"porn"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholif4life
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is looking at women stripping naked in videos considered pornography, or naked photos of women? I wouldn’t say look at these videos/pictures to lust but just appreciate their beauty? Is it not porn because these pictures or videos aren’t considered sexual acts? I know pornography is wrong but is what I have been doing a mortal sin?
Porn is any depiction of the nude or partly nude female body designed purely for sexual arousal. Speaking as an artist, it is wrong to do so. To ‘appreciate their beauty’ was the excuse I used to use. It is wrong.

Talk to your priest about it.

Peace,
Ed
 
Is looking at women stripping naked in videos considered pornography, or naked photos of women? I wouldn’t say look at these videos/pictures to lust but just appreciate their beauty? Is it not porn because these pictures or videos aren’t considered sexual acts? I know pornography is wrong but is what I have been doing a mortal sin?
Is it for authorized health education of medical education purpose? If it is for entertainment then it is not good. Get away from it as fast as possible.

Sexual impurity in thought and action offends God as given in the sixth and ninth commandments. The fifth commandment is also violated by giving scandal and promoting sexual violation of those involved in the production of pornography. No doubt there are some other ways this is uncharitable too that I have not mentioned.

There is the production and purchase and use of pornography, and prostitution. These are different acts. Prostitution is involved in the production of pornography therefore those that purchase pornography contribute to prostitution.

Prostitution:


  1. *]the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
    *]the unworthy or corrupt use of one’s talents for the sake of personal or financial gain.

    Catechism:**2354 **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.

    **2355 **Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. the one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.139 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.
 
I could also argue that the OP’s habit falls into several other categories you listed. But it is clearly lust, because the OP is becoming sexually aroused. The OP says these images are “women stripping naked” which is not art. Art can involve nudity and nudes can be appreciated openly without sin. However, when women debase themselves by stripping naked for the camera this is not art, this is pornography. The OP is creating a demand for porn by his use of it, however innocent he may think it is. But I think he honestly knows that it is not altogether innocent. I think we all know that. It can be a near occasion of sin for him. If a human being becomes aroused then the next impulse for that human is to increase the arousal and satisfy the sexual urge. The OP is not married to these women and there is no chaste way for him to satisfy his urge thus aroused by voyeuristically observing women who are not his wife. Perhaps the OP should concentrate on prayer and/or viewing holy images which lift his mind to spiritual things and worship of God and personal holiness. It seems to me like that should be everyone’s goal, to pray unceasingly and to practice custody of our eyes and chastity at all times. Sex is holy and God has given it to us for marriage. Let’s keep it that way.
 
Seeing nudity in art is not the same thing as looking at porn. The unspoken truth is that, for most men, another sin usually accompanies viewing pornography. Even if you feel sexual attraction or arousal, that is not viewing pornography.

Lust is unbridled passion coupled with INTENTIONALITY. Desire is not lust, but lust is desire uncontrolled.

However, be careful, and be honest with yourself. Sin can occur even in viewing non-pornographic nude art, although it may not be mortal.
 
:hmmm:
Eyeing a naked person is not sinful depending on the circumstances under which you inspect the person. My parents aren’t the only ones on this planet who saw my private parts. The doctors and nurses who supported my mother in childbirth have also seen my naked form.

Noticing, glancing at, and eyeing a naked person is not innately sinful, provided that your intention is benevolent. It is perfectly fine to undress your daughter and check her skin for Ebola infection. It is also acceptable to notice your naked sister step out of the shower, because she is your family member; she doesn’t have to worry about you unless you are a pervert.

