- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Now please forgive me for asking this, and read a bit to get what I’m saying here. It’s not a troll, although I know it’s on dubious ground. We all know that Playboy etc, and blue movies are obviously pornography, but I’m curious as to what else the church defines as such. Are all R rated/over 18 films with a sex scene in that category? Novels which contain the same? Are all films in this category out?
This is one of the things I’m trying to work out just now. It does seem a bit harsh, especially considering the content of the Song of Solomon, which is still in the LDS canon!!!
As for me I make a distinction between porn and art. Not all nudity is porn. Take a walk through the great art galleries, or tell me the great artists of the Renaissance were peddlers of porn. Many current individuals work with nudes and I find it totally acceptable. My own son is a art major in college and he has spent a significant amount of time at school doing sketches from live nude models. It is not justifiable to say MIchale Angelo was an artist but a modern day photographer is not. All that being said I think it is very easy to cross the line into porn. Anything that has the express purpose to promote sex in a vulgar or exploitative manner or demeans women or men is porn to me and is a plague on society. If you would not be comfortable with your daughter or sister doing it it is probably porn. As far as the church is concerned I think they think everything is porn. Anything short of women wearing a loose fitting gunny sack is considered porn. I actually think all their talk about porn makes the situation worse. John Dehlin on a recent podcast was talking about how when you tell someone repeatedly to not think about something that is what they will think about. I have known individuals that struggled deeply with porn as members of the church but once they left and the constant berating them over porn was taken away their attraction to it was diminished greatly and it did not have the same power over them. So yes I believe it is a concern but lets tone it down a little.
A bit of a rant I am sorry but this issue has be a bit worked up lately.
Cadence wrote:As far as the church is concerned I think they think everything is porn. Anything short of women wearing a loose fitting gunny sack is considered porn.
😆 😆 I’ll be sure to let my daughter know. Prom is coming up on Saturday.I agree pretty much completely with your description of what is and isn’t porn, Cadence. I even go so far as allow for things like instructional materials (books, videos, etc.) outside the category of porn. Quote:As far as the church is concerned I think they think everything is porn. Anything short of women wearing a loose fitting gunny sack is considered porn.
Honestly, I couldn’t disagree more (and I’m certain you used hyperbole) – but I have no time right now, so I will try to add more later.
OK, I have a little more time:
There absolutely are those few in the Church who would advocate burquas if they could, but I certainly don’t think “the Church” views it that way – either the global heirarchy OR the VAST majority of the local membership. Our current definition of modesty, for example, is radically different than it was in Joseph’s and Brigham’s day. There are all kinds of things that members wear to church now that would have casued a schandal in those days. Knee shorts to mixed-sex parties? Fine. Mixed-sex pool parties? Fine. Ward sauna activities in Finland? Fine.
It’s kind of ironic that we are more conservative in the temple than they used to be and much more liberal outside the temple than they used to be.
“I can’t tell you what porn is, but I know it when I see it.” That’s a loose quote from a judge, intentionally trying to make a point about how hard it is to define such a thing, from my memory of reading about one of the famous court cases (supreme court I think?) when they were attempting to create a definition. Thanks, interesting responses. I think people have grasped what I was talking about, i.e. the things which wouldn’t be in *that* section of a shop, but which the church would consider pornography. I suspect
Basic Instinct, for example, probably falls into that category, because it is an obvious example, but I’m trying to think of what would be a less obvious one. A lot of films seem to feature nudity and/or sex scenes these days, but at the same time, I wonder what’s acceptable, since it would mean that there are a lot of films, both commercial and arthouse which might fall into that category (less so books, but no doubt there are some examples). Richard Gere featured in a film about David and Bathsheba, and I wonder if that qualifies, even though it’s based on the OT. I sometimes get the notion that I may be reduced to children’s films, and a mindnumbing selection of films which anyone can watch, but which are hardly good entertainment.
Quote:Take a walk through the great art galleries, or tell me the great artists of the Renaissance were peddlers of porn.
