[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] Hang on, I think you misunderstand me. I never said it wasn't intended to inspire lust. I said the exact opposite. I said it WAS intended to inspire lust, just not in ME - in someone of a different sexual identification. I'm agreeing that whether lust happens is immaterial to pornography. However whether lust is intended IS relevant, though it is not the only factor. . [quote] QUOTE: BrotherReed wrote: I'm in complete agreement 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] I agree that in your example the image is not porn, yes. I'm not agreeing it has nothing to do with lust, because what makes porn porn is, in part, the intention to arouse sexual desire. That doesn't mean that an image depicting a sunrise could somehow become porn just because someone's intention is to arouse you with it. It must still be explicitly sexual. [quote] QUOTE: BrotherReed wrote: 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. 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] Let's slow down here, because I think you and I are not as far off on this as it might seem. When I said a photo of a nude child could be pornography under certain circumstances, I meant circumstances like the ones you're describing. Something depicting sexual acts. I'm not saying a picture of a child wearing a bathing suit could be porn, nor did I ever insinuate it. I know what you're getting at - you're trying to say that the content of an image is the sole criterion by which we determine whether or not it is pornography. I'm saying that simply isn't the case. You can't divorce content from context and expect to arrive at meaning. [quote] QUOTE: BrotherReed wrote: 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...: 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] I think there are qualities in a work that help reasonably determine what the intent must be. This is why art and pornography are antithetical. One of the best questions we can ask to help us determine what is and is not pornography is whether the work has significant aesthetic or artistic merit. It's also important to point out that porn consists only of recorded material. No live, first-person experience can be said to be pornography. [quote] QUOTE: BrotherReed wrote: 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. 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.[/quote] Hang on, let's stop here. Public sex is not a logical extension of public nudity. People need to understand that nudity is not inherently sexual. Since we're talking about nudism, you should know that every respectable nudist resort strictly prohibits any overt sexual activity, or even the appearance of it, because they are family environments safe for children. Nudism is about body acceptance, oneness with nature, freedom from social barriers, etc., not sex. This simple misunderstanding (that nudity = sex) is the cause of all sorts of issues especially in the western world. [quote] QUOTE: Forcedelune Said: 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: BrotherReed wrote: 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. 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] Uh, it is so. First of all, let's remember that pornography is printed or visual material, meaning nothing you see live can be considered porn. Second, let's remember that Playboy isn't National Geographic. They aren't creating a documentary of real life on a nude beach. They are not educating people about nude recreation. They aren't showing a cross-section of the population to help people decide where to go on vacation (a publication that did those things would not be pornography). They are photographing the same oiled-up models in the same suggestive poses, whose only purpose is to produce arousal - it's regular Playboy with sand. [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] No, I just think it's a really weird thing to do. [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?[/quote] Again, you've answered your own question. If it's an XXX movie of course it's porn. The whole question is whether it's an XXX movie or not. Think about this... have you heard the term "torture porn" thrown around, applied to movies that trade in excessive violence and suffering? Why are they being called that? Is it because simulated violence is tantamount to pornography? No, it's because the subject of torture is being treated crassly, exploited for cheap thrills rather than treated with care respect or dignity. Because it has no real artistic merit. This is the same thing we mean when we call sexual material pornography. It's material that is trading in sex crassly, for cheap thrills or profit, without dignity or artistic value. This is what pornography is. [quote]QUOTE: BrotherReed wrote: Not porn. 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] I see what you did there. But come on. If a child in a bathing suit cannot be porn (and you said that it cannot regardless of circumstances) then a picture of a woman wearing a bra can also not be porn. Underwear often covers more than a bathing suit does. You said yourself that it's only the content of the image that matters, and the content of a Victoria's Secret advertisement is clearly not in the realm of porn. It might be sensual, but it is not pornographic. And its purpose is to sell products (not saying that makes a big difference, just that inspiring lust is clearly not the sole purpose of the catalog). [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.[/quote] Okay, forget the public display thing for a second, that's not really what I'm talking about. If I, being a man, see a woman naked, in private - no pictures videos or other public displays are involved - are you saying that is pornography? If a woman who is a lesbian sees the same woman naked in private, is it pornography? Does she have a "right" to see that other woman's body? I'm just trying to clear up any confusion here. [quote] QUOTE: BrotherReed wrote: Right. Great art is often controversial. History has borne out who was correct here. 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] You know what, you're right. I really hope a thousand years from now people realize that the ceiling of the sistine chapel was actually pornography, and the church paints over it so that tourists will stop furiously masturbating to it. Maybe they'll just draw some tasteful running shorts on Adam and no one will notice. Make sure if you have kids you get their art history textbook from them and use a permanent marker to Sharpie over all the naughty bits. [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.[/quote] Let me be more clear. You said "If art depicting nakedness is okay, doesn't this mean that pornographic "XXX films" are okay" - my answer to that is no, it does not mean that. Art is not porn and every depiction of a human body is not pornography. You also said " because they are actually just paintings (color depictions) of images on film?" And I am saying that is not a reasoning I have ever used to differentiate art from pornography. The rationale that art depicting nakedness is okay has nothing to do with the fact that it's just color on canvas or an image on film. It has everything to do with what is being depicted as well as how and why.

