What is "pornography"? (Not a troll)

[Anonymous]

I am going to open a new thread about trolls, so this one doesn’t get derailed.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

…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.

I still don’t believe there is really that much of a clear-cut difference between art and pornography. As far as I’m concerned, many nude paintings that are now considered to be fine art by almost everyone were actually the equivalent of porn when they were originally made because they were basically intended to be erotic or glorify sexuality. The main difference between most nude art and Playboy in my opinion is simply that any blue-collar working man can afford to buy mass produced magazines or DVDs but the “art” is relatively rare and so people appreciate the relative beauty and work put into creating it even though it is still basically porn.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to claim that all porn is the same only that almost all nudity and sex scenes in popular entertainment media are in fact pornography with very few exceptions like the disturbing Holocaust scenes in Shindler’s List. Does a few seconds of pure soft-core porn in a two hour movie mean we should classify the whole film as pornographic and boycott it? Not at all.

People like to think there is some highbrow distinction between art and porn mostly because there is a certain stigma around porn and it has negative connotations not only for Mormons but for many Americans in general. Shameless pornography is seen as sleazy as if anyone watching it should really be ashamed of themselves. It seems like not very many men want to openly admit that they actually like porn and they don’t hesitate to say how wrong or disgusting they think it is but somehow it continues to sell like crazy.

Sure there are some legitimate sex-addicts who spend an unhealthy amount of time obsessed with this kind of thing but to claim that all pornography is automatically a harmful addiction that everyone can and should be cured of is almost like saying that being a man (or teenage boy) is a disease. Some of this is just naturally hard-wired into people’s brains. Just because some people have been trained to avoid it out of principle doesn’t mean you can realistically expect this approach to work for everyone all the time.

[Anonymous]

Well, just to blur the lines even further, some pornographers consider themselves artists too! (Or at least have pretensions that way.) And then there’s “erotica” which I suppose is arty porn.

A couple of years ago, I saw something which I would call art, but not porn, but is a definite no no, for its own reasons. I think the church would object to it, and I understand exactly why.

I think one of the most disturbing films I’ve ever seen was Pasolini’s “Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom”, which a friend rented out, and subjected me to along with another guy who was “highly sheltered”. It contains a lot of sex and nudity, but is in no way erotic at all. In fact, it seems to be a criticism of Fascism and Nazism. There are violent orgies in it performed by sex slaves, mutilations and at one point they’re forced to eat their own feces. As an artwork, it’s arguably effective, but I’ve no desire to see it again, and nothing in it was “sexy” at all. (To me) [Anyone can Google it if interested.]

I would never have seen it by choice really, but strangely enough, Pasolini’s “Gospel of St Matthew” is probably one of the finest films about Jesus… and I have enjoyed some of Pasolini’s other work.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a thought: Pornography might be better defined by what is happening inside a person than trying to define and categorize things outside of people (the actual content).

Something becomes pornographic when it is that inside our minds and hearts. Is a woman walking around topless pornographic or not? Well, it depends a lot on the cultural context. In a night club in the west it is. In a jungle tribe in the Amazon river basin, it might not be. I served a mission in Germany, and it was a little tough, to be honest, trying to talk to people about the Church in public parks when the weather got warm. People would sunbathe with less clothing on than American missionaries were used to seeing. There were also advertisements for cosmetics (for example) in drugstore shop windows that depicted nudity. This was not abnormal for the culture. The Germans didn’t seemed bothered by it. It wasn’t pornographic to them.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Brian about defining pornography more by what goes on inside with a couple of caveats. One is that if you’re in a position of influence and power and see something as pornographic then you may end up defining it for others whether they like it or not. And with that goes the guilt, anxiety, loss of fellowship, etc that goes with doing somethings that ‘s defined as not just bad but evil. You could make your kids or students, ward members or whoever feel unworthy when that may not be the case at all. For yourself it may be that “to the pure all things are pure” but it’s more likely in the current church climate to see impurity in places where it isn’t and by extension feel impure and in a general sense unworthy. I’ve seen people in that setting try to totally isolate themselves and their children from any depiction of the the human body clothed or unclothed as a way to avoid becoming stained. And it’s a fools errand if there ever was one.

[Anonymous]

Amen, GB. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys, my main aim was trying to find out what the LDS considers the “milder end” of “pornography” if there is such a thing.

