Here's an issue that the Holy Spirit has been working on in my heart and convicting me to discern over the years (when around books, magazines, movies, TV shows, billboards, museums, classrooms, and even in churches). First, let me ask that you pause and pray before reading what I'm about to share- that you'll receive everything the Lord would have for you. Let me start with a question. What is your view regarding the subject of pornographic art or pornography in general? By that I'm referring to everything from those more scanty Michelangelo paintings to modern Hintai Anime. By logical association, I would also be referring to everything from a simple immodest photograph to a complex stream of XXX video images that flow from your eyes to the movie screen of your mind. More to the point, I would like to show how and why the entire spectrum of this type of art/imaging is pornographic in nature- therefore warned against by the Word of God. The Lord tells us to flee fornication {Greek- Porneia} (with our heart, mind, eyes, ears, and feet- if need be). [color=#FF0000][1 Corinthians 6:18][/color] I'd like us to consider the following questions: what is pornography, why is it porn, and how can we recognize (as well as protect) ourselves from this when we come in contact with it? I'll start this subject by laying out some underpinnings of what the concept of porn actually is in the real world. First, let me dissect the original (Scripture based) meaning of the word pornographic: Porno+graphic. "Porno" is derived from the Greek word porneia. Porn is the Greek word we find in the Scriptures (New Testament), which is translated as "fornication" or "harlotry" (depending on the context) in our English Bibles (KJV). Porneia (fornication) is from the Greek root porne, which is where we originally derived our modern term porn. Used just in a figurative sense, this word means idolatry (spiritual fornication). Used literally, it refers to any expression of sexually related sin- which, by nature, is idolatry in that we worship the body more than the Creator when we disobey Him with it. Check out the context surrounding this word as it's used in Scripture: [color=#FF0000][Matthew 5:32] "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of porn, causes her to commit adultery..."[/color] [color=#FF0000] [Romans 1:29] "...being filled with all manner of unrighteousness, porn, wickedness..."[/color] [color=#FF0000][1 Corinthians 5:1] "It is reported commonly that there is porn among you, and such porn as is not so much as named among the Gentiles..."[/color] [color=#FF0000][1 Corinthians 6:13,18] "...the body is not for porn, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body...Flee porn. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commits fornication (porn) sins against his own body."[/color] [color=#FF0000][1 Corinthians 7:2] "Nevertheless, to avoid porn, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."[/color] [color=#FF0000][Galatians 5:19] "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, porn, uncleanness, lasciviousness..."[/color] [color=#FF0000][Ephesians 5:3] "But porn, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you (in your heart or in your midst), as is becoming to saints"[/color] [color=#FF0000] [1 Thessalonians 4:3] "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from porn."[/color] So, going back to our original definition above, what is "sexual" anyway? For the purposes of our focus in this writing, "sexual" is anything related to the body that God has set apart as private from the opposite sex (see [color=#FF0000]Genesis 3; Leviticus 18-20; 2 Samuel 11:2[/color]). Keep in mind, that we are discussing God given (natural) sexuality...while the unnatural sensual expressions (such as men being with men, female prostitution, incest, pedophilia, and the like) are sexual sin by nature and so are pornographic at their very root. [color=#FF0000][Romans 1:26-27][/color] Let's continue on with that in mind. Now privacy applies, both, to specific areas of the body and to activities being done to/with the body (usually related to areas that are arousing in nature). This is only logical, when you think it through in light of Scripture. I'll only address what areas of the body are private at this point- we can build from there and uncover what are pornographic activities later (keeping any descriptions still "family friendly" of course). Both aspects (private areas and private activities) have some clear-cut right/wrong and some discretion based territory (determined by your heart, circumstance, and spiritual discernment), so let's lay a solid foundation (based on God's Word) and let the Holy Spirit build the rest. There's no need to get too involved in specific standards of right or wrong beyond what is evident in God's Word and is plain to our natural reasoning. As the Word says and as the Holy Spirit convicts...[color=#FF0000]"Come let us reason together." [Isaiah 1:18][/color] [color=#0000FF]So, what do I mean by "private?"[/color] It's the opposite of public. So then, what is "public" in this context? It is a condition in which you can to be noticed, sensed, or observed by those of the opposite sex. Unless you're the same sex or the rightful "owner" of this body (self or spouse)[color=#FF0000] [Matthew 19:5; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4][/color], many aspects of this outward form are private property- [b]NO TRESPASSING! [/b] In other words, this should not be public property- not for the public to see or experience (through any of our five senses). This is why we call them private parts. So, how do we know what God has established as off limits or private (nakedness)? As for the reason why He has now (after the Fall) deemed them private...that is probably good for another discussion all by itself, but there's no need to address that now- we just know that God did. [color=#FF0000][Genesis 3, 9:23; Proverbs 5:19; Exodus 20:26, 28:42; Leviticus 18, 20:17; Isaiah 47:3; Ezekiel 16:36, 23:3, 23:18, 23:21; Hosea 2:2; Micah 1:11; Nahum 3:5; Revelation 3:17, 16:15] [/color] Incidentally, this is also how we determine what is immodest (outwardly)- by knowing what areas are "private" and should not be shared with the "public." Pretty basic reasoning. Do you see the contrast? These private areas should be protected from, not shared with, the public (and the public should be protected from these private parts as well). To sum up modesty...determining what is modest is a mixture of many things which include: walking in love, sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, and the consideration a few points from the Word (such as [color=#FF0000]Genesis 3:7,10, 21[/color]). Notice that these scriptures show a progression. First man fell and perceived that they were naked. Then they attempted to cover their nakedness, according to their own now flawed human reason and emotions, by making a girdle (comparable to our modern under garments, tankini bathing suits, or with a mini-skirt like bottom) out of sewn together fig leaves. Finally, God showed them His will and His way, by covering much more of their bodies with garments/robes made of animal skins. Take note that God still considered them naked when they were wearing their own skimpy version of covering. [color=#FF0000][Genesis 3:10-11][/color] Now I could go into the details of what that Hebrew word for this garment/robe (kethoneth) actually meant to the writer of this text in Genesis, but that would run the risk of those who are more obsessive about so called "legalism" to get distracted and bogged down on the subject. So do your own research on this Hebrew word or check out the context it is used in the following verses and judge for yourself... [color=#FF0000]Genesis 3:21; Exodus 28:40; 29:8; 39:27; 40:14; Leviticus 8:13; 10:5. [/color] I will go as far as to tell you (in principle) that it covered not only the private areas of their bodies, but also covered enough so that the potential for those areas to be exposed during daily activities (normal movements) would be easy to control/avoid. This is logical, if you consider that the primary purpose for clothing was "to cover"- the root word for "kethoneth" is "kuttoneth" which literally means, "to cover." So clothing is meant to cover not just some of the time, but ALL of the time you're wearing it. To give a modern example...many women wear dresses that are short to the point that it's not reasonable for them to expect to be able to pay attention, all of the time, to stop even their most private areas (underwear and breast regions) from being exposed. Simply wearing a pair of pants underneath shorter skirts is the easiest way to transform such an outfit into a very modest one, but most women today have been conditioned against wearing such outfits. Even longer dresses can be deceptive (depending