Oh and one more thing. I think it prudent to point out that I am not saying just because something doesn't fall under the banner of porn that it is automatically moral or praiseworthy. You can't say much in defense of, say, The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. It' certainly isn't what you'd call art. But that doesn't make it pornography.

[b]KattyKit wrote:[/b] [quote]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.[/quote] On what basis is it wrong to have sexual relations in public, if it is not wrong to be naked in public? For example, if a college sex ed class wants live nude models to go that next step of modeling live sex in front of them. It's strictly for educational purposes, so what is your grounds for saying there is anything wrong with it...other than your own opinion?

Just pointing out... if the human body is automatically porn, then you were born porn, and all parents could be arrested for child pornography for merely giving you a bath time. Secondly, Roman punishment included stripping a prisoner of their garments and flogging them, then hanging them on the cross. All these pictures of Jesus with a skirt on a cross are highly inaccurate. Was Christ thus submitting himself to become porn? After all, he was nude in public... So, how do you define porn? Is it nudity, or is it nudity that exploits a sexual arousal? Alternatively, if every nude thing in a person's life acts as sexual arousal, then they may want to see a doctor for a sex addiction problem. There is nothing wrong with the human body. God created us for more than procreation. There is everything wrong with the lust that you allow your mind to fester in. This is where self control comes in. After all, the fruits of the spirit still apply. Discipline yourself.

BrotherReed, I'm pretty confident that it's quite clear your definitions of what is and is not porn are based on changing worldly biases and your own personal feelings on the matter...rather than any Scriptural or rationally conclusive foundation. Reading how vague, relative, and conflicting your standards are in this area pretty much make me see you have no clear definition for what porn is at all. To sum up my point once more...you admit that you agree there are certain types of images that, even if intended to cause lust, are not pornographic at all (a picture of a dog amongst those interested in bestiality, for instance). And you admit that there are certain images that a person may very well lust over, but that also are not pornographic (pedophile looking at pic of child in sun dress). Therefore, whether an image is intended to cause lust or not is completely irrelevant for defining what is and is not porn. As a quick review...porn is the root Greek term (from which we derived our modern root term porn), but that is mostly translated to the word fornication or sexual sin (in the Bible). So then the next obvious and logical question is...what is sexual? If you think it through and follow the example of Scripture...sexual is anything related to the private areas of a male or female (those area's God repeatedly refers to as "nakedness" in the Bible, which distinctly differentiate male from female, and which are now shameful to reveal in public). The Bible is very clear that public nakedness is not good, which parts of the body constitute nakedness for males or females, and why it is now shameful to display our naked forms in public (in our currently fallen state). So, what is public (in the context of sexuality)...not hard to figure out...in the observable presence of the opposite sex. The Bible makes clear exceptions for infants (breastfeeding, etc) or a person you are married to (one with). Jesus also made it clear that whether you are lusting over a woman (a picture of a woman) in front of you or whether you are lusting in the streaming images of your mind...it is the same thing. What is lust (Biblically)...a burning imagination of something that is not rightfully yours to take (physically or in your heart)...such as the nakedness of a woman that is not your own wife. Now, we've already established that lust has nothing to do with whether an image is porn or not, but I used that example to show that an image in front of you or an image in the theater of your mind are both equally porn if you have no right to take hold of such images. You're allowing yourself to trespass on what God Himself deemed as private property (after the Fall in Genesis). With all that said...pornography is simply any image that is publicly displaying nakedness. Period. Solid. No cultural biases and no feelings need get in the way of a right judgment as to what truly is or is not porn, according to the Bible and even natural reason itself. This brings me to another subject... We, as believers (myself included), need to be careful not to adopt the world's philosophy of Moral Relativism. This idea basically says that what is right or wrong is determined by the situation or each individual's feelings/personal beliefs about the matter at hand. Yet, God's Word teaches us that there are absolute truths and that moral principles are not relative to the beliefs of each person. As a side note, a weak conscience is a different principle...let me explain. [b][u]Moral Relativism in Thought versus Moral Relativism in Action[/u][/b] I've found that in the American Church, and within me as well, we have developed many of what I would call "blind spots" over the last century or so. Little by little, we have allowed