What do people mean by pornography?

[PaulGH]

I know that pornography addiction is a huge problem in the modern world, that can affect even Catholics and other Christians who are serious about their faith. But in reading a recent article about pornography, I suddenly realized that I might be making a wrong assumption about what most people mean by pornography. So I want to ask a very basic question:

When people talk about pornography, and specifically pornography addiction, which of the following do they mean by “pornography”?

1. 
   *]Pictures of naked women
   *]Pictures and/or video of sexual intimacy between two or more people
   
   I have always considered both of the above to qualify as pornography, though it seems to me that the second category is worse than the first. But when I read about about people being addicted to pornography, I tend to think of the first category primarily. I am sure that the second category is out there on the internet, but I have a hard time imagining most people actually looking at anything like that. To me the very idea seems repugnant. But I have recently realized that maybe I am being very naive here, and maybe the second category is a much bigger problem than I realize.
   
   I hope that this doesn’t come across as lurid curiosity. In fact, perhaps it is better if I don’t know the answer to this question. But I have read so much about pornography addiction, and now I wonder if the problem is even worse than I realized.
   
   (I’m not trying to put down anyone who has this addiction, and I’m sorry if my post comes across that way. I’m not trying to judge anyone. I have struggled with this issue myself, though only in the first category of images.)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I know that pornography addiction is a huge problem in the modern world, that can affect even Catholics and other Christians who are serious about their faith. But in reading a recent article about pornography, I suddenly realized that I might be making a wrong assumption about what most people mean by pornography. So I want to ask a very basic question:

When people talk about pornography, and specifically pornography addiction, which of the following do they mean by “pornography”?

1. 
   *]Pictures of naked women
   *]Pictures and/or video of sexual intimacy between two or more people
   
   I have always considered both of the above to qualify as pornography, though it seems to me that the second category is worse than the first. But when I read about about people being addicted to pornography, I tend to think of the first category primarily. I am sure that the second category is out there on the internet, but I have a hard time imagining most people actually looking at anything like that. To me the very idea seems repugnant. But I have recently realized that maybe I am being very naive here, and maybe the second category is a much bigger problem than I realize.
   
   I hope that this doesn’t come across as lurid curiosity. In fact, perhaps it is better if I don’t know the answer to this question. But I have read so much about pornography addiction, and now I wonder if the problem is even worse than I realized.
   
   (I’m not trying to put down anyone who has this addiction, and I’m sorry if my post comes across that way. I’m not trying to judge anyone. I have struggled with this issue myself, though only in the first category of images.)

1. 
   You are right in that you are being naive, not to be mean or anything. The second category is by far the more prominent and harmful among pornography addicts. Speaking from personal experience as one, I will say that I can see an image of a naked woman without being immediately driven to engaged in my addiction; it’s not the nudity itself, but how it’s portrayed that’s the problem.
   
   If a woman is nude, then she is nude. It may not be the best way to get a point across, but there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity when it’s expressing the beauty of the human form. If the woman is nude, and also portrayed in an obviously sexualized manner, then I would call that pornography, because its subverting the beauty of the human form and degrading it down into something that exists purely to derive selfish pleasure from.
   
   The second category is always pornography, and always wrong, period. Sexual intimacy is meant to be between a husband and wife, not for public display; and it is this type of pornography that most addicts are addicted to.
   
   That’s just my two cents on it.

 

[PaulGH]

You are right in that you are being naive, not to be mean or anything. The second category is by far the more prominent and harmful among pornography addicts. Speaking from personal experience as one, I will say that I can see an image of a naked woman without being immediately driven to engaged in my addiction; it’s not the nudity itself, but how it’s portrayed that’s the problem.

If a woman is nude, then she is nude. It may not be the best way to get a point across, but there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity when it’s expressing the beauty of the human form. If the woman is nude, and also portrayed in an obviously sexualized manner, then I would call that pornography, because its subverting the beauty of the human form and degrading it down into something that exists purely to derive selfish pleasure from.

The second category is always pornography, and always wrong, period. Sexual intimacy is meant to be between a husband and wife, not for public display; and it is this type of pornography that most addicts are addicted to.

That’s just my two cents on it.

Thanks, and I appreciate your reply!

Your post made me realize that I need to clarify one thing: I do realize that nudity is not always pornography. So when I established categories 1 and 2 above, I should have made it clear that I don’t mean to include things like classic works of art in category 1. I am thinking more of Playboy centerfold pictures and things like that as qualifying for category 1. I do realize that it is possible to portray nudity without it being pornographic or even wrong in any way, though sometimes the line between art and porn can be a fine line, in my opinion.

Having made that important clarification, I will await any further responses.

