So, What IS Pornography, Anyhow?

This question has been the bane of many court arguments.  Having assisted to put this site together, the issue has arisen as to "what" is indecent.  Contrary to some of the "prudes" who visit the site just to denounce the content because there is nudity displayed, I wanted to address the concept of "PORNOGRAPHY" and insist that while many of the images here contain nudity & are considered by some to be "erotic", -- it is a firm belief that there is no "PORNOGRAPHY" on this site other than those examples that illustrate it for the purpose of denouncing it. 

The Bible & Porography:

I find it ironic that the Bible, if judged by many of the Laws still on the books in certain locales -- WOULD be deemed PORNOGRAPHIC.  It is "pregnant" with allegorical references to sex (As this scathing parody makes clear).  If one was to look merely at the surface of some of the text, it would be easy to say: "Ban THAT"!  My, what a ruckus that would create!  Well, as some of you readers may have noticed by now ... this site is not one to simply look at the "surface" of a thing & make an arbitrary judgment.  If nudity or the description of sexual acts was by nature "PORN", then books like the Bible would be self-condemned.  Some look at the principles the Scripture itself gives a tip-off as to what "PORN" really is:

Is NUDITY, "PORN"?

Nudity in itself cannot be "PORN".  Why?  Because it is universally understood that the most beautiful images of people are often nudes.  For those of you in relationships, -- do you see your naked "other" as "pornographic", or perhaps so beautiful that you desire to be at one with him?  However, there is no doubt that NUDITY is often connected with PORN.  Let's examine that dynamic: How much "nudity" constitutes "EROTIC" ... and does being "EROTIC" in itself constitute "PORNOGRAPHY"?

Paul -- & his Exposition on Porn: 

The Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament letters to the churches.  If you look at his background, -- not only was the man a brilliant Lawyer, but he was also the least likely to have written what he wrote prior to his supernatural conversion to Yeshua as Messiah.  Paul understood that the nature of "Sin" itself had to do with the way in which a person saw the world.  Therefore, he made it clear that "sin" is partly abstract -- based on the dictates of an individuals conscience toward an act.  He wrote: "RO 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

RO 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

RO 14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

RO 14:22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

A little background: The "MEAT" Paul is talking about is that which has been sold from a pagan market -- usually dedicated to some idol/demon-god before being sold.  [For those of you who think this lesson is out of touch for today, I suggest you consider the CORPORATE LOGO on the food you buy at the supermarket and the fact the packaging has a '666' in the bar code (as does the URL of any web page {gasp!} when spoken in Hebrew) ... but I digress.] 

Paul was discussing "disputable matters".  His message was that a person acted on their conscience based on what they believed.  His lesson was that men with strong faith could often do things with clear consciences, that men with weak faith could not.  It was not the nature of the "thing" that made the difference but the perception of the individual about the thing.  Under Jewish Law, it was unlawful to eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol.  Paul's teaching explains that in Christ, we have been freed from the Law of Moses (not by magic ... but by lawful mechanism).  He continued by saying that some people did not understand that mechanism and because they were unenlightened as to the "WHY", their faith was weak and they tended to use the Law of Moses (with it's variety of restrictions) as a moral compass.   Paul went on to explain that an idol was nothing (carved wood, etc), and that it had no power so men who understood that principle were at liberty to eat the "meat" because they understood the "WHY".  He also made it clear that those who understood their liberty in these matters not use the act as a means to cause another person to violate their own conscience.  I.E: Just because a person understand the mechanism where they can eat un-kosher food, they should not use this knowledge to coerce someone who does NOT KNOW the WHY into eating un-kosher food, because the one who eats in doubt, violates his own conscience & to him, it is sin.  This is absolutely logical because the focus is not on the "disputable act", but in the intent of the heart.  Remember the (2) principles of Christianity:
1) Love God
2) Love People
(...end of rules).  See, sin is tied to the acts of a weak conscience because a man who will violate his own conscience is capable of anything evil!  Today they kill & eat pork, & tomorrow they kill & eat people; -- IF the act is not based on an understanding of "WHY".        