on the material and flow), when it comes to modesty for the same reason, because most women will wear nothing but skimpy undergarments beneath them and this then leaving a rather large gaping hole for many modern activities (such as climbing, swing dancing, and walking at heights). While I would say that longer dresses/skirts are very modest and beautifully feminine in general, some pants are actually more modest than longer skirts (if only skimpy undergarments are worn)...yet, virtually any length dress/skirt with pants (jeans, tights, and so on) underneath would be most modest and would ensure such private areas are not revealed in public through normal modern activities. While I did say that jeans would be more modest than long dresses (in some circumstances), I am not saying that jeans or most pants are modest in and of themselves. Pants, on a woman, tend to be very form fitting to the point of being lewd, crude, or vulgar...as ladies will naturally fill in the back of the pants, which then pulls in the front (crotch area) of the pants, combined with then the seam of most pants running right up the middle- making for an almost perfect storm in a very graphic show of most every nook, crevice, and cranny of a woman's naked form. Not very much is left up to the imagination, but again (as lewd as that is) such pants are still better than a woman exposing the areas up into her skirt when she is only wearing skimpy undergarments. In other words...long skirts are more modest than pants most of the time, but circumstances can arise (such as when you might be in a position in which others could see up your skirt) in which pants would be better...yet, pants (or fitted/tapered shorts at the knee) under your skirt will never fail and such a combination has always been used by women to protect their modestly for thousands of years- up until this last generation began abandoning such wisdom. The same would go for many shorts, low-cut (or loosely fitted/buttoned) shirts, and so on. If you have to stay consciously aware of how you're positioned in the clothes you're wearing in order to avoid exposing yourself, be realistic, that is an immodest outfit. Now...if a woman just doesn't care to bother paying attention as to whether she's exposing herself or not, then she doesn't truly care if she's modest and by extension doesn't truly care (or know) about following God's Word in this area of her life. [color=#FF0000][1 Timothy 2:9][/color] I'm sure all of us have seen a girl slip up in this way while wearing an immodest dress/shorts- one cross of the legs and the damage is done to the guy across the room. Or how about when a woman is bending over too far with a loose/low top shirt and portions of her breasts are being exposed. Wearing shirts that are either higher to the neck line or that are in that ornately crinkled elastic band that presses against your bosom at the top of the shirt like style, at all times, would be two great ways to avoid this form of immodesty. If it's immodest to show your breast to the public, then that means any part of them, doesn't it? That includes cleavage or any other area on your chest that is composed of, well (to be direct), fatty breast-like tissue. Every woman knows where the softness of her breasts start and end but, unfortunately, many still let these private areas of their chest be exposed for all to enjoy or to be vexed by. If you care about these things...why bother confusing and stressing yourself by trying to be modest in immodest clothing? Why not just dress modestly and lessen your stress load (move comfortably and freely without having to think about whether you're exposing yourself)? Assuming a woman actually cares about her own modesty, of course- as all followers of Christ should. Sadly, most women just stop trying to pay attention (because it's too much trouble with their chosen outfits) and they allow themselves to become sloppy with their efforts to be modest. The Lord is not honored and we're not walking in love when we choose to be lazy, cute, or stylish rather than modest with peace of mind. Neither is it good for a woman of God to be stressed if she is trying to make immodest clothes modest- this makes her walk with the Lord look stressful and very unappealing to the lost. A woman of Christ can be very cute, stylish, and beautiful in her dress...but she must first be modest if she truly hopes to live a life of love, joy, and peace in the Lord. Scripture is clear that women should save these private areas (consider them holy/set apart) from the opposite sex- except for her husband and for the nurturing/comfort of her infant children. You're probably asking "what about guys?" Obviously we don't have breasts, but I've personally decided to save this area of my body for my wife as well. I wouldn't put that on anyone else, it's more of an extra commitment (like not kissing until it's for marriage). I just want to make things more special. Actually, I did feel convicted a few times in the past- I work out pretty consistently and when I would not cover my chest area, it would be hard not to get a sinful mindset (prideful, seductive) when women looked at me. That is until a guy looked and commented (in a sexual way). Needless to say this disturbed me. After that happened, I finally admitted to God that I personally needed to cover up to be consistent with my own calling in this area. Again, I don't place this personal decision on other men (judge for yourself and your situation). Enough said on that subject, I think. Let's move on. The second part of the word (porno+graphy) is pretty basic. The "graphic" (or graphy) just simply means "an image of" or "a recording of" (i.e. photo-graphy, topo-graphy, geo-graphy). So to summarize...porn has to do with sexual sin, which has to do with private areas being revealed/shared in a public expression. And -graphy is an image or recording of whatever word precedes it. So, visually, pornography is basically any image that reveals private areas/activities to the public (primarily the opposite sex outside of a marriage relationship). What say you?:side:

Well, I mostly scanned this in a desperate attempt to avoid homework, so I didn't read all of it. To me, the difference between porn and the art stuff you were talking about is context. Those paintings/sculptures aren't done in any fashion to arouse sexual desire. Porn is. That's the difference. As for the whole cleavage bit? A little is not bad. Being sexy is not a bad thing. It's when you're showing far more than you're covering that it becomes an issue. I, quite frankly, am rather proud of my body. Granted it's not in the best shape it's ever been, but yeah. I really don't mind showing it off a little. I don't think any girl should be ashamed of that. Besides. Pants and the like are comfortable, and most aren't as form-fitting as you think.

To be quite forward with all of you, between the job and family, I'm finding much less time these days to devote myself properly to this kind of discussion without leaving everyone hanging for long periods of time online for my response. Knowing my current availability, I would rather you all just go ahead (if you have interest in peering deeper into these subjects) and check out my books at http://spiritledintimacy.com . Spirit Led Intimacy is the book in which you'll find the depths of what we're discussing here. For any of you who don't have the means to get the books through this site, no worries, I'm content to give them away for free. I, of course, appreciate all donations which help me to be able to devote more time to this ministry and to discussion boards such as this. I'm sure you'll see me posting on various subjects from time to time, but most of what I'll be sharing you'll already be able to find in my books. If you read "Spirit Led Intimacy" and still have further questions or comments, please then email me. I've already answered most (if not all) of your responses in my writings there. Other subjects I write about on the site: [color=#000080]Scriptural Romance, Passion For Marriage, Spirit Led Marriage Bed, Prostitution In Church, Holiness of Heart, What Is & Is Not Porn, The Male OBGYN, Nature of Moral Truth, The Hidden Agenda, Deeper Look At Modesty, Spirit Of Rebellion, Forbidding of Marriage, History of Marriage, The Strange Woman, Modern Man & Marriage, Nature of Adultery, True Feminine Beauty, Age of Adulthood & Marriage, Is Speeding Wrong?, Roles of Man & Wife, "Marriage, Divorce, Adultery, and Remarriage", "Body, Soul, Heart, Conscience, and Spirit", Entertainment, Christian Voting, Tithing, The Trinity (Who is God?), and Good Health- Caring for the Body of Christ. [/color] Off to work...hope to hear from you soon. After you've read the book(s)!!! ;) Would rather not have to repeat here what I've already written there. I'll try to post back here soon as well though.