ourselves to be desensitized by the daily degrading moral standards of our culture. Things that would have been unheard of (even among non-believers) just 100 years ago, are now casually accepted by even most churchgoers. There are many of these "blind spots" that have developed in the Church of America and they are causing subtle yet detrimental damage below the surface. Throughout these posts, I'll be using a lot of questions regarding things that the Church in America are not yet (generally) desensitized to. These will allow us to be able to compare our beliefs and ask the question: "why do I believe the very same thing is wrong in the socially unaccepted context, but do believe it is right in the socially accepted context?" This should help us to see where our secular society has influenced our beliefs/behavior rather than the Word of God and a healthy conscience being the standard of our beliefs/behavior. For instance...if there are people who are studying to be "sex therapists" and they're watching explicit videos of a husband and wife having intimate relations (XXX), some might view it and just see the "very origins of life and see something absolutely beautiful" (that's a real quote from such a person). But I ask you, does that make it right or healthy for them to watch this pornographic material? I think (hope) we can agree that the answer is No. Why? It's not about what each person believes, feels, what class (situation) they are in, or how many medical degrees they have and so on. It's about whether these are private images available to be watched by a public audience. That's what makes it pornographic in nature. That is why, for the same reason, videos of women giving birth (in which their nakedness is revealed) are pornographic as well. They expose private places of women to the public eye. Sure marital intimacy is a beautiful thing and sure childbirth is a beautiful thing, but they're private. Otherwise, if we're going to be relative on this point...why don't we all just go out naked in public and even share that nakedness together publicly by "having sex" in front of everyone? I'm sure people could make up all kinds of excuses under the sun to support that they have just as much a right to expose themselves as these women giving birth on TV do. Would you be able to argue against them, if you think it's ok for others? Morals cannot be based in "personal feelings" but rather in the Word of God.

[b]THeMadHatter wrote:[/b] [quote]Just pointing out... if the human body is automatically porn, then you were born porn, and all parents could be arrested for child pornography for merely giving you a bath time. Secondly, Roman punishment included stripping a prisoner of their garments and flogging them, then hanging them on the cross. All these pictures of Jesus with a skirt on a cross are highly inaccurate. Was Christ thus submitting himself to become porn? After all, he was nude in public... So, how do you define porn? Is it nudity, or is it nudity that exploits a sexual arousal? Alternatively, if every nude thing in a person's life acts as sexual arousal, then they may want to see a doctor for a sex addiction problem. There is nothing wrong with the human body. God created us for more than procreation. There is everything wrong with the lust that you allow your mind to fester in. This is where self control comes in. After all, the fruits of the spirit still apply. Discipline yourself.[/quote] It's obvious you didn't read my previous posts in their entirety, which is understandable given their length. But I would advise those who don't have time to read...should also consider that a good reason not to post (until you have time to read). Helps the discussion not get bogged down with perpetual repeating of ourselves, etc. On that note, though, I hope my last condensed definition of porn helped clear up your misunderstanding of what I define porn as. Regarding Jesus hanging naked on a cross...first, you have no real historical evidence for that. It was quite common, especially on a holy day, for the Jews (such as Passover) not to allow men to be exposed Naked in public. It was against their laws and the Roman's would have more likely tried to respect this by leaving him in a loin cloth, which is the minimum allowed for a man in public by Jewish law. They cast lots for his robes, not his underwear. Regardless, either way, does not the Bible portray Jesus taking on our shame on the cross? To be naked on a cross would be a shameful and embarrassing experience. It was a bad thing...not a beautiful thing. You've got it backwards. If a perv decided to make a XXX video of himself raping a women, that wouldn't make her guilty of the porn...but the video and images of her would be pornographic all the same. Them, even if what you're saying were true, in a way raping Jesus by ripping off his clothes until he was naked...does not make Him guilty of the shame and pornographic imagery that would have been on display there. No more than a woman being raped is gulity of the fornication that occurs as she is being violated. The rapist is guilty, but the act itself is still fornication (porn). Just like if a father and daughter don't know each other in life and accidentally sleep together one day (not knowing they are blood related)...that very act is still incest (because of the nature of their relationship) regardless of whether either of them are personally guilty of intending the incest or not...it is what it is, based on the Word of God.

