Pornographic Television and Magazines?

[TLM08]

My guess has been that pornography use is almost exclusively a vice of men. However, by reading the catechism’s definition, romance novels, immodest television shows like Sex and the City and Desparate Housewives, along with magazines like Cosmo with all of their filthy “advice” columns would certainly qualify. The written word in these shows and magazines are every bit as immoral and corrupting as pictures on a page, perhaps even more so. Also as a note, The below definition from the catechism does not confine the offensive material to motion pictures or photographs.

*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. CCC #2354 *

Would you agree that consuming these mainstream media meterials would qualify as every bit as mortally sinful as viewing a pornographic website? Popular media it seems has gone hog wild corrupting the women as well as the men of our culture for the last 30 years by force feeding this garbage down our throats everywhere you turn.

 

[Danuska]

You have got some good points but I still would not put put the two on the same level.If so, we would soon find that lots of literature, some of it classic, or classic art etc would have to fall under the same category… but I do feel the same about women’s magazines, although these are not as bad as the ones targeted at teens - that is really scary stuff - a friend of mine once said that he would rather buy a Playboy for his son than a teen’s magazine. And these kids are most vo

But there is this danger - with pornography it is kind of obvious, but if you start classifying other programmes/TV shows as ‘mortally sinful’, you might end up with a very long list as what is allowed to be watched and what is not - Christianity, at least to me, is about freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility. If you think that Desperate Housewives is not beneficial to you spiritually, just stay away from it. I watched it long time ago, and well, I enjoyed it. But on the other hand, I came to the conclusion that TV in general is just such a waste of time, so at the moment, I do not own a TV set.

The media has bad effects on us, but it is more of a matter of prudence to me - after all, innocent looking TV shows, quizzes, movies, soap operas - you name it - if you think about it, it is above all such a huge waste of time…

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

A wise, point Dansuka.

If these forms of media or pornography in general offends you or your spirituality, you should simply avoid these things. If many people think a teen magazine is morally objectionable and do not buy it, then these magazines will eventually disappear from the shelves on their own.

 

[CapIV]

Most mainstream television shows nowadays are just pornography without the nudity. Our country continues to spiral downwards…

 

[tabsie3210]

Speaking as a porn addict in recovery (clean since August, WOOT!), I can say that porn is very much a woman’s realm these days, too. Women are encouraged to enjoy pornography as much or more than men because we’re supposed to be “liberated” from the patriarchy and thus able to have sex and want sex with anyone and anything that’s available. It’s a sign of an “enlightened” woman if she’s into porn because then she and her boyfriend (I don’t say “husband” because husbands are not in vogue anymore) can both watch porn and thus enhance their intercourse.

Romance novels are pornographic. Women have different brain structures than men. We respond better to the written word because we’re better able to visualize, whereas men are easier to entice, so they want something blunt, not something to build up to.

I read somewhere a reflection by a man that said if he was bored in a check out line, he’d read the “good parts” from a woman’s romance novel, which he equated to being on par with regular porn.

The only reason that I never went the romance novel rout - I hate the things - is that I grew up reading books for enjoyment and good literature, and the plots are so weak in romance novels, the characters so two-dimensional, that it drove me nuts. I couldn’t enjoy them. That’s also why I don’t watch daytime soap operas. They’re ridiculous and are pointless story telling.

Women are thinkers, in that while a man’s brain will shutter about 70% down when he’s “not thinking about anything,” 90% of a woman’s brain is still active during a relaxed spell. We also have access to both sides of our brain during conversation - a man is almost totally left-brained when he talks. Just statistics.

Women get involved in a story. That’s why the majority of us love soap operas that guys scratch their heads and roll their eyes over. Women get involved and are able to put themselves into the place of the main characters, consciously or unconsciously. That’s also why most women liked the movie “Titanic.”

So, even women who reject pornography sometimes engage in romance novels and soap operas that are only a step or two below porn. The method is different, but the results are similar.

 

[brianmichael]

Most mainstream television shows nowadays are just pornography without the nudity. Our country continues to spiral downwards…

here, here

 

[brianmichael]

Speaking as a porn addict in recovery (clean since August, WOOT!), I can say that porn is very much a woman’s realm these days, too. Women are encouraged to enjoy pornography as much or more than men because we’re supposed to be “liberated” from the patriarchy and thus able to have sex and want sex with anyone and anything that’s available. It’s a sign of an “enlightened” woman if she’s into porn because then she and her boyfriend (I don’t say “husband” because husbands are not in vogue anymore) can both watch porn and thus enhance their intercourse.