:cool: Behold, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Matt Fradd explains how viewing pornographic images can affect behavior. In this 2 minute video, he explains the difference between eyeing naked persons for art and eyeing naked persons for lust.

youtube.com/watch?v=vhZtCsI1L4E
 
I could also argue that the OP’s habit falls into several other categories you listed. But it is clearly lust, because the OP is becoming sexually aroused. The OP says these images are “women stripping naked” which is not art. Art can involve nudity and nudes can be appreciated openly without sin. However, when women debase themselves by stripping naked for the camera this is not art, this is pornography. The OP is creating a demand for porn by his use of it, however innocent he may think it is. But I think he honestly knows that it is not altogether innocent. I think we all know that. It can be a near occasion of sin for him. If a human being becomes aroused then the next impulse for that human is to increase the arousal and satisfy the sexual urge. The OP is not married to these women and there is no chaste way for him to satisfy his urge thus aroused by voyeuristically observing women who are not his wife. Perhaps the OP should concentrate on prayer and/or viewing holy images which lift his mind to spiritual things and worship of God and personal holiness. It seems to me like that should be everyone’s goal, to pray unceasingly and to practice custody of our eyes and chastity at all times. Sex is holy and God has given it to us for marriage. Let’s keep it that way.
Hey, you’re picking a fight where there isn’t one. I said there is no “essentially” sinful component present. I agree that the stripping is 99.9% likely to be an instance of pornography in either its production or its viewing, probably both. Still, if the act is done by a policeman out of his investigative duties only (disinterested), then it would not be sinful. Same for if he somehow stumbled upon it and somehow remained pure. Same for if the “strip” was not done seductively, and was part of an art display, and again he remained pure. I highly doubt it. What he described sounded pretty bad to me on both the intrinsic level and the extrinsic effects level.

Sexual arousal while viewing nudity is not NECESSARILY (notice the caps this time) sinful. The model may have an innate gift of sexual attractiveness, and if she is not flaunting it with a certain look or pose, it may be subjectively innocent on her (his, if a male model) part. But, and let’s put that in caps too, BUT if the viewer senses the arousal, he can recognize and appreciate that gift of hers (his), but has a moral duty to realize that he is way, way over his head as far as near occasion of sin goes. Get out immediately.

We are bodily beings. We are also sexual beings. God made us that way, and it is good (He said so). To not appreciate her (or his) sexual gift is not to appreciate fully how God made her (him). But recognizing our fallen propensities, we get out of the arousal situation immediately. Many of us never get in that situation (that is, viewing nudity for beauty/wisdom reasons) because we’re simply not spiritually ready for that risk or we have good hopes of never having that particular temptation to be forced on us so we should avoid it.

In my first post, I tried to lay the framework for an objective answer. I admit I probably should have told him my subjective evaluation as to his acts so as to not potentially confuse him.
 
To the OP, if you insist on playing with fire…

If you do the prudence check I mentioned in my first post, and realize that, at least for yourself, it is riskier to avoid viewing the nude image than to deliberately behold it (for example, because avoidance of temptation in this area is practically impossible in your life and you are seeking to learn purity in a controlled environment), then I would recommend the following safeguards.
  1. Pray. Pray. Pray. Ask God for wisdom, thank God for his gift of beauty. Ask God to help you avoid the near occasion of sin, the sins of lust, and pray to see the women (and/or men) as God as created them, our sisters in Christ. Also consider fasting.
  2. Study the theology of the body. This gives you wisdom and words to dialogue with when you wrestle with your temptations, passions, and God. If you don’t, you will be likely swept away and lost.
  3. Talk to a spiritual advisor, and make your intentions known. Obey his or her advice.
  4. If you suspect that this will be an ongoing battle and not a one-time occurrence, choose a certain day - perhaps Sunday, the day God created for rest - and limit yourself to that day. If you find that you can’t limit yourself, that’s excellent evidence that you are out of control, acting out of lust and not out of disinterested appreciation of beauty or quest for wisdom.
  5. Pray more for pure intentions shortly before looking.
  6. A museum is probably best for a controlled environment. If you artistically inclined, a nude art class could work. A book is also at least possible, perhaps dealing with photography or painting. A spiritual movie featuring, say, Adam and Eve might work if done in edifying fashion. If you lack options, you can try the internet as a virtual museum. Once you find something appropriate (I would start with www.wga.hu which has classical nudes (among many other subjects) painted before 1800 and see if that satisfies), download it to your computer. Do NOT surf, as one click will lead to another click, in an interminable, wasteful search, and inevitable sin. Failure to control yourself in this manner, is again excellent evidence as to your motives. Once you have a few beautiful images that are not cooperating with the evil porn market (these are extremely hard to find), that seek rather to give glory to God, then do not ever go online for this purpose again. Stay with what you downloaded that first time. One image is probably enough to last a lifetime for contemplation, so no more than, say, a handful for each of the different media.
  7. If you share a computer, encrypt the files for avoidance of scandal.
  8. Sculpture and painting may be better mediums than a photo image, since the abstract nature might control lust and lead to more divine thoughts. Video may be better than either, since you are more likely to see the personhood of the subject (the model), almost certainly more than a mere photo.
  9. Judge yourself. Jesus tells us a tree is known by its fruits. What does this exercise produce for you? Does it inspire you to God, or debase you? If you are not improving your quest for purity or wisdom, then stop it.
  10. Go to regular confession. Confess your shortcomings, but don’t have scruples over this once your spiritual advisor approves your plan.
If you are going to try this fight, do not use an internet filter. You are trying to learn freedom from sin, and you have to learn to trust yourself. Only use filters if you’re trying the total abstinent see-no-evil approach (which you’re not). There is great power in knowing that you could sin, but you have no desire to go to sinful sites because you are learning purity.