The same principle is true today...which is part of the reason that genuine Christianity is timeless.  In this case, we're confronted with images (is it PORN?).  Paul noticed an astonishing dynamic.  He observed: "For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.  I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."

Paul's observation in red near the end of the passage explains why prudery will never work; & the demands of the "Moral Majority" will never be satisfied.  It reminds me of an observation my grandmother made.  She recalled that when she was a young girl that a woman's dress went from wrist to ankle and that showing an ankle was "erotic".  By contrast, she observed that today, women could walk around in a bikini & it wasn't considered to be a big deal.  And today, what is considered "erotic"?  Why, if the bikini shows a "nipple".  From erotic "ankles" reduced to "nipples"?  What's going on?  The above principle! Paul observes that it's only when the law makes a thing unavailable that the principle of "coveting" steps in.  He's drawing his analogy from the Genesis account about the only forbidden tree and how the commandment (given to preserve life) not to eat from it, was used by this "principle of sin" to create coveting for it! 

See, clothing that forbids visual access will create coveting for the very thing forbidden!  This is why people who live in repressive cultures (like many Arabs) consider erotica to be as simple as a woman showing a wrist (& to combat the 'lust' they insist their women be heavily veiled -- which according to Paul, actually makes the problem worse)!  Meanwhile in Scandinavia, it's not unusual for women to go topless & people who grow up in such a society barely notice!  It may seem ironic ... but the solution to prudery, is in nudity!  Fundamentalism simply can't grasp this principle which is why Paul calls it "hidden wisdom".

So then, in light of this understanding, the concept of "erotic" is completely amorphous.  However, the principle of "coveting" is what I believe to be a foundation for what is truly "Pornography".  If a fundamental moral principle is to: Love People, then PORN must violate that principle in order to be sin.  This is where a 2-fold dynamic occurs:

My observation is that "pornographic imagery" dehumanizes it's subjects.  As soon as you reach this conclusion, then the principle becomes much more prevalent & often completely unrecognized by those who presume themselves to be the "police" of prudery.  Consider this image:

Notice how the focus is not on the person, but on "ASS shots"?  The humanity of the models in the video means virtually nothing to the minds who assembled that site.  They are there for one reason: Because they will accept payment in return for their violated image being captured on video.    Payment for their images being "violated"...  Isn't payment for "no-strings" sex usually associated with prostitution?  Hmmmm... but YOU decide...


Here's something not as obvious:

Seems harmless enough?  But, let's consider the primary question (which is NOT 'Nudity'): Do these models become dehumanized in order to showcase a fetish?  That's a little bit more difficult to answer.  Some images may be "neutral", while others my be staged to illustrate some sort of "fetish oriented abuse".  Once you understand that "PORN" isn't as much an issue of nudity as it is turning the person into an object merely to showcase fetish (whether it is nude feet or a nude penis) -- PORNOGRAPHY suggests a fetish attachment, & the person -- an expendable sexual object.  It says: "Thanks for getting me off.  Now go away...that is until I need my next sexual release"


Diapers are disposable; -- People are not -- ever.  And this is why the message of "pornography" is an evil thing.  Pornography sees people as expendable "commodities".  The "predisposition to abuse", is often in the mind of an individual; - And, since "intent" is often within the mind of a person, you can never be sure how a person "sees" an image, - which is why any imposed censorship should always give benefit of the doubt.  However, "benefit of the doubt" is often not the case; -- and a dangerous legal precedent is being set.  I recently visited a website that was an archive of old pictures.  Where some of the pictures had been displayed, there were empty frames containing a link to the webmaster's comments.  The pictures that had been removed were early 20th century, and had been images of infants being given baths -- usually in a sink or a big pot of some kind (many people have seen such pictures).  Because the images contained pictures of adult arms (doing the bathing) in the same frame as a naked baby, the images are classified under US Law as "Child Pornography".  Imagine that.  So, if your family photo album has similar pictures, you may want to encrypt them before you find yourself accused with possession of "Kiddie Porn" & the news media declare your villainy without the slightest understanding of CONTEXT.  You see: The inmates have indeed taken over the asylum.