Romance novels are pornographic. Women have different brain structures than men. We respond better to the written word because we’re better able to visualize, whereas men are easier to entice, so they want something blunt, not something to build up to.

I read somewhere a reflection by a man that said if he was bored in a check out line, he’d read the “good parts” from a woman’s romance novel, which he equated to being on par with regular porn.

The only reason that I never went the romance novel rout - I hate the things - is that I grew up reading books for enjoyment and good literature, and the plots are so weak in romance novels, the characters so two-dimensional, that it drove me nuts. I couldn’t enjoy them. That’s also why I don’t watch daytime soap operas. They’re ridiculous and are pointless story telling.

Women are thinkers, in that while a man’s brain will shutter about 70% down when he’s “not thinking about anything,” 90% of a woman’s brain is still active during a relaxed spell. We also have access to both sides of our brain during conversation - a man is almost totally left-brained when he talks. Just statistics.

Women get involved in a story. That’s why the majority of us love soap operas that guys scratch their heads and roll their eyes over. Women get involved and are able to put themselves into the place of the main characters, consciously or unconsciously. That’s also why most women liked the movie “Titanic.”

So, even women who reject pornography sometimes engage in romance novels and soap operas that are only a step or two below porn. The method is different, but the results are similar.

is that true about the brain percentages between men+women?
if so, women have more time to think about the wrongness of it where men act more on instinct level by using less of our brain capacity

(of course we’re still liable for sin)

 

[Eucharisted]

is that true about the brain percentages between men+women?
if so, women have more time to think about the wrongness of it where men act more on instinct level by using less of our brain capacity

(of course we’re still liable for sin)

Women are smarter than men.

(I know that’s not what you meant. I’m just making a joke)

 

[puzzleannie]

My
Would you agree that consuming these mainstream media meterials would qualify as every bit as mortally sinful as viewing a pornographic website? Popular media it seems has gone hog wild corrupting the women as well as the men of our culture for the last 30 years by force feeding this garbage down our throats everywhere you turn.

uh yeah, porn in print has been around a lot longer than porn websites, so has porn in film and TV, and yes women are tempted by the philosophy that sells Cosmo et al, that “normal” women should read and view such filth to become “attractive” to men, ie. men whose development is so stunted and perverted that they are unable to respond to normal women in the normal way without the aid of porn. They are further tempted by people who should know better, like marriage counsellors, and that includes the advice columnists in porn mags for women, who tell them that watching this rot together is somehow going to help their marriage, and if their husband has developed this habit they should enable him in it.

 

[tabsie3210]

Brian Michael-

I’ll have to look around my web collection to find the links but there was a study done of people who were at rest and who were active and during the “at rest” phase, a woman’s brain is working more than a man’s brain is. That’s why women’s lib has to use talking and philosophy to get women to buy into pornography. We respond better to something we have to think about. Guys are responsible, but you’re right, they are more inclined to act on instinct, because they have a tendency to think about sex more than women do. It’s just a fact of life. It’s not wrong - we’re designed that way for a reason. Man is the head of the household and he is thinking about protecting his family, creating his family, and competing with other men. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to survive and fight off Evil. Just that these days people give in too much to their base instincts, without using the reason or intellect to motivate them to better behavior.

 

[brianmichael]

Women are smarter than men.

(I know that’s not what you meant. I’m just making a joke)

that’s not funnie

after so-called “liberation” of women’s rights (MotherAngelica said she’s never seen wemen so degraded in all her life) you’d think women would put a stop to all the porn

btw, i’m not mad

 

[brianmichael]

Brian Michael-

I’ll have to look around my web collection to find the links but there was a study done of people who were at rest and who were active and during the “at rest” phase, a woman’s brain is working more than a man’s brain is. That’s why women’s lib has to use talking and philosophy to get women to buy into pornography. We respond better to something we have to think about. Guys are responsible, but you’re right, they are more inclined to act on instinct, because they have a tendency to think about sex more than women do. It’s just a fact of life. It’s not wrong - we’re designed that way for a reason. Man is the head of the household and he is thinking about protecting his family, creating his family, and competing with other men. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to survive and fight off Evil. Just that these days people give in too much to their base instincts, without using the reason or intellect to motivate them to better behavior.

thanks tabsy-nice to know someone took me seriously

 

[edwest2]

Yes, television and magazines have become pornographic but it happened gradually.