If you have a wife, humbly talk to her about your fears of sin in this respect, and that you believe that this might be a way to help you succeed in your battle for purity. Obey her too. You might have to go the bury-head-in-sand route, even if not “best” (most prudent), out of respect for her wishes. If you sneak behind her back, you risk causing great sin in her.

Beauty is such an amazing gift from God (whether in the abstract or in a particular subject), but it is rotten if sought for its own sake. Beauty is only a second-best gospel. A blind person who cannot fully appreciate plastic beauty can certainly get to heaven so we obviously don’t need it. Sure, as fallen creatures, it can help us perhaps to become holier people, but the life and passion of Jesus is all the gospel we need for our survival. Once you do reach purity, it’s probably best to put all of this away and focus on more grown-up wisdom. Granted, purity might be a lifelong struggle for you, but it’s good to put all of this in perspective.
 
Seeing nudity in art is not the same thing as looking at porn. The unspoken truth is that, for most men, another sin usually accompanies viewing pornography. Even if you feel sexual attraction or arousal, that is not viewing pornography.

Lust is unbridled passion coupled with INTENTIONALITY. Desire is not lust, but lust is desire uncontrolled.

However, be careful, and be honest with yourself. Sin can occur even in viewing non-pornographic nude art, although it may not be mortal.
Art does not get a free pass. It must be viewed on a case by case basis. Lust is a thought that the person in the video/photo/art is hot and that it is this thought that overrides any other thought one might have about the work. And it is this thought that remains uppermost in your mind. Just be honest.

Peace,
Ed
 
***Purity:*****CCC 2521 **Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
*****Disordered desire or inordinate enjoyment:
*****CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

** Baltimore Catechism #3:Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?
A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: “He who loves the danger will perish in it”; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.
Q. 775. What persons, places and things are usually occasions of sin?
A. 1) The persons who are occasions of sin are all those in whose company we sin, whether they be bad of themselves or bad only while in our company, in which case we also become occasions of sin for them;
2) The places are usually liquor saloons, low theaters, indecent dances, entertainments, amusements, exhibitions, and all immoral resorts of any kind, whether we sin in them or not;
3) The
* things*** are all bad books, indecent pictures, songs, jokes and the like, even when they are tolerated by public opinion and found in public places.Q. 1316. What are we commanded by the ninth Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the ninth Commandment to keep ourselves pure in thought and desire.

Q. 1317. What is forbidden by the ninth Commandment?
A. The ninth Commandment forbids unchaste thoughts, desires of another’s wife or husband, and all other unlawful impure thoughts and desires.

Q. 1318. Are impure thoughts and desires always sins?
A. Impure thoughts and desires are always sins, unless they displease us and we try to banish them.
 
Porn is any depiction of the nude or partly nude female body designed purely for sexual arousal. Speaking as an artist, it is wrong to do so. To ‘appreciate their beauty’ was the excuse I used to use. It is wrong.

Talk to your priest about it.

Peace,
Ed
That your definition of porn is reserved only for the female body tells a lot about how you view female sexuality. That’s very sad.
 