Oh I see. So this whole thing was about plugging your books. I guess I can't really blame you, but it doesn't inspire me to discuss further. Instead, I'll post these relevant lyrics. Look up the song on Spotify or something, it's not on Youtube ("Naked" by Ivoryline): At the top of the world, It's so lonely, it's so lonely. Ever since that day, we fell, we fell at the tree, And our eyes were opened, forever forced to see. With hearts turned, turned away. With hearts turned, turned away. We're naked and so ashamed of it, How dearly we have all paid for this. And the woman's beauty wasn't enough, And to keep her from falling, falling down from love. The man in all his strength stood and watched his bride. So cowardly, oh so cowardly. With hearts turned, turned away. With hearts turned, turned away. We're naked and so ashamed of it, How dearly we have all paid for this. We're naked and so ashamed of it, We've been running from ourselves ever since. One day I'll stand before you, One day I'll stand before you. And joy will flood my soul, All of me will know, I am made whole in you. We're naked and so ashamed of it, How dearly we have all paid for this. We're naked and so ashamed of it, We've been running from ourselves ever since.

Ahh...finally some time to write again. Thank you for your candid responses. I'll address a few of your comments first before continuing the discussion... [b]To Malygos:[/b] You're right, it has been many years since I've been active on this site. I made sure to search it first to see if my past discussions on this subject had passed off the history of this site...and they had. So, I decided to bring the subject back to light for the new readers. If you visited my website, you would see that I write about a great deal many more subjects than porn. I just so happen to recognize that porn is an epidemic problem in our culture and now in many churches. So, I find the topic worth bringing to the forefront. [b]To BrotherReed:[/b] Always an interesting perspective. About the book plug...I would say on one hand, yes, of course I would want to share my books I've written about the subjects being discussed. This is especially understandable considering some people don't have as much time available each day to keep a discussion like this going fluently, so I wanted to offer the alternative for those who may be interested in knowing more in the interim between posts, etc. I will say that you may have left out of few other cultures that would also fit neatly into your philosophy of relative modesty: nudist colonies, nude beaches, and college sex ed videos that include real XXX sex scenes between married couples (solely for education purposes, of course). None of these cultures are intending to use their nakedness to inspire lust either, yet, are we ready to state that these are perfectly acceptable? I hope our consciences have not yet become quite so seared in the churches of America. With all that being said...I would like to elaborate further to make clearer my perspective on some of the mentions made. [b][u]Porn In History:[/u][/b] Here is the statement I would like to pause with very quickly, because it was once quoted to me from a certain historical website via one who became a bit side tracked in his reasoning about this issue. Below is a quote from this site and my comments on the matter will follow. "This is a surprisingly young word in English. Pornographer is first recorded in English from about 1850. Pornography appears by 1857. These words are from Greek pornographos "writing about harlots", from porne "harlot". In English pornography referred primarily to ancient Greek and Roman texts of that subject. It wasn't until the late 19th century that it came to be used to refer to newly written works. It also applied to art of a licentious nature from its earliest use in English." While this was an interesting look into what is believed by some to be the first uses of the literal word pornography in the English language, it still does not answer the question of what root people used as their source when they started using the word "pornography." It's quite obvious, just from looking at how this word is used (within context) in the Greek New Testament Scriptures, what the original root word (porn) was meant to convey. As far as English goes...I would first argue that even as early as the 1600's, when the KJV Bible was written, this word (Greek: porne, porneia, porneuo, pornos) was then also understood from its original context in Scripture. Am I saying that these Greek root words were not used until they were used in the Greek New Testament? No. I am saying that the Word of God's use (contextual meaning) of these terms is what we should be standing upon for our foundation in proper and true scriptural language- not the ever-changing secular mind's definition of these terms. You see, way back in the 1600's, the translators of the KJV looked at these Greek words (in their context) and used the English word "Fornication" as the translation [see Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3...to name a few]. By the way, my source for this information regarding the Greek is the "Strong's Concordance." If you would like to see the original (Scriptural) use of the Greek root of the English root word "porn," then just look up "fornication" or "harlotry" in your Strong's Concordance and read all of the verses within context. You will find that "fornication" is the correct English equivalent. Many modern translations say "sexual immorality" or "sexual sin" and that's fine (although a bit generic), but fornication was the early English equivalent for the Greek derivations of the root porn- as seen clearly in Scripture. At any rate, it's not so much the word "pornographic" we should be so concerned with, it's the principle behind the word we find in Scripture. That's why I referenced the Greek- to help us see how to use this term in the correct manner (based on its core/original meaning). Sure some words (slang, profanity, and so on) change, but there are some words that should never lose their meaning (i.e. adultery, immorality, murder, fornication, pornography, lie, steal, truth, and so on). For instance, in our culture the word murder has lost a lot of its original (God given) meaning. Many would say that abortion, suicide, euthanasia, and the like are not murder. Hitler said that "killing" Jews was not murder. But if you know the original foundation for this word (based on God's Word and its original roots), you'll properly be able to determine what is and is not murder from the context of Scripture. After all, God did establish language (which is composed of words) for a reason. If we just kept changing what words meant, we wouldn't be able to communicate. So I would argue that the world (in their darkened mind) often change/lose the original meanings of some very important words- which originally conveyed the same ideas as are expressed in Scripture or when God gave us these words for language [Genesis 11:7-9]. If the Church would renew their manner of speaking/thinking, to line up with Scriptural principles, then maybe the world would start to come back to the center again and would start labeling the situations around them more accurately. As it is now, many consider truth as relative- which is where a lot of the word confusion begins. Conclusion: "Christians" need to be careful not to allow the world to guide us away from the original foundation of these important words..."be not conformed to the image of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind...by the washing of the Word." [Romans 12:2] When something is murder, pedophilia, rape, adultery, porn, and so on...we need to be able call it like it is- rather than looking to our culture for the current definition they hold to. [b][u]Images of Lust -vs- Images of Porn:[/u][/b] Question: Does an image have to be "lust" related in order for it to be pornographic? Although the answer may seem to be yes on the surface, lets delve a bit deeper. Doing so, we'll find that not all pornographic images cause lust in all individuals. We're also going to see that not all images, which cause lust in certain individual's heart, are pornographic in nature. We've already established the basics (foundational meaning) of pornography. It's any expression or image that reveals private areas/activities to the public. Now how about lust: the Greek word in the New Testament is orexis (excitement of the mind for or longing after what is forbidden). Some have stated that "if an image is lust related then it is pornographic." That may seem true by nature, because whatever area or activity that is being exposed (to the public) in the image is usually of a private nature or is a perversion of sexuality (men with men, female prostitution, pedophilia, non-marital "sex", and the like). Yet, what of the man who lusts after swimsuit photos of five-year old children? Such men, with pedophilic lusts are out there. Are those pornographic pictures? Of course not...whether he has a lust problem with the picture or not, a baby in the nude is not pornographic because it does not yet display parts that are naturally supposed to be private (which comes with puberty) . I'll address that later. Also, the flip side is not true. Meaning...an image can definitely be pornographic and still NOT be lust related. I'll appeal to your reason and conscience for some examples. These should help to shake up your belief enough