In the 1960s. Nothing about sex on TV. Real life still contained murder, adultery and the rest but it wasn’t on TV. The entire family could sit down and watch cartoons or variety shows without offense. In fact, each network had a Standards and Practices department. A man would appear on TV to assure viewers that every program was watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family.

But, by the end of the 1960s, the immorality index began to rise slowly. When people got used to a little bit of sex talk and a little bit of skin, the dial was turned up a little more then a little more, then a little more.

People had gotten used to the TV. In fact, they developed addictive patterns of behavior regarding it.

So-called Adult Bookstores appeared all over the country offering graphic images of prostitutes in the 1970s. In the 1960s, this was very uncommon. Most of the porn consisted of partial nudity.

In the 1980s, on Dallas, the evil J.R. was the head of the giant Ewing Oil and he was pure evil. Such a character did not exist in the 1960s or before on TV. Sue Ellen drinking liquor straight out of the bottle while driving. Cat fights.

Hill Street Blues showed scenes that were sexually suggestive, including one officer visiting a strip club. So much for that role model.

Things were becoming more sexualized and the characters were becoming more dysfunctional.

And then, Cable TV and freedom! No, not freedom but access to porn addiction in the privacy of your home or a local motel.

Seinfeld - selfish, shallow, egotistical people obsessed with sex. In the end, they are jailed for impersonating human beings.

1990s Partial nudity and profanity on NYPD Blue. Oh yes, the art of it all – puh leez.

Then the internet and it becomes your Porn TV.

In 1968, I heard about, and later associated with, a bunch of ‘fine artists’ and I heard the arguments about freedom and creativity and about banned books and censored “art.” The reality was about money and porn. You became an artist after someone paid you for your work. That was what made it valid. So-called “Art Films” shown in “Art Houses” were not moral.

After the “Sex With Anyone Is OK” revolution of the late 1960s, a lot of artists began producing so-called “underground comic books.” Any idea what was in them? Perverted sex. Profanity. And depictions of drug inspired ‘trips.’

I was there. Someone loaned me a Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention record album. Guess what was on it? Sex stories about fornication. Then, in the 1980s, Mr. Zappa, dressed in a suit, appeared on TV to argue that records were not pornographic - “They’re just words!” Apparently, he thought everyone should ignore the words he used on his records, but not the words he was using to defend pornography.

A young actress who appeared in a partial nude scene on NYPD Blue was asked about what she was doing. “We’re just play-acting.” You know. What’s the big deal?

And that is the standard reply today about anything that people find objectionable. “What’s the big deal, man? Huh?”

The National Organization for Women has a “no position” position on pornography. What does that mean? They don’t care that women degrade themselves by working as prostitutes. In fact, Cosmo has been running ads for “adventurous” women who might want to try perverse things.

Stop buying this stuff. Complain when you see pornographic magazines at the supermarket. Send a letter to People magazine the next time a celebrity dressed like a prostitute appears on one of their covers. Why complain, you might ask? If you don’t, their marketing people can tell their bosses: “Hey, nobody complained. It’s all good.”

I’ve sent e-mails to the FCC about objectionale TV programs. I encourage everyone reading this to do the same. It should not be normal or mainstream to have comedians on TV telling endless sex jokes or telling you how rotten the world is.

Be the salt of the earth. Do not lose your savor or, like the salt, it will be tossed out and trampled under foot.

God bless,
Ed

 

[TLM08]

Yes, television and magazines have become pornographic but it happened gradually.

In the 1960s. Nothing about sex on TV. Real life still contained murder, adultery and the rest but it wasn’t on TV. The entire family could sit down and watch cartoons or variety shows without offense. In fact, each network had a Standards and Practices department. A man would appear on TV to assure viewers that every program was watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family.

But, by the end of the 1960s, the immorality index began to rise slowly. When people got used to a little bit of sex talk and a little bit of skin, the dial was turned up a little more then a little more, then a little more.

People had gotten used to the TV. In fact, they developed addictive patterns of behavior regarding it.

So-called Adult Bookstores appeared all over the country offering graphic images of prostitutes in the 1970s. In the 1960s, this was very uncommon. Most of the porn consisted of partial nudity.