Like many people I watch adult (as opposed to children’s, family or “*A*dult” movies), but sometimes it’s difficult to work out whether something is forbidden or not.

Now and then, I will watch a film, and find an unpleasant surprise of some kind in it. (I started watching some film on the TV about a famous singer, and had to switch it over when there was a graphic scene of wife beating in it)

It seems that some mainstream releases are basically pornographic or close to it. I’ve mentioned Basic Instinct as a very obvious example, Wild Things (a truly awful film) seemed that way although I didn’t know that until I saw it…

But it’s too easy to stumble on stuff. I watched the French film “8 Women”, and there was a gratuitous lesbian scene in the middle, which I had not been expecting – since it was billed as a murder mystery. (I still maintain such scenes have nothing to do with gay rights, and more to do with turning on men.) It seems sometimes that at least one in ten films these days has to have women locking lips in it (and more) for no particularly good reason.

[Anonymous]

Like just about everything else when you go down this path we find ourselves in, the decision is yours to make. What is “forbidden?” Answer: Anything that you decide to forbid yourself from consuming.

“The pure in heart shall see God”

But it isn’t all or nothing. There isn’t a single boundary. What makes one person’s heart heavy might not bother another at all. Life is about going in a direction toward God.

[Anonymous]

One of the things that the film ratings board does here* is that they often put stuff on the back of DVDs and Videos saying exactly how the film got its rating, e.g. violence, sex, swearing or drug use.

I think this is quite useful, but unfortunately they don’t do this for cinema releases.

Actually if I want to hear swearing I only need to walk down a busy street for five minutes!

* NB – I don’t live in the USA, better make that clear. Your board probably does things slightly differently.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Here’s a thought: Pornography might be better defined by what is happening inside a person than trying to define and categorize things outside of people (the actual content).

Something becomes pornographic when it is that inside our minds and hearts…it depends a lot on the cultural context…This was not abnormal for the culture. The Germans didn’t seemed bothered by it. It wasn’t pornographic to them.

GBSmith wrote:

I agree with Brian about defining pornography more by what goes on inside …For yourself it may be that “to the pure all things are pure” but it’s more likely in the current church climate to see impurity in places where it isn’t and by extension feel impure and in a general sense unworthy. I’ve seen people in that setting try to totally isolate themselves and their children from any depiction of the the human body clothed or unclothed as a way to avoid becoming stained. And it’s a fools errand if there ever was one.

Sure some people can see nudity without getting overly excited and Americans in particular make a bigger deal out of this than people in many other countries. However, one reason I am cynical about this idea is because many of these same countries that are more relaxed about public nudity than America still have a market for Playboy-style magazines. If this kind of gratuitous and unnecessary nudity is not pornographic then I guess I really don’t see what other legitimate purpose it serves. There is a painting by Manet with 2 fully dressed men sitting in the woods or a park with 2 naked women. Based on your individual and relative definition, this painting is not really porn to many men nowadays including me. However, I think it was certainly pornographic at the time and I still think it was a downright perverted painting to make and just because Manet is a respected artist this doesn’t really change this fact for me.

My main point is that porn is everywhere in small doses and this is really nothing new. In the end, how much worse are the nude scenes in “Girls Gone Wild” than those in mainstream movies like “The English Patient” or Titanic. Not at all in my opinion and the main difference is mostly quantity with only a few seconds of nudity in most mainstream movies. As a consequence I can buy R-rated movies in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart and my wife won’t think much about it but if I came home with “Girls Gone Wild” all hell would break loose. So I try to avoid obvious porn mostly because I don’t want to offend my wife if I don’t have to and I can certainly live without it. However, even if something really is porn to more than 90% of men how much harm does it really do in most cases? Personally, I think most of this alleged harm has been greatly exaggerated and is mostly imaginary and really only exists in people’s minds because they let it bother them.

[Anonymous]

DA, I agree that there is much that objectively is porn no matter individual reactions and perspectives – but I also know too many people who truly are addicted to write it off as “only in the mind”. Even if something is “only in the mind” it still is very real to the person who’s mind is housing it.

Different example, but …

I used to pass out whenever I gave blood or had shots. It wasn’t the sight of blood, since I I was raised in a rural area and could sit and watch someone or something bleed without any negative effects at all.

