Why?

[Brother Adam]

Why are some pictures of nude people wrong, and some pictures aren't?

Besides our religious/moral reasoning, I'm wondering if ethically its possible to prove that "pornography" is wrong.

I'm just curious.

[voiciblanche]

I guess the ones that "aren't wrong" are the ones that are considered "art." Personally, I don't quite agree with that. There's billions of things an artist could depict besides a nude human body. While the human body is a beautiful thing, I don't think it needs to be "exposed," for lack of a better word, like that. But that's just my personal opinion. As far as your question, I don't know... but I'm kind of curious myself.

[Brother Adam]

Right. don't get me wrong, pornography is very sinful. I'm just trying to think of a non-religous approach to prove that it is. Kindof like C.S. Lewis' approach to prove Christianity in "Mere Christianity"

[Aloysius]

it stimulates the brain in unhealthy ways distorting their perception of reality and their respect for the dignity of women.

it burns the images to the mind and is very addictive.

pAx

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

There is a difference between a picture of a naked body and pornography. You can have a medical textbook with a picture of a naked body and it is in no way sexual in context. You could also have pornography where people are clothed. It's a matter of what thoughts are trying to be generated in the recipient of the images.

[Iacobus]

I see porn as something that seeks to imsipre lust and thereby causing you to lose control and reducing the person to an object. Most art does not incite lust in most people. I see (titles are slipping me now, lol). And I am okay so are most people. I open National Geopraphy to the article on teh tribes of the Amazon I am not filled by lust at the nude tribe members. So it comes do to who you are and what it is and intends to be.

[Quietfire]

As an artist, I agree with Iacobus (what is with those avatars?-just leave it on Darcy and I'll be fine!! Youre giving me a headcake!)

Michaelangelos David for example? Art.
Playboy Porn.

[dUSt]

Nudity is not the sin (ie - medical textbooks). The intent of showing that nudity is the sin (ie - playboy).

So... I would think that nudity in art, that was not created to, or has an effect of, evoking lust, is not sinful.

[Brother Adam]

but what about proving it from a non-religious standpoint.

Dust, when do I become Church Militant?

Edited June 19, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Born Again Catholic]

Any reasonable man religous or not would understand that using someone else for a totally selfish reason would be an immoral act. For example being a 'peeping tom" not many would argue that this is immoral. There really is not much difference between being a peeping tom and pornography. Except that pornagraphy may be worse as someone has prostituted themselves to satisfy your desires to be a peeping tom.

[Cure of Ars]

I don’t have the direct quote but Pope John Paul II said something to the effect that the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much but that it shows to little. Pornography reduces people to objects to be used for lust instead of people made in the image of God.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 18 2004, 09:46 PM'] but what about proving it from a non-religious standpoint.

Dust, when do I become Church Militant? [/quote]
I'm not sure I get what you mean by "non-religious" I would think that some of the explanations given are non-religious or at least neutral...

And to answer the second question... I'm guessing when you are really officially reconciled.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 18 2004, 08:46 PM'] but what about proving it from a non-religious standpoint.

Dust, when do I become Church Militant? [/quote]
I'll make you a deal. *coughbribecough*

If you write 5 of the summaries that are still needed in the Apologetics section of the reading room, I'll make you Church Militant.

- 300-400 words
- brief overview of the Catholic teaching
- touch on the most common arguments against
- w/ scripture references

Deal?

[voiciblanche]

I bet you he can do it, dUSt. That CD he made - it's incredible.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 18 2004, 08:46 PM'] but what about proving it from a non-religious standpoint.

Dust, when do I become Church Militant? [/quote]
[quote]it [porn] stimulates the brain in unhealthy ways distorting their perception of reality and their respect for the dignity of women.

it burns the images to the mind and is very addictive.

pAx [/quote]


that was my non-religious viewpoint.

pAx

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 18 2004, 05:51 PM']Right. don't get me wrong, pornography is very sinful. I'm just trying to think of a non-religous approach to prove that it is. Kindof like C.S. Lewis' approach to prove Christianity in "Mere Christianity"[/quote]
bro adam,

most often, when a non-religious argument is needed to prove that something is illicit, it is helpful to turn to how the thing or action in question effects society. since governments are established to maintain order and encourage prosperity w/in societies, if it could be shown that a particular thing or action impeded upon the goals of the government, then that thing or action would be illicit based upon a non-religious argument.