to consider what I'm saying: Just because many members within a nudist colony are so desensitized that they do not lust after one another, does that mean the images they see of each other (in photos or in the theater of their mind) are not pornographic? Just because many people are so desensitized at nude beaches that they do not lust, does that mean the images they see of each other (such as in Play Boy Magazine Nude Beach Edition) are not pornographic? How about nude art/painting of live models in front of them on a stage...just because the artist (of the opposite sex) doesn't "lust," does that mean their paintings are not pornographic to them? How about a man whose natural desire is so warped that he lusts only for men and does not have any temptation to lust after Play Boy Magazine photos (or by going into the women's shower room)...are not these images still porn to him as well? If not...why not? I think all of us, who have a good conscience in this area will easily conclude that they are. What if a married Christian couple decides to make their own XXX movies, with the intention of showing lost people what true intimacy looks like...are those suddenly not pornographic movies simply because they did not intend to cause lust in the viewers? This is really happening out there, by the way. What about college sex education classes in which students watch XXX videos, for "educational purposes"...are these videos suddenly no longer pornographic simply because many of the viewers are not "lusting" after the images? This is also really happening out there, by the way. Let's use Victoria Secret to start. I imagine many women would argue that they just think the pictures of those models look beautiful and show them how it could look on them (for their husband). So does that mean this image is not pornographic because a man is not lusting after a woman in the image at that given moment? No, I would argue that the reason this image should be considered pornographic is because it's revealing expressions of sexually private areas or sexually private activities in clear view of the public eye. A God fearing woman could more wisely handle such an image by consciously putting it into the proper mental compartment (porn, garbage), praying it out of her system, and then interceding that such a poster/advertisement will be torn down. [2 Corinthians 10:5] That way she won't become desensitized to these images being displayed in public and she will be fighting (in the Spirit) for the good of her fellow men, who may struggle with such pornography displayed in public places. [Romans 12:2] Not that it's unhealthy for a woman to see another woman naked in private, but that it's unhealthy for a woman to become desensitized to women being naked in public. If there was a way we could 100% guarantee the female model that such an image (female underwear, swim suit, lingerie ad, etc.) would never appear in public and would only be seen by other women, then it would not be an image of pornography. Yet, unless God Himself made that promise, it would be impossible for us to guarantee within reason. This is why such images are pornographic by nature, as we cannot honestly expect to be able to control whose hands (or whose eyes) they may find their way to (we are not God and we have been given no such promise from Him that He would do so with our physical outward possessions). It's like the difference between having a closed off women's dressing room (private) and having a see through women's dressing room (visible to the public). Women looking from the outside won't be "lusting." And even though the women on the inside are simply dressing and undressing (nothing inherently "lusty" about that), it's still pornographic because there potentially may be men who walk by and can see their immodest state (in the public eye). Again, I don't want that "100% guarantee of not being exposed to the public" example to cause misunderstandings. I was speaking hypothetically but, in reality...it's simply not possible for us, as human beings, to make such a guarantee. So, because reality (reason, as well as Scripture [Luke 12:33]) tells us that we can't really guarantee that no man (such as a thief, janitor, or police) would ever get a hold of the picture...it would be pornographic by default (by nature). So I would do better to say that (for this reason of no guaranteed privacy when it comes to objects separate from ourselves in this world), solely based on what an image contains, it can be labeled as pornographic. Since, we can't guarantee (based on any promise in God's Word) that the image won't somehow be seen by the public (through whatever crazy circumstance the Devil or man may devise), our conscience demands that we act as though it will ("for whatever is not of faith is sin" ) . [Matthew 6:19-20; Romans 14:23] So, from our vantage point, any physically available image that reveals private areas/activities is pornography. The reason I included the public aspect was so that we could understand the underlying reasons to support why images of say a man's wife naked (for example) are not pornographic to the theater of his own mind (it's in the privacy of his mind, so we CAN reasonably guarantee that no other man will see that image). God did a perfect job of protecting our minds from others (the public's) prying eyes. I don't care how advanced science gets, God will never allow them to the point that they can visually view our thoughts and the actual images in our mind. So yes, in the physical world, the first part of the definition I gave will do fine. Yet, for the sake of our thought life, the public principle helps us to understand what's good and not good to have in our mind or heart. One last point to consider on this subject...did you know that Michelangelo's paintings were actually somewhat controversial at that time (when he made them) and were labeled as pornographic (or the equivalent of that word in their language) by many in the Church? A story is told how one day a clergyman approached him as he was painting the Sistine Chapel and asked "Why do you paint them in the nude?" Michelangelo's response was that "God created us to be naked in the Garden of Eden." Then the clergyman replied "but they fell from that condition and God gave them clothes for a reason." Those aren't exact quotes, but rather paraphrases from history- I'm sure you get the point though. I mean, think about it. When Adam & Eve fell, they perceived that they were naked and were ashamed- so they frantically sowed leaves together to cover themselves. Then, ignoring their shame & embarrassment, some guy named Michelangelo (for example) comes along some years later and distributes nude pictures of them. I'd say that's a far cry from "honor thy mother and thy father." That would kind of be like me drawing a nude picture of you and distributing it- even though I don't know exactly what you look like. I think you would (or at least should) still naturally be offended that I designed it to represent you naked. Now, as far as before the Fall is concerned, these artists (pornographers) always strive to draw out their bodies to look like our current (fallen, carnal) bodies. Just to make a point (even though this is in no way a foundational point) I would argue that their bodies were actually covered (clothed) in God's glory anyway- prior to eating the fruit. This happens to people who are in communion with God as Adam & Eve were before the Fall [Exodus 34:29-35; Luke 9:29-31; 1 Corinthians 15:42-54]. Though our bodies are still beautiful in very many respects, I think it's a gross misrepresentation and incredibly disrespectful to draw them in their naked fallen form for the sake of selfish artistic pleasure. When they fell into sin, the universe changed: the soil, the plants, the animals, and the human body. [Genesis 3:7, 16-19] One may argue, "they're only paintings...not real pictures of people." In case you think certain art is somehow excused because it's not actually depicting a "real" person (which actually isn't relevant anyway-it's the thought that counts)...in fact, these actually are images taken from real people in general. How else would the artist know what these things actually looked like without a real basis (a real life image) to start from? Do you think a person who has been blind their entire life would be able to paint a nude woman, if they suddenly received their sight, and have never seen one or touched one or had it described by someone who has before? The images in our mind are just visual memories compiled, mixed, and manipulated to form different pictures. If art depicting nakedness is okay, doesn't this mean that pornographic "XXX films" are okay- because they are actually just paintings (color depictions) of images on film? Do you see where this relative definition of porn is bringing us to in our culture? If we were to take such a misunderstanding one step further to its logical end...then this would mean that the real XXX image broadcast to our mind, through our eyes (of a person who is publicly exposed in our very presence), can never be considered pornographic- simply because, well, it's just a mental "painting" (so to speak)? Please consider this point. Pretty soon, if we actually take this confusion to the end...it makes nothing pornographic and then all of the Scriptures regarding porn become meaningless, because nothing is private so what is there to fornicate or adulterate in the first place?