Since you seem incapable of interpreting my position or unwilling to do so (indicated by your continual misrepresentation of my words), I'll state it plainly. To be pornography, three things are required: 1. It must be MATERIAL - i.e., a written or visual work. Erotic fiction, photographs, video, etc. A thought is by its nature IMMATERIAL (neither physical nor transferable) and thus is not pornography. 2. It must be EXPLICITLY SEXUAL. It must show explicit sexual activity or at the very least explicitly show sexual organs. This is why Victoria's Secret cannot be pornography. 3. Its intent is to AROUSE SEXUAL DESIRE, and it LACKS ARTISTIC MERIT. A work which artistically explores sex rather than simply showing you images to give you a sexual thrill, or a greater work of aesthetic value containing sexual imagery is not itself pornography. For instance, a video showing how to give a mammogram is not intended to arouse sexual desire and it has merit totally unrelated to sex. Therefore it is not porn. Similar, a brief clip of a porn movie shown within the film The Big Lebowski is porn, but that does not make The Big Lebowski a pornographic work. These are related because if a work has no clear merit beyond simply portraying something sexually explicit, it can be assumed that arousal or exploitation is its only motivation. Michelangelo's Creation of Adam meets only the first criterion. Not porn. A woman walking on a nude beach meets none of the above. Not porn. Of course you understand there are gray areas here. This is why rulings exist over whether a thing is obscene or not. A work has to be examined on its own merits. I guess I should thank you. At least by arguing my point in this thread it's helped solidify my understanding of how porn is defined.

[b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote]Since you seem incapable of interpreting my position or unwilling to do so (indicated by your continual misrepresentation of my words), I'll state it plainly. To be pornography, three things are required: 1. It must be MATERIAL - i.e., a written or visual work. Erotic fiction, photographs, video, etc. A thought is by its nature IMMATERIAL (neither physical nor transferable) and thus is not pornography.[/quote] I'll leave it to the readers to decide who is misrepresenting who and which definition of pornography clearly lines up with Scripture, as well as natural reason. I'm confident I've made my case in that arena. Regarding your definition... I've already stated that pornography indeed is, at its base form, an image of porn. "-Graphy" literally means, in this context, "an image of"...for example, a geo-graphy picture is an image of the earth's surface. Pretty basic. The official broader definition from the world is "a process or form of drawing, writing, representing, recording, describing or an art or science concerned with such a process." The common denominator to all of these aspects of even the word's generic definition is "to observe or present"...such as a picture that allows one to observe porn or that presents porn. For the sake of the subject at hand, whether certain images are pornographic or not...I simplified "-graphy" to being "an image of" which is logically the same but more specific to pictures (or videos, which are nothing more than a series of pictures). At any rate, "porn" is simply the word we see translated in the Bible as "fornication" or "sexual sin"...which Jesus plainly states fornication is committed not only in the "MATERIAL" but also in the heart and mind. This is why it is absolutely true that a porn (fornicating/sexually sinful) image on a picture, which is then beamed through a projector of light particles into your material eyes, then flipped backwards and projected directly onto the material movie screen inside your brain, and then viewed by you in the very material theater of your mind...is an image just as much pornographic as on the picture you are staring at. It doesn't matter what physical material your brain is able to receive the image from (paper or brain tissue)...it matters what the image is which is being viewed. Your argument more akin to some kind of gnostic philosophy in which you're actually trying to say that the physical material (picture) is evil itself. This is a severe misconception of reality. The truth is that the physical material is not good or evil, but it is the use of these materials (ie, what is displayed on them) that is good or evil. The image ON or IN the picture...not the physical picture (paper and paint) itself. [b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote]2. It must be EXPLICITLY SEXUAL. It must show explicit sexual activity or at the very least explicitly show sexual organs. This is why Victoria's Secret cannot be pornography.[/quote] I was just playing along with your supposed definition or requirement when you state that if an image is meant by the author to produce sexual desire in the recipient, then it is definitively pornography. The primary purpose of lingerie is to produce sexual desire in the one you are wearing it for (in front of). Common sense. I say if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Basic algebra. Whether they intend to or not, such images of women in skimpy lingerie do naturally arouse sexual desire in onlookers of the opposite sex. Even the world knows this about lingerie and consciously advertise to this effect. At any rate, my argument that most Victoria Secret images are pornographic is based on a few deeper principles in Scripture (regarding modesty of women) that I have not really even gotten into as of yet. I was just showing that you are indeed arguing out both sides of your mouth on this issue. [b]BrotherReed wrote:[/b] [quote]3. Its intent is to AROUSE SEXUAL DESIRE, and it LACKS ARTISTIC MERIT. A work which artistically explores sex rather than simply showing you images to give you a sexual thrill, or a greater work of aesthetic value containing sexual imagery is not itself pornography. For instance, a video showing how to give a mammogram is not intended to arouse sexual desire and it has merit totally unrelated to sex. [/quote] A completely made up definition based on your own personal feelings or maybe even a popular idea in our culture, but this is in no way a Scripture based definition. Lacks artistic merit? Are we making this up as we go along or are you not even interested in making sure your definition of such an important subject as porn (which the