I told ya so!

The image to the right is a snapshot of an article posted several YEARS after I wrote the above paragraph.  It is one of a growing number to stories that is precisely a result of the draconian set of insane laws at the federal level that try to classify what "pornography" is.

What is truly obscene is the toll that such stupidity is taking on the lives of people who are only "guilty" of possessing images that may contain an "adult" in the same frame as a partially/nude child.  So, it's OK under these laws to give your child a bath, -but just don't take any pictures of the dastardly deed! Or, if your child gets partially/naked at a pool, - possessing pictures of the event might get you 10 years!

Of course, I mention the complete hypocrisy & selective enforcement evidence as you consider that the FCC has allowed images of "baby at powder/bath time" on the TV for decades!  Where would advertisers be if they couldn't show baby's smooth arse free of diaper-rash as mommy gives a relieved hug?

So: Here's my admonition again. ENCRYPT EVERYTHING.  Don't let the 'Conspiracy of Lawyers" destroy your life with foolishness disguised as "law".  Society has clearly & demonstrably been overtaken by politician-idiots when pictures of a man with a bullwhip up his arse are protected speech, -but a child at a public pool is "illegal-pornography"!  (Onion Special Report)

ENCRYPT EVERYTHING


However, images that are "designed" in order to give a certain impression or hint at abusing others -- are usually simple to discern --to know the "intent" of the producer.  For example: A video depicting people being beaten & hurt so that somebody can have their way sexually with them -- for the mere sake of producing such a video, seems to me to be clearly pornographic. But, images documenting a crime in progress are clearly protected speech -but are nevertheless, potentially pornographic. A prime example would be the images released from Abu Ghurayb prison in Iraq. These images depict inmates being subjected to cruel & unusual treatment involving sexual harassment, & lewd acts (amazingly the ButtPhuckTyranny & the US Government seem to be strange bedfellows here).  Shown in the images above are what some female guards do to intimidate male Iraqi prisoners.  Golly, this makes you wonder what the male guards do to intimidate the female Iraqi prisoners? This is clearly sexual assault & battery (that would normally get the perpetrators 2-5 years in prison themselves for EACH count), - & brought to you by the same government who wants to amend the US Constitution to define what a "marriage" is.  I'm sure knowing marriage is in such "capable" hands makes you feel better about the issue already.  The US Government seems to insist they did not know this kind of treatment was occurring.  If you believe that, I have some time-shares in Guantanamo Bay I'd like to sell you. 

The gross-irony with these images is that the press pixelated out the private-parts of the people in the pictures.  It seems fairly obvious to me that what makes these images "obscene", is not the "private-parts" of the prisoners being abused -- but the fact that the images depict the abuse itself! This really makes a stunning point because there are people who are so sociopathic -that they are not offended by "the big picture" showcased by these images, but they would be "offended" if private-parts weren't pixelated out (...if that doesn't describe vain-religion in a nutshell)! 
That is a prime example of what Jesus called "Straining out a gnat to swallow a camel"!

This is a clear example of how messed-up society is regarding such matters.  The same group of social imbeciles would be the 1st ones to insist that an image of the crucifixion of Christ have his genitals pixelated out if the artwork was actually true to the practice of crucifixion!  To me, the pornographic nature of such an image isn't that the person is naked -- but that a human being is nailed to a piece of wood.  I think the expletive is in order: "Wake the Phuck Up"!