Reading thoughts with technology is a lot closer to reality than you might think.

[b]forcedelune wrote:[/b] [quote]I will say that you may have left out of few other cultures that would also fit neatly into your philosophy of relative modesty: nudist colonies, nude beaches, and college sex ed videos that include real XXX sex scenes between married couples (solely for education purposes, of course). None of these cultures are intending to use their nakedness to inspire lust either, yet, are we ready to state that these are perfectly acceptable? [/quote] I dunno about the sex ed thing but yes to nude beaches and resorts. Nude colony is an antiquated term and doesn't reflect modern nudism. With all that being said...I would like to elaborate further to make clearer my perspective on some of the mentions made. [quote] [b][u]Images of Lust -vs- Images of Porn:[/u][/b] Question: Does an image have to be "lust" related in order for it to be pornographic? Although the answer may seem to be yes on the surface, lets delve a bit deeper. Doing so, we'll find that not all pornographic images cause lust in all individuals. We're also going to see that not all images, which cause lust in certain individual's heart, are pornographic in nature. [/quote] DING DING DING DING DING We have a winner here. Obvious maybe but nonetheless true. Gay pornography doesn't cause me to lust over men, but it's obviously meant to arouse sexual desire in [i]someone[/i]. [quote]We've already established the basics (foundational meaning) of pornography. It's any expression or image that reveals private areas/activities to the public.[/quote] Actually you're the only one who has agreed to this definition, so it's far from established. [quote]Now how about lust: the Greek word in the New Testament is orexis (excitement of the mind for or longing after what is forbidden). Some have stated that "if an image is lust related then it is pornographic." [/quote] Who has said this? [quote]Yet, what of the man who lusts after swimsuit photos of five-year old children? Such men, with pedophilic lusts are out there. Are those pornographic pictures? Of course not...whether he has a lust problem with the picture or not, a baby in the nude is not pornographic [/quote] I'm in complete agreement [quote]because it does not yet display parts that are naturally supposed to be private (which comes with puberty) . I'll address that later. [/quote] Though this is somewhat arbitrary. I would argue that a photo of a nude baby under certain circumstances COULD be pornography, and a photo of a naked five year old could easily NOT be pornography. Again the depicted subject is not the only measure. [quote]Also, the flip side is not true. Meaning...an image can definitely be pornographic and still NOT be lust related.[/quote] I agree, for the reason I already stated. Just because an image doesn't cause ME to lust, doesn't mean it doesn't have that intention towards someone. However I'm not sure that would mean it isn't lust related at all...: [quote]Just because many members within a nudist colony are so desensitized that they do not lust after one another, does that mean the images they see of each other (in photos or in the theater of their mind) are not pornographic? [/quote] Yes, it does. Again, there really aren't any nudist colonies, assuming there ever were, but there is nothing inherently pornographic about nudism. In fact, I would argue that nudism has many of the opposite affects of pornography. [quote]Just because many people are so desensitized at nude beaches that they do not lust, does that mean the images they see of each other (such as in Play Boy Magazine Nude Beach Edition) are not pornographic?[/quote] This is such a loaded question, as you are lacing it with your own ideas to make it seem like being naked on a beach and selling sexed up photographs mass produced to entice arousal are the same thing. They are not. Frankly I'm offended by the accusation that simply being in ones natural state or seeing someone else who is is tantamount to pornography. [quote]How about nude art/painting of live models in front of them on a stage...just because the artist (of the opposite sex) doesn't "lust," does that mean their paintings are not pornographic to them? [/quote] Yes. Yes it does. This is like your naked baby example. It's not pornographic at all - just because someone lusts over it doesn't make it so. [quote]How about a man whose natural desire is so warped that he lusts only for men and does not have any temptation to lust after Play Boy Magazine photos (or by going into the women's shower room)...are not these images still porn to him as well? If not...why not? I think all of us, who have a good conscience in this area will easily conclude that they are.[/quote] Already covered this, meant to cause someone to lust, etc. [quote]What if a married Christian couple decides to make their own XXX movies, with the intention of showing lost people what true intimacy looks like...are those suddenly not pornographic movies simply because they did not intend to cause lust in the viewers? This is really happening out there, by the way.[/quote] This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. [quote]What about college sex education classes in which students watch XXX videos, for "educational purposes"...are these videos suddenly no longer pornographic simply because many of the viewers are not "lusting" after the images? This is also really happening out there, by the way.[/quote] Not really, I'd say they are still porn. If we're talking about a class just showing some XXX video from the web, then yes. I don't know anything about this phenomenon. [quote]Let's use Victoria Secret to start. I imagine many women would argue that they just think the pictures of those models look beautiful and show them how it could look on them (for their husband). So does that mean this image is not pornographic because a man is not lusting after a woman in the image at that given moment? No, I would argue that the reason this image should be considered pornographic is because it's revealing expressions of sexually private areas or sexually private activities in clear view of the public eye. [/quote] Not porn. [quote] A God fearing woman could more wisely handle such an image by consciously putting it into the proper mental compartment (porn, garbage), praying it out of her system, and then interceding that such a poster/advertisement will be torn down. [2 Corinthians 10:5] That way she won't become desensitized to these images being displayed in public and she will be fighting (in the Spirit) for the good of her fellow men, who may struggle with such pornography displayed in public places. [Romans 12:2] Not that it's unhealthy for a woman to see another woman naked in private, but that it's unhealthy for a woman to become desensitized to women being naked in public.[/quote] ...what? So now it's okay for women to see other women naked and it's not porn? When just a minute ago anyone seeing anyone else naked even in a natural or clinical context was? Make up your mind. Are you saying that if I see a woman naked it's porn, but if a lesbian sees a woman naked it isn't? And if you aren't saying that, then are you saying that what goes on in the mind determines what's porn and what's not? [quote] One last point to consider on this subject...did you know that Michelangelo's paintings were actually somewhat controversial at that time (when he made them) and were labeled as pornographic (or the equivalent of that word in their language) by many in the Church? A story is told how one day a clergyman approached him as he was painting the Sistine Chapel and asked "Why do you paint them in the nude?" Michelangelo's response was that "God created us to be naked in the Garden of Eden." Then the clergyman replied "but they fell from that condition and God gave them clothes for a reason." Those aren't exact quotes, but rather paraphrases from history- I'm sure you get the point though.