Bible specifically warns us to "flee" from) is based on the Word of God? On top of that, you finally admitted that you would even consider videos containing sexual intercourse to be non-pornographic...as long as it "artistically explores sex." I was already aware that is what your philosophy logically will lead one to accept, but I just wanted to make sure everyone else knew just how far this way of thinking can lead. It's important for others to see beyond the veneer on this one. Yeah, mammo's. I've personally worked in the medical field and saw a number of men collecting those mammo pics taken of women's breasts for their own personal enjoyment. Trust me ladies...you have plenty of fans out there who very much enjoy looking at your yearly updated pictures of your breasts. I'll get into this subject more specifically later, but I will say that it is much more advisable for women to research and make the lifestyle changes that prevent the onset of breast cancer, rather than shooting relatively high doses of radiation into your breasts and expecting that, in and of itself, not to cause cancer (even if it wasn't there in the first place). I knew doctor's that actually quit their practice, because they had enough of a conscience not to continue radiating women's breasts, which has been proven to be a direct cause of cancer growth in and of itself. Ladies, this is one of those medical situations that it is not worth the trade-off. There are plenty of natural methods you can find online that are proven to eliminate all forms of cancer, without needing to be violated or having to share your nakedness with men in the medical world. For instance, check out the following documentary for a good starting place. Enjoy. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/beautiful-truth/

Moving on... I'll just start by saying that my purpose in writing this thread was to not so much further define and explain the term pornography- but more so to help open our eyes to the underlying principles. I'm doing this as a foundation for some issues I'll be bringing up in upcoming chapters (much more controversial to our worldly culture) so that, when we get there, it won't seem all that controversial anymore. So, I began this chapter by being sure that the foundation of this discussion was God's Word. Now, I'm just trying to get us all on the same page by going through every objection or specific situation often raised in the past- so that there, hopefully, are no loose ends. These details aren't meant to bog you down, replace the leading of the Holy Spirit, or to cause us to give more attention to these images. I'm just seeking to broaden our understanding of these principles, so that we can apply them to our thought life (guard our heart). Let me address some observations others have made and try to explain my points a little clearer for those who may have had the same questions. To recap, pornography has been Biblically and rationally defined as any image that reveals private areas/activities to the public. It's both the image content and to whom it can be observed by (public). This is why it's perfectly acceptable for a mid-wife to see/touch a person's naked wife (in labor and such). It's not that she is naked, it's who is she naked in front of. I'll move on. Now, to keep everything in perspective, we are discussing the natural desire of man for a woman and vice versa. In a general sense, it could be said that not only does pornography not have to cause lust...but that just because an image is lusted after doesn't mean it is pornography. The reason I said "general" is because when I addressed lust in the last section, I was only referring to lust within the confines of natural sexual desire. So, I still say that if an image causes lust in a natural sexual sense (due to private areas/actions being shared between a man and woman who have no right to do so) it is pornographic by nature. But, if an image causes lust in a perverted sexual sense (pedophilia, foot fetish, or whatever craziness) then it does not apply. They have the perverted desires- this is not an equation. We can't redefine our sense of right based on abnormal (unnatural) spectators. Remember, though, if you know that a perfectly acceptable image is going to be shown to a particular person who has a perversion for whatever is in it- you should still try not to expose them to it. It is the loving thing to do, in light of their unnatural condition...even though the image is not actually pornographic in nature. [Romans 14:21] "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Don't let your freedom (because you are in the right) be an excuse to put a stumbling block before another. You would not be withholding the image ("drink " ) from them because it is pornographic (just as Paul was not saying that the meat was bad- by nature it was neutral), but because you don't want them to sin in their perverted mindset (against their own weak conscience). I hope everyone followed all of that. Remember, I'm not encouraging people to analyze pornographic images, I'm attempting to broaden your view of what is good or not good (porn) to take into your hearts. We need to be able to use our minds ("take every thought captive to the lordship of Christ " ) to guard our hearts from the affects of these images in the wrong context (outside of marriage). Many believers, in our culture, have little discernment (are very desensitized) when it comes to the images they let freely enter their hearts (the Holy Spirit does not speak through the areas of the conscience that are seared, because you won't be able to hear or sense Him in that area anyway). These (pornographic) images do have a negative impact, if you do not start actively taking them captive (in your mind) before they're able to be planted as seeds in your heart- as they will bear fruit into your soul & life in due time. The Word says, "My people perish for a lack of knowledge." [Proverbs 29:18] Most believers (at least in our culture) just don't have this knowledge anymore (their conscience is damaged) and it's only furthered as we strive to fit into our society. We need to be enlightened again, so that the Church can stop looking at and being "entertained" by the same pornographic (damaging) images that the world is. If you know anything about the life of a hardcore porn addict, you know that it changes their sexual desires, emotional depth, mental health, and especially how deeply intimate they're able