so, how do we prove that one depiction of nudity (michelangelo's David) does not impede upon the goals of the government, but another depiction (anything from Hustler magazine) is such an impediment? well, one would have to prove that the depiction was unconstitutional, since the rules of the Constitution of the US are what governments must uphold to maintain order and encourage prosperity.

first it is important to see how the government (or the state, or congress) defines "pornography."

in a report entitled [url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.childporn.ob.3.pdf"][b]"Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Recent Developments and Pending Issues"[/b][/url] provided by the [b]C[/b]ongressional [b]R[/b]esearch [b]S[/b]ervice (a branch of the Library of Congress that provides nonpartisan research to the U.S. Congress), the following summary is given:[list]
[*]The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press . . . .”The First Amendment applies, with twoexceptions, to pornography and indecency, with those terms being used to refer to anywords or pictures of a sexual nature. The two exceptions are obscenity and childpornography; because these are not protected by the First Amendment, they may be, andhave been, made illegal. Pornography and indecency that are protected by the FirstAmendment may nevertheless be restricted in order to limit minors’ access to them
[/list][b]therfore, pornography is unconstitutional only when it is "obscene"[/b]

the same report has this to say on what constitutes obscenity:[list]
[*]To be legally obscene, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, pornography must, at a minimum, “depict or describe patently offensive ‘hard core’sexual conduct.” The Supreme Court has created a three-part test, known as the [i]Miller[/i] test, to determine whether a work is obscene. The Miller test asks:
[b](a)[/b] whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” wouldfind that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
[b](b)[/b] whether thework depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specificallydefined by the applicable state law; and
[b](c )[/b] whether the work, taken as a whole, lacksserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
[/list]
[b]therefore, in order to argue that a depiction of nudity or sexuality is "wrong" w/o using religious criteria, one must prove that it is obscene, under the guidelines of the law.[/b]

another way to prove that a depiction of nudity is wrong is if it constitutes child pornography. this--along w/ obscenity--are the only two exceptions not protected by the First Ammendment. child pornography is not protected by the first ammendment b/c it “is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children . . . . Indeed, there is no serious contention that the legislature was unjustified in believing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to halt the exploitation of children bypursuing only those who produce the photographs and movies.”

the definition of what constitues child pornography has gradually developed as court cases have defined more and more unique situations as representing child pornopgraphy. these developments are too numerous to include here, so i direct you to the [url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.childporn.ob.3.pdf"][b]CRS report[/b][/url] to read these for yourself.

[b]so, along w/ proving that a depiction is obscene, we an also claim that it is wrong by proving that it constitutes child pornography[/b]


essentially then, we have two non-religious ways to prove that a depiction of nudity is wrong or illicit or illegal.

i hope this helps........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 18 2004, 11:06 PM'] I'll make you a deal. *coughbribecough*

If you write 5 of the summaries that are still needed in the Apologetics section of the reading room, I'll make you Church Militant.

- 300-400 words
- brief overview of the Catholic teaching
- touch on the most common arguments against
- w/ scripture references

Deal? [/quote]
What does it take to earn Church Faithful? I want to earn my stripes!

[Cure of Ars]

Psychology can be used to show that pornography is disordered and because of this immoral. It is getting more difficulty though because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has taken out some of their sexual disorders and lifted the standard to having to cause "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." I think it can still be used as a good argument, especially to people who give a lot of weight to psychology. From a psychological point of view, pornography is disordered much like other fetishes because it is a means to avoid healthy commitment and intimacy (i.e. an impairment of social functioning).

It’s also scary that all cereal killers and pedophiles are into pornography. I know that this could only be a correlation but then again it could also be a catalyst.

[Brother Adam]

Excellent responses thanks.

When I mean "non-religious" I mean a view that doesn't deal with moral value. Obviously those who use pornography have no moral value in that area. (At least those who think it is okay, I know that there are many people who struggle with it, and I don't mean to attack those people or anything)

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 19 2004, 12:06 AM'] I'll make you a deal. *coughbribecough*

If you write 5 of the summaries that are still needed in the Apologetics section of the reading room, I'll make you Church Militant.

- 300-400 words
- brief overview of the Catholic teaching
- touch on the most common arguments against
- w/ scripture references

Deal? [/quote]
Dust,

I see 15 of them without summaries? They all say "Help" or have "-" mark. I'll start on the ones with the "-" mark but those only come to 4. Let me know if there are 5 you specifically want done