene/

It would be much easier to have a less incendiary conversation about this post.

 

[Padres1969]

Any detailed or graphic depiction of the sex act in media is porn. It may be art: it may be high quality art. It’s still porn.

And no. A man kissing a woman is usually not enough to qualify as porn. There’s nothing wrong with public kissing as such in real life.

Depends on your definition. The definition of porn from most sources is along the lines of the following:

printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings

Given such a definition, most of the graphic depictions in GOT, such as in the second episode this season, would not qualify as porn as it was not in any way intended to stimulate erotic feelings. It was purely done for emotional reasons.

 

[Reepicheep]

Fair enough.

Depends on your definition. The definition of porn from most sources is along the lines of the following:

printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings

Given such a definition, most of the graphic depictions in GOT, such as in the second episode this season, would not qualify as porn as it was not in any way intended to stimulate erotic feelings. It was purely done for emotional reasons.

Also fair enough.

That’s neither what I said nor what I meant. And do you really see the Song of Songs as a graphic depiction of sexual intercourse?

 

[twf]

Fair enough.

Also fair enough.

That’s neither what I said nor what I meant. And do you really see the Song of Songs as a graphic depiction of sexual intercourse?

Song of Songs has some explicit references to things like enjoying a woman’s breasts.
Its accepted because it has been recognized as inspired Scripture for 2000+ years. I am extremely confident that had the Bible been compiled by 19th or 20th century American Christians, it would have been censured / excluded.