to be with their spouse. This is what these images do to us if we let them into our hearts- even if to a lesser degree. Most believers know some things that should not be let into their hearts: Play Boy, XXX videos, and maybe nude art. But I'm making the case that people just 100 years ago were more sensitive than we are now for good reason. Ultimately, I'm attempting to show how God's standard for which images we should be allowing into our hearts and the ever-changing standard of this culture are very different these days. I'm building this on a solid foundation, so that we can start to see (discern) some of the things we're letting into our minds (through our physical senses, such as the eye gate) are not healthy. We need to start taking them captive. Again, I'm trying to affect your perception of what is pornography, not telling you to focus your life on it or to spend more time looking at it when you come across it (quite the opposite). Besides, this discussion about what is pornographic is just a stepping-stone. Once we're aware of "what" is pornography (according to God's standards), the Holy Spirit will convict us as we need- because our conscience will be open to it (but not before that happens). Lastly, for those who say "why can't we just rely on the Holy Spirit to let us know what is good and not good to look at"...well, the reality is that you cannot rely completely on your limited perception of what the Holy Spirit is saying is true (and good for you) without balancing yourself with the Word. This is why we cannot just start out our walk with the Lord by looking into our selves for guidance. God gave us His Word, pastors, teachers, and the like- so that we could learn the Truth and little by little come to a greater sensitivity to the leadings of His Spirit. This can only be accomplished as we faithfully continue to obey what we hear from His Word. You have to "try the spirits" (test them by the Scriptures) [1 John 4:1] and (eventually) you will become a mature son/daughter who can properly discern His Spirit's voice in these areas... [Colossians 1:28] "Him we preach, warning and instructing everyone in all wisdom, that we may present every person mature (full-grown and perfect) in Christ." [I Corinthians 2:6] "Yet when we are among the full-grown, we do impart a [higher] wisdom (the knowledge of the divine plan previously hidden); but it is indeed not a wisdom of this present age {or} of this world nor of the leaders {and} rulers of this age..." [I Corinthians 14:20] "Brethren, do not be children {immature} in your thinking; continue to be babes in [matters of] evil, but in your minds be mature." [Philippians 3:15] "So let those who are spiritually mature have this mind {and} hold these convictions; and if in any respect you have a different attitude of mind, God will make that clear to you also. Only let us hold true to what we have already attained {and} walk {and} order our lives by that. Brethren, together follow my example and observe those who live after the pattern we have set for you." If the Word (revealing God's truths about life) were not important, we could all just float around saying that the Holy Spirit will teach us everything and never read or listen to His Word. We have to be balanced. Let me make a point by plugging the message of this book into a passage of Scripture- just to show that I'm not operating outside of such principles (toward individuals), but rather in the very same heart that Paul expressed these points in his day: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 (my replacement words in {}): It is reported that there is fornication {porn} among you {in your heart}, and such fornication {pornography} as is not so much as named among the Gentiles {our culture 100 years ago}, that one has {passively looks at} his father's wife {any of the examples we have discussed as being porn}. And you are arrogant {you think your conscience and sensitivity is not lacking}! And you ought rather to mourn {stop ignoring the fact that you're passively letting porn into your eyes/mind/heart and start grieving over how it's effecting you; repent and admit to yourself your need for moral guidance and lack of God-given sensitivity} until the person {image, thought} who had done this thing {corrupting your heart} is removed from {taken captive out of} your fellowship {mind and heart}...{v6} Your boasting {thinking you are just following the spirit and that your passiveness toward these images is not desensitizing you} is not good {balanced}. Do you not know that a little leaven {porn} will ferment {corrupt, damage} the whole lump {soul and heart}. Purge {give conscious attention to and deal with} the old leaven {porn} that you may be fresh {pure} dough {soul and heart}, still uncontaminated {sensitive and not emotionally, sexually, mentally, maritally damaged}." I did that little play on words so that I could show I am speaking in the same manner Paul did. If we read the context in 1 Corinthians, we find that these people were thinking that they were "led by the Spirit" by tolerating, holding in their midst, and "ignoring" the fornication of this man who was having marital relations with his father's wife. But, in reality, they were acting this way out of a lack of knowledge (and lack of good conscience). They also made a similar error concerning tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, in that they thought they were all being "led by the Spirit" to speak in tongues all at the same time (out of order). So in both cases Paul (led by the Spirit, godly knowledge, and natural reason) came to admonish them (by letter) as to what they were seemingly unable to see themselves, why it was a problem, and what they could do to remedy it. This is all I'm trying to do here. I can tell you that Paul was definitely not trying to get them to go to this couple's home and stare at this man with his incestuous wife being intimate together. And neither am I. Now for those who might try to discount my last example in their own minds by saying that I was adding to the Scripture, the context proves otherwise. While I do understand where you're coming from, I have to say that it is due to a misunderstanding of what I was doing with that verse. If you read the context just before and after I quoted that verse, you will see that I was not using it to support my argument regarding "what is and is not pornographic" but, rather, I was showing that Paul addressed moral issues