[/quote] Right. Great art is often controversial. History has borne out who was correct here. [quote] I mean, think about it. When Adam & Eve fell, they perceived that they were naked and were ashamed- so they frantically sowed leaves together to cover themselves. Then, ignoring their shame & embarrassment, some guy named Michelangelo (for example) comes along some years later and distributes nude pictures of them. [/quote] I literally laughed out loud at this. It would be a great joke if you weren't so serious. [quote]Now, as far as before the Fall is concerned, these artists (pornographers)[/quote] Okay we get it, you hate art. Don't you have something else to say? [quote] When they fell into sin, the universe changed: the soil, the plants, the animals, and the human body. [Genesis 3:7, 16-19] One may argue, "they're only paintings...not real pictures of people." In case you think certain art is somehow excused because it's not actually depicting a "real" person (which actually isn't relevant anyway-it's the thought that counts)...in fact, these actually are images taken from real people in general. How else would the artist know what these things actually looked like without a real basis (a real life image) to start from?[/quote] Pictures of nude people are not automatically pornographic either. [quote] Do you think a person who has been blind their entire life would be able to paint a nude woman, if they suddenly received their sight, and have never seen one or touched one or had it described by someone who has before? The images in our mind are just visual memories compiled, mixed, and manipulated to form different pictures. If art depicting nakedness is okay, doesn't this mean that pornographic "XXX films" are okay- because they are actually just paintings (color depictions) of images on film? [/quote] No, it doesn't, and they aren't. Sorry for the clipped responses but I'm in a hurry. I have to go become pornography for a minute while I shower. Back later.

No, I've actually kept up with those humors they keep putting out in the media about supposed break-throughs in being able to read our thoughts or make images from our thoughts. They all turn out to be hoaxes in that they give the articles sensational sounding titles, but you read into the actual research (how they produced the images) and find out that it had much more to do with computer manipulation of known shapes that had been shown a person and the binary responses than with actually being able to pull an image from a person's mind from scratch. The fuzzy shaped "break-through" they say they made lately was simply a manipulated controlled system made to look like it was doing something new, but have very little to do with the person's actual thought images being read. They have no realistic hope of ever really being able to pull it off any more than they do being able to count every grain of sand on earth. There are just too many variables and no realistic interfaces (outside the realm of science fiction). Even if they were some day able to pull it off (which I think Christ will return prior)...rape is nothing new to humanity. We should fight the use of such technology for pornographic purposes, as usual. This brings me to the next direction I'd like to discuss, when it comes to porn... [b][u][u]Porn In Our Times[/u][/u][/b] Alright, now I'd like to put some of this into a modern context. We, as believers, need to renew our mind (along with our conscience) so that we don't think like the World. The standard for what the average American (worldly) person uses to consider something "pornography" is getting worse and worse. [Romans 1:25-31] In our culture, what they used to consider pornography, they now no longer do. The content you find in most "rated R" movies used to be considered pornography- now it's not. Playboy magazine used to be a "pornographic" magazine- now it's rarely mentioned as such. In modern times, a movie has to be XXX before you actually hear the average person use the word "porn." On the other hand, there are cultures of the world that go far to the opposite extreme and consider women not covering their face to be immodest. There are places in the world where they will persecute you for wearing too little and there are places (like America) where people will persecute you just for trying to take a stand for your own modesty (or holiness in general). We, as believers, are called to be balanced (sound, sober minded) in the midst of this lost and confused/imbalanced world. We should make it our aim to be sensitive in our conscience to what God's Word considers porn in our own lives. If we apply His standard for what is and is not pornographic material (to our own perceptions of reality), then we'll find ourselves learning to avoid (flee) many of the things the world just takes as casual and harmless. [1 Corinthians 6:18] Of course, as with most seemingly radical stands for God, you're probably going to be persecuted by those around you- who think you're just over reacting, legalistic, weak in conscience, or narrow minded. Yet...isn't protecting/guarding your mind, conscience, and heart for the Lord so worth the struggle? [Joshua 22:5; Proverbs 4:23] Since God did tell us to "flee fornication {Greek porneia}," [1 Corinthians 6:18] what does this tell us that we should do when we find ourselves confronted with pornography (images of fornication)? I'm not saying we should throw our hands up and run out of the grocery store when we see a picture of a woman in a bikini. Yet...I am saying that we do need to be consciously aware of what we're letting into our eyes, minds, and hearts ("let no wicked thing be set before my eyes" [Psalm 101:3]; and "take every thought captive to the lordship of Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]; and "guard your heart with all diligence" [Proverbs 4:23]). There are good reasons that God has told us to flee porn and to guard our hearts against it. Rather than discussing the physical aspect of this, I want to focus on the inner perspective (mind, will, emotion, heart). The more we allow ourselves to passively absorb these images through our mind, the more they will plant seeds into our heart, the more bad fruit will come forth, and the more our conscience will be desensitized ("seared" [1 Timothy 4:2]). This applies for more reasons to the opposite sex although even people of the same sex (as the image) should at least try to protect their mind, conscience, and heart from getting used to (desensitized by or even emotionally impressed by) the immodest or pornographic displays in our culture (in the public view). For example, a girl might think to herself, "that model looks so cute in that (immodest) outfit." Yet, this will only tear away at her own convictions to dress modestly in public if she continues to see it as positive when others do it. Think about it...the average person 100 years ago would have still been shocked by the images displayed throughout today's American society. Our consciences have been seared. This has led to a "Christian" culture that is not only desensitized, but is also participating in a lot of the same activities and wearing clothes just as immodest or unloving as the world. We also have fallen prey to this subtle attack on purity by the Enemy, in our last generation, to the point that we are being desensitized right along with the world. This is damaging us in many ways seemingly unseen. For example, it's a fact that people involved in the XXX porn industry daily see so much pornography that they are just numb when they see normal sexual imagery. The normal sexual desires are worn down in these individuals and they require more & more exotic or strange sensual imagery to get any kind of real excitement (high) in the flesh. This happens to all of us in subtle and differing ways when we don't protect our hearts from such images- it gradually affects your natural (God given) sexual/intimate desire and many emotional/mental areas of our life. In fact, if you do your homework on serial killers and serial rapists in general, you'll find that almost invariably they started out looking at pornography but said that they just kept needing more and more fleshly perversions to maintain the original high. Unfortunately, for people like Ted Bundy, it eventually led him to do the most horrific of acts in order to maintain his addiction to the high produced by this exaggerated lust of the flesh. As a side note, Ted Bundy testified to this on James Dobson's show "Focus on the Family" a little while before he was put to death- he professed to being a believer at that time. Ok...so the world has a convoluted view of truth (pornography in this case) and God is the Truth, Who can teach us how