So: When considering the simple issue of "porn", presentation context bears great weight, -- as does the mental state of the viewer

Does anyone remember the first Sears Catalogs that were printed with underwear-clad models in them?  It was before my day ... but I've read enough postings online to realize that the example is a great illustration of my point.  It's obvious that more than one "future sex offender" probably got his jollies as a teen by looking at the pictures in that catalog.  However, it is an established belief that it is a MINDSET within certain persons that dehumanizes the model -- as an object for sexual pleasure.  Unfortunately, as the BPT has proven over and over, -- a statute cannot be made to force people to love one another; - So, I believe that this issue will always be among us & certain men will always find a way to violate the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter.  Which brings me back to what Paul wrote: "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves."

So then, 'Rabid Fundamentalism & Conservatism" each want to "ban all 'dirty pictures' in the name of morality", -- despite the fact that history has proven that the more reserved a society is, the less it takes to plunge it into all manner of coveting!   In other words, "Erotica gets it's cues from prudery's assertion that certain things are erotic".   Anyone here interested in a shoebox full of ankle & knee pictures?  No?  I bet there's a market for them in Arabia (& maybe parts of Virginia)! 

Grasping this concept, it becomes obvious that the images on this site provided as artistic content are not intended as "pornographic" -- despite nudity & semi- risqué depictions of human sexuality (I.E: The background image on this page).  Other images, while available in the public domain such as the "ASS TRAFFIC" image shown above -- are most likely pornographic, -- but used as examples on this site to depict them as such & illustrate the distinction.  This is perhaps a textbook example of the 1st Amendment Protections in the US Constitution in practical use to help get across a message.



TID-BITS:

Q: How did Pat Robertson propose marriage?
A: "You're going to have a WHAT!"
That's right: Patty & Mrs. Patty were horny unweds going at it without protection.  Marriage seemed the way to deal with the "9-month crisis".  It makes you think though ... that despite all their talk about "celibacy", -- they proved what a couple of hypocrites they were.  Consider: If Patty's compass had pointed toward boys instead of girls ... he'd been a "Gawd Damned Practicing Homo!"; -- Another group he insists do something that he couldn't: Be celibate.

Q: What part of the population that amounts to almost 51% -did the late Dr. Jerry Falwell think needs "Minority" protection?
A: Women!
"I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc. are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status." - Jerry Falwell, USA Today

Q: What Doctor Laura Slushslinger said about GLIB people:    vs.
A: What she probably intended to say: 


Oral Report...

OBSERVATION: Scripturally - Oral sex (fellatio) did not seem to be prohibited in any context other than ejaculating outside of a vagina made a person ceremonially unclean until the evening.  The mouth is not technically 'penetrated' (it is made to put things into).  In addition, a person giving fellatio is often in a position to simultaneously receive (called 69'ng -- so no-one needs be unequal in the act if they choose to reciprocate).  Finally, check out this account of a teaching that Jesus gave: "Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not defile him, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what defiles."    Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."  "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.  "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?  But the things that come out of the mouth that come from the heart, -- these are what defile a man  For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultery, immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.  These are what defile the man; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile.  Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees (the legal & religious experts of the day) were offended by your words on this?"  He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."- Matt 15  This teaching was touched off when the religious leaders of his day wanted to start an argument by noting that Jesus' followers did not all wash their hands before they ate.  Jesus proceeded to expand the subject BEYOND the scope of mere food to cover "things that enter the mouth".  This is why the Pharisees were so miffed...they got the scope of Jesus' message & it flew in the face of their legalism...hard
Paul also draws a similar observation in his letters. "Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not allow anything to control me. Meat is for the stomach, and the stomach is for meat, but God will put an end to both of them."
 - 1Co 6  Paul's point was the same as Jesus', -- meaning what goes into a man does not defile (spiritually desecrate) the man.  However, he also went on to write that he lived his life so that no THING controlled him, -- noting that the body is not meant for whoredom ("PORNei" - Gr).  Paul's message is to govern your passions, - not be governed by them.  And in the context of sobriety, - enjoy your life; -- Knowing that actions that cause harm, bring God's judgment (& perhaps the judgment of this world in the now).  "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he allows!" - Paul