in the same manner that I am. My point was to show that we, in the Church, often need to be corrected by letter or by word- not just solely relying on our ability to discern what the Holy Spirit would have us do. That was the idea I sought to address- an unbalanced reliance on the Holy Spirit to reveal knowledge of right and wrong (without considering that you may have blind spots which hinder your ability to hear the Spirit in this area of your life). One clear example we see of this, in Scripture, is when Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter... [Galatians 1:11] "But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested {and} opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blamable {and} stood condemned." You see...Peter grew up in an environment in which it was acceptable, by the culture around him, to be prejudice toward certain people groups. This created a blind spot in his heart, mind, and conscience- which hindered him from being able to perceive what the Holy Spirit would have for him to do in this area of his life. Although being prejudice is no longer acceptable in our culture, many forms of pornography and sexual immorality are considered acceptable or commonplace. The Church in America needs to be "protested and opposed" to our face (for our own good) so that we can start gradually becoming more and more sensitive to the Spirit's true leading (from within) in this area of our lives...so that we can experience the true freedom that God would have for us. Putting my words enclosed next to Paul's was to show a similarity in concept, not to actually misrepresent what Paul was really saying. Your argument would only have applied well if I was truly saying that my words were what was actually implied by Paul's words. I was not saying that at all (at least not as an exact parallel in every term). I was just giving commentary within the text to support my reasoning that the Church needs to gain knowledge from the Word and then the Holy Spirit will lead us "into all truth." He will convict us regarding that knowledge, not be the only source of that knowledge. Otherwise, we would all be able to write the entire Bible just automatically out of our heads the day after we receive His Spirit. It doesn't work that way. More often than not, the primary way that the truth comes to be spoken ill of by the world are when the Church is in such compromise or rebellion. As a matter of fact, I often hear comments from the world that support this concept found in Scripture. The world says things like "those Christians are all a bunch of hypocrites." Have you ever heard that said before? They don't say that because of a lack in our speaking the truth, they say that because we are not applying the truths of the Word of God to every aspect of our lives (holiness). [Matthew 5:16] "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." You see, we are supposed to be salt and light. Our lives should so shine truth before men that the light pierces their darkness (hurting/opening their eyes; revealing their sin) and we should live so balanced/soberly/holy before the Lord that we are like salt (burning/cleansing their open wounds of sinfulness). We should not conform to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind (by the Word). [Romans 12:2] What good is salt, if it has lost its saltiness? [Matthew 5:13] If we are the salt and light that we ought to be, the world will have one of two reactions...they will either lash back at us with comments like "fundamentalist bible thumper" (possibly even getting physical) or they will be made painfully aware of their darkness (their need for the knowledge of what's right) and they will become painfully aware of their wounds (sin) when they see the contrasting holiness in the lives of believers. Either way, we are called to be holy as the Lord is holy- if we suffer criticism from the world for that, then so be it. Some will come to the light and some will reject it. Such is our calling. Regarding those who have deceived themselves into believing that it is a sign of maturity to be accustomed (less sensitive to, not shocked by) the presence of porn and that it seems childlike to avoid such things...well, Jesus did say that we could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless we first became like children. [Matthew 18:3] Also, the Word does command us to specifically "flee fornication." [1 Corinthians 6:18] In other words, the Scriptures say that we should flee porn (fornication)- which would include images of fornication (pornography). So, I guess you could construe that as a child like act, but it is what the Lord told us to do. This is the very concept behind why I don't like to go to the beach, unless it's in the evening or at a spot where it's somewhat secluded. Having all of those women running around in, well, skimpy underwear doesn't make for a very fun experience to me. I think if we lived in Greece (nude beaches) you might relate to me a little better in the discomfort you might feel in such an environment. So, since most women go to the beach basically naked, I tend to stay away from our local beaches. To me it would be like someone inviting me to hang out in the girl's locker room (while they're dressing/undressing)...no, thanks. The beaches where I grew up were beautiful at night though. I got the majority of my sun by taking walks during the day. Besides, it's not good to lay out (stationary) in the sun anyway- bad for your skin. It's probably because God made us to work in the sun, not just sit and bake in it- the chemicals, oils, and air flow differently when we’re moving. I suppose that's enough said regarding that subject. Now, for those who would try to use Matthew 5:28 to support the argument that the responsibility for causing lust is only on the part of the one who is struggling with that temptation...that position is just not Scripturally sound and is frankly quite selfish. It just completely ignores Romans 14 for one thing. I mean, Paul was clearly teaching the very concept that such ideas seek to criticize. I think Paul could give you a similar answer as I am now. Of course you should not be dogmatically adapting your choices to every man's perverted desires, but you should have a heart that desires to do so (when reasonably possible) and especially when he/she is a brother/sister in the Lord. This applies whether we're talking about meat & wine in Paul's day or pictures & videos in our day.