we should rightly think and act- for our own good and well being. Now, how does this truth concerning porn practically apply to our lives? I can give examples from my own life of times that God has convicted me and I've had to guard my heart from things that many would consider common. Unfortunately pornography is now seemingly everywhere in our society: malls (store front signs), magazines (Victoria Secret, swim suits), beaches, grocery stores (usually in the checkout line racks), roads (billboards), churches ("youth trip" photos), and so on. Just to walk through the women's underwear section somewhere usually puts you in a place in which you're surrounded by pornographic pictures. Even our church youth group gatherings seem full of young women dressed like little girls should only dress...they're wearing children's clothing, but exposing a very much adult feminine form for all to see. [b][u]Entertainment[/u][/b] One more important factor in all of this is the powerful emotional impact of entertainment. Have you ever been tempted to keep watching something, even though you know you should probably turn it off? What is driving you emotionally to make that decision? Entertainment (Enter- inside; tain- to hold) is a receiving mode in which your heart is vulnerable. You open yourself up to be touched, because you let the object of your "entertainment" inside of you and hold it there until it (or you) are finished- the movie ends, you read the interesting parts of the page, you hear the end of the joke, and so on. Video images (TV, movies, video games) are most notorious for bringing one to this state in even deeper expressions, because the flicker rate tends to be aligned with what many would consider the state of consciousness that is most receptive to receive whatever is suggested (very similar to a state of hypnotism). The dangerous part is if, interweaved into what you're being entertained by, there are pornographic images- you will be passively taking these seeds into your heart. The only way to guard your heart from this is to stop, push the object of entertainment out of you, take that thought/image captive to the Lordship of Christ, pray for cleansing of that which has gotten into your heart, and then move on (meaning stop exposing yourself to that and find something more edifying or healthy to do with your time). That's just how I usually handle it, so don't think that's a formula (you get the principle I'm sure). I would not suggest you go on entertaining yourself with that object (movie, magazine, etc.), which caused you this trouble in the first place. I used to just walk out of the theater or throw the magazine out (I still would) but now I, well, really don't care about watching most movies/ TV shows these days (except on my Sky Angel network). Not that they are inherently wrong, I just don't bother- I'd rather spend my time doing more spirit led activities, exercising, hanging out with loved ones, reading, listening to music, studying the Word, writing, and so many other worthwhile things. I can't seem to go to a PG-13 or even some PG movies these days without the Spirit within me being grieved by the content, so I'd rather just not worry about it. [Matthew 18:9] Anyway, that's my way of handling it- I try to take myself out of pornographically risky spots as much as I can (within reason of course). By the way, people who have problems with hardcore pornography should especially be mindful of what they let into their hearts. Pornography inevitably builds up seed in your heart, with each image you allow to passively come in, which will in due season bear fruit and will strengthen the thorny stronghold already in their life. It always chips away their will to resist the more hardcore temptations. Here are some additional questions we can ask ourselves to help deal with anything inconsistent in our conscience. Many of us have been desensitized by the culture around us in that, even though we know something is wrong in principle, we accept it in certain forms/situations because it is common in the culture around us. Do you consider paintings containing nudity to be pornographic (Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo type art, Play Boy Magazine, XXX videos {which are really just streams of sequential paintings})? If not, why? Do you consider pictures of women modeling immodest clothing to be pornographic (swimsuits, lingerie, braw & underwear)? Think about it. How about those family/friends pictures of you in your bathing suit (after the onset of puberty)? Why are these any different than other swimsuit models in the ways that truly count? How about those anatomically accurate, outer skin level, pictures in your biology/anatomy books? I can understand the pictures with internal views, but what's the point of showing us the naked outer body. I don't think the general public needs science in order for us to know what that looks like. How about those rather revealing cheerleader outfits in yearbook pictures? How about those home movies/pictures of women giving birth...naked? Now that the foundation is set, these questions should serve to shake things up. I encourage you to take time aside now and pray regarding what I've shared and what I will be sharing after this point

Sorry, I didn't notice BrotherReed's reply before I posted... [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] I dunno about the sex ed thing but yes to nude beaches and resorts. Nude colony is an antiquated term and doesn't reflect modern nudism. [/quote] I personally know a member of a quite active nudist colony in West Palm Beach Florida, but regardless, it is the concept that matters- for the sake of my argument. I just wanted it to be clear that you are coming from the perspective that public nakedness is a good thing. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] DING DING DING DING DING We have a winner here. Obvious maybe but nonetheless true. Gay pornography doesn't cause me to lust over men, but it's obviously meant to arouse sexual desire in [i]someone[/i].[/quote] Good. It's important that you came to this same realization. The point then is...if an image can still be pornographic, even though it is not intended to inspire lust (XXX videos in Sex Ed classes) and it does not result in lust, then there is something else about an image that makes it pornographic that has nothing to do with lust (though lust may often be a reaction to a pornographic image). [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] Actually you're the only one who has agreed to this definition, so it's far from established.[/quote] I trust that most readers are going to be able to grasp and follow along with the definition I clearly broke down from its Scriptural root and common sense. It's pretty basic, so I feel pretty comfortable I don't need to elaborate on that. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b]Who has said this? [/quote] This is not the first discussion I've had with others on this matter. I was just making reference to a common statement and misunderstanding others have mentioned to me over the years. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] I'm in complete agreement [/quote] Good. So, you have agreed that an image can also actually inspire lust in an individual and yet still not be pornographic. In other words, one pedophile can send another pedophile a picture a child in a bathing suit...but that does not make the image pornographic, but rather just means that these men have unnatural sexual desires or lusts toward children. This is the second proof that whether an image can be defined as pornographic or not has nothing to do with lust. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] I would argue that a photo of a nude baby under certain circumstances COULD be pornography, and a photo of a naked five year old could easily NOT be pornography.