In the 1980s, on Dallas, the evil J.R. was the head of the giant Ewing Oil and he was pure evil. Such a character did not exist in the 1960s or before on TV. Sue Ellen drinking liquor straight out of the bottle while driving. Cat fights.

Hill Street Blues showed scenes that were sexually suggestive, including one officer visiting a strip club. So much for that role model.

Things were becoming more sexualized and the characters were becoming more dysfunctional.

And then, Cable TV and freedom! No, not freedom but access to porn addiction in the privacy of your home or a local motel.

Seinfeld - selfish, shallow, egotistical people obsessed with sex. In the end, they are jailed for impersonating human beings.

1990s Partial nudity and profanity on NYPD Blue. Oh yes, the art of it all – puh leez.

Then the internet and it becomes your Porn TV.

In 1968, I heard about, and later associated with, a bunch of ‘fine artists’ and I heard the arguments about freedom and creativity and about banned books and censored “art.” The reality was about money and porn. You became an artist after someone paid you for your work. That was what made it valid. So-called “Art Films” shown in “Art Houses” were not moral.

After the “Sex With Anyone Is OK” revolution of the late 1960s, a lot of artists began producing so-called “underground comic books.” Any idea what was in them? Perverted sex. Profanity. And depictions of drug inspired ‘trips.’

I was there. Someone loaned me a Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention record album. Guess what was on it? Sex stories about fornication. Then, in the 1980s, Mr. Zappa, dressed in a suit, appeared on TV to argue that records were not pornographic - “They’re just words!” Apparently, he thought everyone should ignore the words he used on his records, but not the words he was using to defend pornography.

A young actress who appeared in a partial nude scene on NYPD Blue was asked about what she was doing. “We’re just play-acting.” You know. What’s the big deal?

And that is the standard reply today about anything that people find objectionable. “What’s the big deal, man? Huh?”

The National Organization for Women has a “no position” position on pornography. What does that mean? They don’t care that women degrade themselves by working as prostitutes. In fact, Cosmo has been running ads for “adventurous” women who might want to try perverse things.

Stop buying this stuff. Complain when you see pornographic magazines at the supermarket. Send a letter to People magazine the next time a celebrity dressed like a prostitute appears on one of their covers. Why complain, you might ask? If you don’t, their marketing people can tell their bosses: “Hey, nobody complained. It’s all good.”

I’ve sent e-mails to the FCC about objectionale TV programs. I encourage everyone reading this to do the same. It should not be normal or mainstream to have comedians on TV telling endless sex jokes or telling you how rotten the world is.

Be the salt of the earth. Do not lose your savor or, like the salt, it will be tossed out and trampled under foot.

God bless,
Ed

Great post Ed…
When I was growing up back in the 60s and early 70s things were not that bad. It only seems like the last 25 years or so, things have really gotten gross on television and mainstream magazines.

 

[NTOT]

So, even women who reject pornography sometimes engage in romance novels and soap operas that are only a step or two below porn. The method is different, but the results are similar.

They are not a step below but a step above (unless ‘below’ means more depraved).

 

[NTOT]

is that true about the brain percentages between men+women?
if so, women have more time to think about the wrongness of it where men act more on instinct level by using less of our brain capacity

(of course we’re still liable for sin)

Using a greater percentage of ones brain does not equate to having ‘more time’ to think about something. It only points out that women require the use of a greater area of brain tissue in order to produce the same thoughts as men because men use less brain tissue but more efficiently. When men use the rest of their brain, they are more capable of much deeper thinking than women. That is why men are so easily and quickly stimulated as opposed to women. It takes more time for women to process visual and/or sensory cues and most usually find it easier therefore to condition the mind through use of reading.
In any case, soap operas and impure literature represent a sin of a more hideous nature than that of graphic imagery and is leading to the ruin of many womens souls. And society doesn’t even cast the same disdain upon women who are involved with these perversions as it does with men using graphic imagery.

 

[jfhh]

JFYI,

banning “pornography” is not one of the 5 Non-Negotiables.

I don’t think a priest or the church would have a problem if you disagreed respectfully with the opinion that any sexual depiction should be banned. This would include lots of movies that are rated R or PG-13 or even PG.

I don’t think taking a libertarian position on this would violate a “Non-Negotiable”

Myself I am a cafeteria-leaning-orthodox Catholic. I listen to church teaching but ultimately decide for myself.