I don’t know how many times someone told me it was all in my mind – that I just had to change the way I reacted and not be “freaked out” about it.

I learned in my late teenage years that I have a fairly common physiological reaction to the sudden release of internal pressure that causes me to pass out in certain situations. Essentially, my blood pressure drops dramatically – and since my blood pressure at that time was a little lower than normal, a drop caused my body to shut down as a natural protection mechanism. It had NOTHING to do with “my head”. It was my body reacting to what was happening to it.

I understand the difference between what I just described and viewing porn – but I also understand the similarity. For quite a few people, there really is a physiological reaction that is hard to avoid and control – just like alcohol with an alcoholic.

Finally, I just don’t think there is ANY redeeming value in objective or gratuitous porn – including the picture you mention. Nudity absolutely has merit and meaning and value; porn, not so, imo.

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to underscore the point that nudity per se is not pornography. Clothing that is made and worn to emphasize a person’s sexuality is much more likely to be pornographic in it’s effect than total nudity in a safe social situation. Of this I can testify.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree with you GB Smith. A large part of the clothing industry is devoted to doing just that, whether it’s push up bras, trimming underwear or corsets which make those loose and flabby parts on the back and front of a woman look a bit firmer than they actually are, or even types of tights which are mainly designed to make the legs look better, or even a healthier color.

Devil’s Advocate’s point about Germany etc, I believe to be both right and wrong. Of course these places do have certain types of magazine, and films etc, but here’s the big thing… if you go onto the website of Spiegel, which is the German equivalent of Time Magazine, there’s actually quite a bit of non-sexual nudity on there. However, at the same time as there is this more innocent and uneroticized form of nudity around the place, in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, some pretty hardcore stuff can be seen on prominent window display in some shops.

TV there is much the same. I’ve seen non-sexual nudity on a German travel program at one o’ clock in the afternoon, but in the late evenings things appear on mainstream German networks which make Playboy look tame.

I definitely think that English speaking countries do have a hang up about this, but it’s a double edged thing. Because of these attitudes, people here get drunk and flash themselves around on a Saturday night in an aggressive manner. It’s like a backlash against a culture which represses the body. (Although FWIW, the LDS is more strict about this, and the Muslims even more, but they don’t go in for this.)

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…As a consequence I can buy R-rated movies in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart and my wife won’t think much about it but if I came home with “Girls Gone Wild” all hell would break lose…

Funny.

Old-Timer wrote:

…For quite a few people, there really is a physiological reaction that is hard to avoid and control – just like alcohol with an alcoholic.

Yes. Here is Porn chemistry 101 as I understand it, FWIW: Pornography causes the release of the endorphin, dopamine. Porn triggers dopamine (the “craving neurochemical”) to stimulate the pleasure/reward circuitry in the brain. High levels of dopamine lead to erratic behavior and compulsions that are not conducive to survival. Sexual intercourse increases the dopamine levels rapidly, and then completely shut off after (hope I can say this on this site) orgasm, and is replaced by high levels of prolactin, which causes individuals to want “isolation” rather than companionship. (this is why men don’t have the “snuggle” desire after sex. ) Without this natural, protective shutdown, you would pursue sex to the exclusion of all other activities, including eating and sleeping. This is the same chemical reaction that happens when one uses cocaine. It is very addictive. It can be compared to basking indefinitely in sexual bliss as long as the stimulus is procured to release the chemical. Very addictive to most people. Cocaine creates a huge pleasure/reward high, followed by an intense emotional withdrawal. And just like alcohol, some are more prone to the dopamine release in the body than others. What happens is the body becomes conditioned to an artificial stimulus to release dopamine in the body and then over-corrects itself by shutting down the natural process of dopamine production, which limits the naturally occurring release of the dopamine – or a natural high. This is also why pornography can be so damaging to relationships. One is basically manipulating their sexual biochemistry and naturally occurring “bonding” chemicals, even to the point where their body will no longer produce the endorphins necessary to stimulate and “enjoy” sexual relations (pleasure/reward) and/or “bonding” with their partner.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…Finally, I just don’t think there is ANY redeeming value in objective or gratuitous porn

Yeah – if there is, I have certainly yet to hear about it. Redeeming value being the key here. Porn certainly has value – but, like you said, I don’t see it having “redeeming value” either.

[Author]

Posts