Well some have, and there are certainly some modern artworks which come close to the notion, or try to blur it.
As for nudity etc, I have seen films with it in, which have been incredibly unerotic, and also seen films which didn’t feature it at all, but were “stimulating”, so I don’t know quite where the line is.
There was a post recently at MM that generated some discussion along these lines hereI dunno, I try to avoid definitions like this. I think no matter what I say it will provide fuel for someone. Is Playboy porn? If I say no, not really, someone takes that as a license to go look at it. If I say yes, now I’m condemning all nude art (and I don’t just mean paintings) and giving fuel to conservative prudes.
On a more abstract, global level, I will say that in America we are too prudish (IMHO), and our treatment of sex, especially with our youth, is absolutely abysmal. Even more so in the church. However, I also don’t think it’s all terrible either. Restraint in sexual appetite is a good thing (ever read “Brave New World”) in general. Furthermore, I would be more upset if the church was taking away my right to teach my kids the way I want to regarding sex. Again, porn, like alcohol is very addictive in nature (IMHO) and hence, as a rule of thumb, should be avoided. It also has a very negative impact on many spouses who feel they can’t live up.
The point is, rather than pushing around a definition, I think that the decision needs to be a personal one to avoid porn in whatever form it may take.
There are two sides to this issue and they can be miles apart. There are things that are obviously pornographic, that’s what they were created for and there’s no question about it. What causes more trouble is when a person sees something and perceives or fears that it’s pornographic and is certain that they’re just looking is the commission of sin. Every so often there will be a rabid letter to the editor in the Deseret News exopressing outrage about lingerie ads or remember what happened when Rodin’s “The Kiss” was to be displayed at the BYU art museum. The recent National Geopgraphic with the cover story on polygymy showed some girls playing in the water fully clothed in their pastel dresses. If anything associated with the body unclothed or partly clothed is automatically equated with sin, then there’s going to a lot of needless worry, fuss and guilt and will be seen as pornographic. And since the teaching seems to be when in doubt, confess, it makes for a lot of busy bishops who I think would rather be doing something else. I agree GBSmith. It’s a tough hair to split! SamBee wrote:…Are all R rated/over 18 films with a sex scene in that category? Novels which contain the same? Are all films in this category out?
This is one of the things I’m trying to work out just now. It does seem a bit harsh, especially considering the content of the Song of Solomon, which is still in the LDS canon!!!
Yes R-rated sex scenes and nudity are almost always soft-core pornography but usually it adds up to less than a minute. In my favorite genres like action and horror these scenes often have very little to do with the actual story and were clearly added just for pornographic effect to help sell the movie. But what can you really do about it, only watch G or PG rated kiddie movies or TV shows? Here in Utah they actually had some stores that specialized in editing out all the bad stuff from popular R or PG-13 rated movies but I don’t know if they are still in business.
When it gets to the point where TBMs want to give people a guilt-trip about R-rated movies I start to wonder if I wouldn’t rather just go to the telestial or terrestrial kingdom instead of spending eternity with people are who are so hung-up about this kind of thing. I also think there is some major hypocrisy going on in the Church. I read somewhere that Utah had the highest per capita number of subscriptions to online adult websites of any states in the US which doesn’t surprise me at all.
I also get sick of hearing them talk about it in Conference so much. If you think it’s wrong or feel guilty about it then no one is forcing you to do it but it doesn’t mean you need to try to tell everyone else what to do in their own personal lives. My guess is that one reason they harp on this so much is because too many wives are freaking out about it. What is the real root cause of the problem here, pornography itself or prudish upbringing and attitudes that cause men to try to hide it and be deceptive about it and cause women to overreact when they find out about it? Whatever happened to the idea that boys will be boys? To give people a guilt-trip to the point that some have even committed suicide just doesn’t make any sense to me. Personally, I think romance novels are pornographic as well but I would never threaten to leave my wife over something so stupid.
Quote:I also get sick of hearing them talk about it in Conference so much.