[/quote] I assume this argument is based on the already clearly debunked (review above) idea that a picture of a baby is pornographic if it happens to be in the hands of a person who is lusting over it (or if it was meant to inspire that person to lust). Sort of hocus-pocus...now it is...now it isn't kind of thing. I'm quite sure most readers aren't going to have trouble understanding that a picture of a baby in a bathing suit is NEVER pornographic in ANY circumstance. The only way I could think of that a baby picture could be pornographic is if that baby were being subjected to or made to display themselves in adult-like sexual acts. Then that would possibly bring it into the realm of porn, not at all because of the child itself, but only because of the portrayal of simulated adult sexuality in public or that of sexual abuse of a child. There again, if the picture contained such material, then that picture would be pornographic in ANY circumstance...whether the holder of the picture is lusting over it or not. The point is that either an image is or it is not porn...regardless of whether lust is meant to be inspired or not. Investigators could pass a photo of a child being sexually abused to another investigator without any intention of inspiring lust in that other investigator...but the image of a child being sexually abused will still be "child porn" regardless. It is what it is. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] I agree, for the reason I already stated. Just because an image doesn't cause ME to lust, doesn't mean it doesn't have that intention towards someone. However I'm not sure that would mean it isn't lust related at all...:[/quote] Do you see where this whole lust based porn logic leads? With that logic you can guess that any and everything is pornographic (unless you are someone you know personally took the picture)...cause "you never know who may have meant for that picture to induce lust in someone." You have to know that doesn't stand up to sound reason. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] Again, there really aren't any nudist colonies, assuming there ever were, but there is nothing inherently pornographic about nudism. In fact, I would argue that nudism has many of the opposite affects of pornography. [/quote] I hope I don't insult you, but I was making that point assuming most Christians are not yet desensitized enough to think that public nakedness (and by logical extension, having sex in public) is a good thing. That question was meant to have some shock value, but I think it may take a bit more to shock you into a state of realization...which is why I just mentioned "sex in public"...as your way of thinking cannot possibly argue against such practices, unless you are going to contradict yourself. There are many African cultures who practice public sex. Have you gotten that far down the rabbit hole yet or do you see a flaw in your way of thinking yet in this matter...or do I need to take your line of reasoning further to show how ugly it can get at its logical end (XXX)? [quote][b]Forcedelune Said: [/b] Just because many people are so desensitized at nude beaches that they do not lust, does that mean the images they see of each other (such as in Play Boy Magazine Nude Beach Edition) are not pornographic?[/quote] [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] This is such a loaded question, as you are lacing it with your own ideas to make it seem like being naked on a beach and selling sexed up photographs mass produced to entice arousal are the same thing. They are not.[/quote] Not so. I was just showing how your line of reasoning can easily collapse on itself...as you think the same exact image, in the same exact situation (naked on a beach), is pornographic when a taboo public label is attached to it (Playboy). I'm pretty sure most of us can see the contradiction I'm talking about, so I'll continue on. [quote][b]Forcedelune Said: [/b] What if a married Christian couple decides to make their own XXX movies, with the intention of showing lost people what true intimacy looks like...are those suddenly not pornographic movies simply because they did not intend to cause lust in the viewers? This is really happening out there, by the way.[/quote] [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] This is the silliest thing I've ever heard.[/quote] I think your comment is less about this example being silly and more about your not being able to solidly argue that such a video would be pornographic, because your way of thinking on the subject of public nakedness logically concludes the opposite in the end. [quote][b]Forcedelune Said: [/b]What about college sex education classes in which students watch XXX videos, for "educational purposes"...are these videos suddenly no longer pornographic simply because many of the viewers are not "lusting" after the images? This is also really happening out there, by the way.[/quote] [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] Not really, I'd say they are still porn. If we're talking about a class just showing some XXX video from the web, then yes. I don't know anything about this phenomenon.[/quote] At this point it is becoming obvious that you're having to argue from both sides just to sound right. Why, staying consistent with your public nakedness is not porn argument, do you think that a XXX movie that is intended solely for the purpose of sexual education...is pornographic in nature? Now you're saying that somehow the fact that it streamed over the Internet somehow makes a video pornographic? I'm not what Scripture or line of natural reasoning you may be able to use to back that one up... [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] Not porn.[/quote] You never know...they might be trying to inspire lust...wait, that's your argument. I'm guessing that you're guessing that Victoria's Secret is just displaying young attractive women in lingerie for some other reason than what lingerie's sole purpose is to inspire. Sexual Desire. It's no secret. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] So now it's okay for women to see other women naked and it's not porn?[/quote] Naturally. It always has been perfectly fine for women to see other naked women. Yet, that doesn't make a naked picture of a women displayed in public any less pornographic in nature. It's a naked woman displayed in public...therefore, pornographic in nature. Pretty simple and straight-forward. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] Are you saying that if I see a woman naked it's porn, but if a lesbian sees a woman naked it isn't? And if you aren't saying that, then are you saying that what goes on in the mind determines what's porn and what's not?[/quote] You're confusing yourself or speed reading too hastily, I guess. I'm saying that no matter who is looking at a publicly displayed image of a naked woman (lesbian or not)...it is porn by its very public display of nakedness...ness. ;) What goes on in the viewer's mind has no bearing as to whether the image being displayed before them is pornographic or not. To repeat what I already stated in the beginning of this thread...If they are not married to that woman or are not the same sex or are not a baby...then they have no right to see that woman naked (her private areas) and that image of her nakedness will be pornographic in nature...whether we're talking about the photo in front of them or the image that gets broadcast into their mind. Same same. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] Right. Great art is often controversial. History has borne out who was correct here.[/quote] Like slavery, Eugenics, and women's rights...I think this acceptable behavior in history is worthy of scrutiny. So called "history" is often wrong in what it considers right until enough people finally point it out for what it really is. [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b Okay we get it, you hate art. Don't you have something else to say?[/quote] Big fan of art...just not pornography. [quote] [b]Forcedelune Said:[/b] If art depicting nakedness is okay, doesn't this mean that pornographic "XXX films" are okay- because they are actually just paintings (color depictions) of images on film? [/quote] [quote][b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b No, it doesn't, and they aren't. Sorry for the clipped responses but I'm in a hurry. I have to go become pornography for a minute while I shower.[/quote] I'm going to take that as you can't answer the question...If art depicting nakedness is okay, doesn't this mean that "XXX films" are okay- because they are actually just paintings (color depictions) of images on film? For educational purposes, of course.

No. The art's fine. It's the SEX bit that's the problem. If I recall, there's nothing sexy about the David statue.