You seem to have done enough research on this subject to know that I'm not just pulling this out of my hind end. That definition is not something I personally decided. From wikipedia: "Pornography may use a variety of [b]media,[/b] including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games. The term [b]applies to the depiction of the act rather than the act itself,[/b] and so does not include live exhibitions like sex shows and striptease." Emphasis mine. Why? Because... "The word is similar to the modern Greek πορνογραφία (pornographia), which derives from the Greek words πόρνη (pornē, "prostitute" and πορνεία - pornea, "prostitution"[4]), and γράφειν (graphein, "to write or to record", derived meaning "illustration", cf. "graph"), and the suffix -ία (-ia, meaning "state of", "property of", or "place of"), thus meaning "a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution". That clears the first part of my statement, that it must be material. From what you wrote it seems you agree, except that you want to lump mental images into this category. Very well, agree to disagree. But there's nothing gnostic about it. [quote]Your argument more akin to some kind of gnostic philosophy in which you're actually trying to say that the physical material (picture) is evil itself. This is a severe misconception of reality. The truth is that the physical material is not good or evil, but it is the use of these materials (ie, what is displayed on them) that is good or evil. The image ON or IN the picture...not the physical picture (paper and paint) itself.[/quote] I have never said anything like this, nor would I ever. [quote]The primary purpose of lingerie is to produce sexual desire in the one you are wearing it for (in front of). Common sense. I say if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Basic algebra. Whether they intend to or not, such images of women in skimpy lingerie do naturally arouse sexual desire in onlookers of the opposite sex. Even the world knows this about lingerie and consciously advertise to this effect.[/quote] Even if it were true that the whole reasoning behind Victoria's Secret is the arousal of sexual desire (which it is not - it would appeal to men and I don't see too many men in Victoria's Secret buying underwear for their lady because of how the girls on the catalog looked), it still would not be sexually explicit and so would not satisfy the definition of pornography. There's no double standard. Once again, this is in no way a made up definition. Wiki again, just to show how easy it is to find this information: "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter [b]for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction[/b]." This is the very definition at its most basic, and nothing that I came up with. I understand that you are trying to say the modern definition of porn doesn't line up with Scripture. Fine. But at least start by understanding what you're arguing against. Your dismissing me as if I've somehow conjured up a definition of porn that fits my own standards is silly. I have neither the need nor desire to do that. Unless you start by acknowledging what porn means to us right now, how can you expect to go about changing the way we think about it? Your posts are confusing because you use words in ways that mean multiple things at once, or to mean something other than what is obvious. You're treating "Pornography" and "porn" like they are two different things - one the recording of an act and the other anything that is sexually immoral, but to most people they are one and the same, porn simply being a shortened form of the word. And when you try to argue your point to someone who isn't making that (admittedly very unusual) distinction, it's easy for meaning to get lost. I hope you understand that I say this without anger or malice or ill intent. Granted I've probably at some point argued just to argue - why else do I keep posting in this thread when it's going nowhere? I'm entertained. And, just like the photo of the kid in the swimsuit, we're both agreed that someone looking at a thing with lust doesn't make it pornographic; so that goes for mammograms, which are not sexually explicit. I'll throw you a bone and say that under your definition, it's something private being shown in a non-private setting which to you indicates it is porn. Am I right? However do you consider a woman's breast a sexual organ? It's not involved in the sex act, and of course men also have nipples. Maybe I missed a part of your post (easy to do since they're so long) that argued men should also keep their shirts on? I'd actually respect that position somewhat since it would at least be consistent. EDIT: Those Greek characters didn't show up but you get the idea.