That’s a relatively recent change, as it used to be mostly in PH session. It going “mainstream” in the last GC was a bit of a departure. Not necessarily a good one.
What is porn is a good question, tough to answer. Personally, I think all sex for money is a slippery slope, even some marriages! Hilarious Onion article link here:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/housewife-charged-in-sexforsecurity-scam,1773/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.theonion.com/articles/housewife-charged-in-sexforsecurity-scam,1773/ IMO, nudity is not always porn, but depicting sex acts is probably always porn and nude pictures for the purposes of the “m” word are porn. In between those two extremes there are many things that I’m not sure what they are. I think we all have to evaluate the impacts these things have, and make our own decisions.
I love the Onion. 😆 Seriously, some feminists HAVE used a similar argument against the institution of marriage. But yes, society does have a certain amount of hypocrisy over this issue – prostitution is bad, but it’s alright for girlfriends/wives etc to expect massive amounts of money and gifts from a provider husband/boyfriend. Actually when I was looking up LDS stuff at the weekend, I cam across this video, which is very nice, and deals with this issue well in a way.http://www.lds.org/topic/self-reliance/ (To cut a long story short, Mrs Hales decided not to buy a ridiculously expensive dress!)
Anyway, going a bit off topic here.
Quote:On a more abstract, global level, I will say that in America we are too prudish (IMHO), and our treatment of sex, especially with our youth, is absolutely abysmal.
It seems to be a feature of the English speaking world. Continental Europeans and Latins are much better at dealing with it (although the Japanese have some very mixed up attitudes about it)
Interesting… this guy here in an LDS magazine suggests “The Mission” for a sabbath evening. I have to admit, “The Mission” is one of the most genuinely moving films I have ever seen on religion, and I have always loved Morricone’s music. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/091130films.html Quote:The Mission- This powerful depiction of Jesuit priests ministering to native in 1700’s South America features truly excellent work from Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro, who prove their acting chops by switching gears from playing mobsters, terrorists, corrupt cops, and evil lions to absolutely convincing men of God. Lush cinematography and a stirring musical score highlight this bittersweet tale of the collision between the ways of the Lord and the greed of the world. []
Parents should be warned that while the film is PG, a PG-13 would be more appropriate, with warfare and nonsexual, National Geographic-style nudity of indigenous peoples.Can be used to facilitate discussion between parents and mature teens about the difference in outcomes between following Christ and following the world. Okay, so that’s actually good. To write off a film such as this as “pornographic” because of the National Geographic stuff would be a tragedy.
This could be a topic all of it’s own, but when Pres. Benson gave his famous no R-rated moveis talk it was in a time when an R rating meant what many PG-13 movies are now – AND, most importantly, it was given directly and exclusively to the Young Men. It’s a great case of where something directed solely to one group has been co-opted and applied to all. As an adult, I don’t watch R-rated movies with my children – and I am very selective on my own. I just don’t like gratiuitous sex, violence and profanity, so I make my choices largely based on whether those things are gratuitous or not. In a strange way, I prefer that someone make regular old porn (at least the non-extreme and “studio” stuff) than insert graphic and gratuitous scenes into movies that don’t need them. I don’t want to watch either one, but at least the first is totally honest and upfront about what it’s doing.
As far as nudity and porn goes, Schindler’s List is a great example of nudity that isn’t porn and nudity that is porn to some degree – with the difference between the concentration camp scenes and the bedroom scene. (I can’t remember how explicit the bedroom scene was, frankly, so I only can say “to some degree”.)
Old-Timer wrote:… AND, most importantly, it was given directly and exclusively to the Young Men. It’s a great case of where something directed solely to one group has been co-opted and applied to all.
Really? I was never told that. I feel like I’ve been lied to, AGAIN!
I think Schindlers List is a good example of nudity that is not pornography. I also watch a lot of Vietnam War coverage, and I see plenty of naked people and “sex” all the time – and I don’t think it’s porn. There nothing erotic about it – it actually makes me sick.
PS – I just have to ask because I don’t know all the lingo, what is a “Troll”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.