Quick question about difference between what is and is not porn

[thememphisman]

so, if i looked an image of a woman wearing a bikini a little bit too long would that be viewing pornography?
basically, i know that viewing this image is a sin, but is it a mortal sin of viewing porn, and how exactly should i confess it

 

[Wampa]

It all depends on the presentation. Perusing some definitions online, here are some pertinent standards on the intent of the presentation:

“no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire”

“intended to titillate”

IMO, if you’re looking at a picture of a family at the beach and the girls are wearing bikinis, that’s not porn. If you’re watching a beer commercial loaded with bikini-clad women, bending over trying to seduce you into buying their product, that’s porn. It all depends on the presentation.

 

[cogbiz]

To add from the other poster, it is how you perceive it, in my opinion this is a step towards crossing the line, why, because it can sneak up on you in a minute, very luring and should not be taken lightly. Internet porn is out of hand just bring it to God if you keep struggling with it. I will pray for you and peace!

We are after all only human!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is what the Catechism describes as pornography:

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2354.htm

Looking at a picture of a woman in a bikini is not viewing pornography. Looking at her with lust is the sinful part.

 

[Wowbagger]

Defining pornography has been one of the most difficult unsolved vocabulary problems of the communications age, and the fine distinction between pornography and occasions of the sin of lust will no doubt be discussed here and elsewhere at some length for a long, long time to come.

However, I sense that you desire a practical answer. Based on my experience, the best practical guide is Justice Potter Stewart’s famous standard: “I know it when I see it.” If you find that you keep going back to the image or story or movie because you want to see/read/hear those sights/words/sounds again, then stop, 'cause you’re almost certainly committing some kind of sin, and you’re at least tempting grave sin.

 

[CWBetts]

Defining pornography has been one of the most difficult unsolved vocabulary problems of the communications age, and the fine distinction between pornography and occasions of the sin of lust will no doubt be discussed here and elsewhere at some length for a long, long time to come.

However, I sense that you desire a practical answer. Based on my experience, the best practical guide is Justice Potter Stewart’s famous standard: “I know it when I see it.” If you find that you keep going back to the image or story or movie because you want to see/read/hear those sights/words/sounds again, then stop, 'cause you’re almost certainly committing some kind of sin, and you’re at least tempting grave sin.

Good call. It is at the very least near occasion of sin, and can lead you down a dark path.

 

[LilyM]

Short answer - the nature of what you look at doesn’t matter, whether you stick the label ‘pornography’ on it or not doesn’t matter, you shouldn’t willingly look at ANYTHING that causes or is likely to cause you to lust.

Some people might have a foot fetish, others a thing for nurses or firemen. Some might get off on looking at a Victoria’s Secret catalogue. Although indulging these inclinations might not be classed as pornography, if you’re deliberately looking at 'em out of lust then you can bet your bottom dollar you’re sinning gravely.

 

[Wampa]

Excellent answers. I answered as if the OP’s question was “what is pornography?”, but I now see the question is really more like “when is one looking at someone lustfully and therefore sinning?”. The first is not determinative of the second.

You can look at pornography without sinning (law enforcement has to look at pornography in the process of investigating cases).

You can sin by looking at something that is not pornography (lusting over a picture that is innocently taken/staged).

 

[Antrim]

The Late Holy Father on his Theology of the Body said Pornogrophy is FORBIDDEN.

Antrim

 

[IWontBeStopped]

let me share with you the new rules of the forum…

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve already addressed his trollish anti-Catholic remarks here.

 

[IWillBeHeard]

Let me tell you about the new rules on here…

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let me tell you about the new rules on here…

I’ve already addressed all of your FALSE comments but here they are again …

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas.

I see a LOT of DIFFERING discussion that goes on, on this board. Guess you haven’t had time to look at the OVER five MILLION posts present here.

Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.

Catholicism doesn’t make mistakes because Jesus PROMISED us that it would be guided by His Holy Spirit. So if Catholicism has errored, then either our Lord has lied or His Holy Spirit has guided us incorrectly – neither of which is possible.

1. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.

Actions can not be “infallible”. Actions are “impeccable”. Nobody EVER claimed that the Church’s actions are impeccable but we do proudly claim that the Church’s teachings are infallible.

1. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.

According to numerous bishops and cardinals, any Catholic who has voted for Obama, has placed themselves in a state of mortal sin. That is neither “rude” or “ignorant”. If is not ignorant because it is coming from our church leaders whom the bible instructs us to be obedient to because they have authority over our souls. And if phrased that way, it is far from being rude but most charitable because it is warning those in mortal sin of the peril that their soul is in so that they can seek reconcilation.

1. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.

God didn’t give us Church leaders and command us to obey them just so we could ignore them and disobey His commandment about obeying them.

1. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”

I would tell them to avoid the sinful act which would require the condom in the first place so as not to offend God with that sin.

 

[CuriousInIL]

However, I sense that you desire a practical answer. Based on my experience, the best practical guide is Justice Potter Stewart’s famous standard: “I know it when I see it.”

i believe that remark related to obscenity not pornography. Why would one use any definition other than the CCC definition quoted above?