That your definition of porn is reserved only for the female body tells a lot about how you view female sexuality. That’s very sad.
:rolleyes:
He has a perspective he’s discussing.
You assume he excludes the male body from porn by omission, and then further assume his views on female sexuality?
 
:rolleyes:
He has a perspective he’s discussing.
You assume he excludes the male body from porn by omission, and then further assume his views on female sexuality?
He provided a definition of porn. He very deliberately qualified it with ‘female’. It would have actually been easier for him to speak more broadly.

Not only does he exclusively call the female body porn, he continues on to say that it cannot be depicted artistically.

Yes, the view that the female form is so dirty that it can’t be portrayed in art, while excluding naked male bodies, is sad. It’s a sad point of view to hold and even worse to pass it on. If anyone told my daughter that her body was pornographic, or told my son that naked women are always porn, never art or beauty, I’d flip. I’d say the same thing if the genders were swapped as well.

No one’s naked body is inherently disgusting, dirty, or immoral.
 
He provided a definition of porn. He very deliberately qualified it with ‘female’. It would have actually been easier for him to speak more broadly.

Not only does he exclusively call the female body porn, he continues on to say that it cannot be depicted artistically.

Yes, the view that the female form is so dirty that it can’t be portrayed in art, while excluding naked male bodies, is sad. It’s a sad point of view to hold and even worse to pass it on. If anyone told my daughter that her body was pornographic, or told my son that naked women are always porn, never art or beauty, I’d flip. I’d say the same thing if the genders were swapped as well.

No one’s naked body is inherently disgusting, dirty, or immoral.
You are completely misrepresenting what he said.
This is what he said:
Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
Porn is any depiction of the nude or partly nude female body designed purely for sexual arousal. Speaking as an artist, it is wrong to do so. To ‘appreciate their beauty’ was the excuse I used to use. It is wrong.
Talk to your priest about it.
Peace,
Ed
It is sad that you can’t accept what he said at face value and feel you have to assign a person YOUR motivations.
 
You are completely misrepresenting what he said.
This is what he said:

It is sad that you can’t accept what he said at face value and feel you have to assign a person YOUR motivations.
This is a poster who is known for going on and on about how nudity is always porn. No exceptions. No such thing as artistic nudity. However, I didn’t realize that only the female body was so offensive.

Yes, I’ll respond when someone says that.

If I’ve misrepresented anything, he can correct me.
 
This is a poster who is known for going on and on about how nudity is always porn. No exceptions. No such thing as artistic nudity. However, I didn’t realize that only the female body was so offensive.

Yes, I’ll respond when someone says that.

If I’ve misrepresented anything, he can correct me.
Yes, you have misrepresented what he said, and I hope he also corrects you, because I will too. Ed said porn is “…purely for sexual arousal”. Art uplifts the mind and presents beauty to the observer. Porn doesn’t.
 
Yes, you have misrepresented what he said, and I hope he also corrects you, because I will too. Ed said porn is “…purely for sexual arousal”. Art uplifts the mind and presents beauty to the observer. Porn doesn’t.
“Porn is any depiction of the nude or partly nude female body designed purely for sexual arousal.”

break it down

Porn is
any depiction
of the nude or partly nude
female body
designed purely for sexual arousal.

I don’t think EdWest meant to restrict it to purely the female body, but that is a part of the definition he offered. It implies that the female body can be sexualized in a way that the male body cannot. Not everyone agrees–for example, there is such a thing as gay porn.

Some would say that true art can inspire sexual attraction, or that sexual arousal can be portrayed artistically.
 
BlueEyedLady still misrepresented what EdWest said and I corrected her in the aspect of what she misrepresented. I am not concerned about Ed’s assertion about females in this exchange, only BEL’s blatant attempt to ignore yet another phrase in EdWest’s definition.
 
BlueEyedLady still misrepresented what EdWest said and I corrected her in the aspect of what she misrepresented. I am not concerned about Ed’s assertion about females in this exchange, only BEL’s blatant attempt to ignore yet another phrase in EdWest’s definition.
I think that in order to correct me you would actually have to be correct.

Ed limited his definition to women, seemingly intentionally.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing with here. Are you saying that his definition was not gendered? It clearly was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top