 

[The_Bucket]

You are right in that you are being naive, not to be mean or anything. The second category is by far the more prominent and harmful among pornography addicts. Speaking from personal experience as one, I will say that I can see an image of a naked woman without being immediately driven to engaged in my addiction; it’s not the nudity itself, but how it’s portrayed that’s the problem.

If a woman is nude, then she is nude. It may not be the best way to get a point across, but there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity when it’s expressing the beauty of the human form. If the woman is nude, and also portrayed in an obviously sexualized manner, then I would call that pornography, because its subverting the beauty of the human form and degrading it down into something that exists purely to derive selfish pleasure from.

The second category is always pornography, and always wrong, period. Sexual intimacy is meant to be between a husband and wife, not for public display; and it is this type of pornography that most addicts are addicted to.

That’s just my two cents on it.

This.

And if the original post had come from someone who was a newer member, I would immediately declare it a trolling post. Of course people look at other people having sex on the Internet. Sometimes there are freaking livestreams of it and interaction between the couple/whomever and the people watching. Like ProdglArchitect, I too am a recovering addict with a good chunk of sobriety… but I just assumed everyone and anyone was well aware of what was out there and what people saw.

 

[twopekinguys]

To steal a thought from the TV Show “Designing Women”

There are only 9 people in the United States that don’t know what pornography is, and they are all seated on the Supreme Court.

 

[fbl9]

I know that pornography addiction is a huge problem in the modern world, that can affect even Catholics and other Christians who are serious about their faith. But in reading a recent article about pornography, I suddenly realized that I might be making a wrong assumption about what most people mean by pornography. So I want to ask a very basic question:

When people talk about pornography, and specifically pornography addiction, which of the following do they mean by “pornography”?

1. 
   *]Pictures of naked women
   *]Pictures and/or video of sexual intimacy between two or more people
   
   I have always considered both of the above to qualify as pornography, though it seems to me that the second category is worse than the first. But when I read about about people being addicted to pornography, I tend to think of the first category primarily. I am sure that the second category is out there on the internet, but I have a hard time imagining most people actually looking at anything like that. To me the very idea seems repugnant. But I have recently realized that maybe I am being very naive here, and maybe the second category is a much bigger problem than I realize.
   
   I hope that this doesn’t come across as lurid curiosity. In fact, perhaps it is better if I don’t know the answer to this question. But I have read so much about pornography addiction, and now I wonder if the problem is even worse than I realized.
   
   (I’m not trying to put down anyone who has this addiction, and I’m sorry if my post comes across that way. I’m not trying to judge anyone. I have struggled with this issue myself, though only in the first category of images.)

1. 
   let’s go back say forty yrs, then list one was the primary source.
   however it video is easliy avaliable now that it has become the norm.
   But the real stage for porno is one’s imagination.

 

[R_C]

From the 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.

P. is not, however, the sole grave offense against chastity. Lust in itself is. In short, we know we are sinning when we seek and enjoy sexual pleasure for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. (CCC 2351).

You say “sometimes the line between art and porn can be a fine line, in my opinion.”. True. Remember the famous line: “I know it when I see it”

Someone said: “the real stage is one’s imagination”. That’s a great point. Christ indeed emphasized just that: the sin is “to commit adultery within our heart”. We know that some saints of the past (I mean, people who really lived ascetism and mortification) received very sinful visions as temptations, and they did not sin by being exposed against their will to these visions. On the other hand, most of us (hey, at least myself) can be tempted in the mind even without a display of intimacy or nudity. It doesn’t take much for the devil to tempt us. And part of it is because we accumulate thousands of hours (no joke) of “venial” images and scenes in our mind that per se may not be mortally sinful but on the long run do a lot of damage to us…indeed, even unto graver matter and very subtle forms of addiction to lust. We are surely predisposed to transition into true pornography, and at that stage into true addiction. And even if we break away by God’s grace and by the intercession of Our Lady, surely the memory is not erased…just latent…a nice repository for Satan to grab and throw temptations at us every so often, out of the blue…

In short: we ought to watch our eyes Because it’s not the image or the scene that matters, it’s the plant that grows from tiny seeds and can make it really hard to walk without falling every so often if we’re not alert.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...22/20120722_042233_dnfuentessidewalks_400.jpg

 

[edwest2]

I request anyone to mention any legitimate presentation of the nude human form in photographs that are available to the general public. Such photos are not art, and that includes depictions in photography magazines. They usually appear in medical textbooks and journals for medical professionals.

Today, art can be a tire found in an alley with a nail going through it.

I agree, only the Supreme Court claims not to know what pornography is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MtnDwellar]

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.

According to this definition from the Catechism, nudity is not pornography unless the nude persons are involved in real or simulated sexual acts. Right?