Four Surprising Things the Church Doesn’t Use to Define Pornography
The definition of pornography is something that has eluded modern society for years. Most notably, when the Supreme Court issued judgement as to whether or not pornography is an obscenity, Justice Potter Stewart concluded:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…
—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
This standard of each person’s judgement defining what is and isn’t pornography apparently took hold and is largely prevalent in society today, so much to the degree that something is only considered pornography when it cannot be considered anything else; when no more clothing can be removed and when it is marketed as such. Interestingly enough, as America, in culture and government, has become more and more secularized, the “Keep calm and Catholic on” mindset has found root in many of the faithful. When a Catholic can no longer trust society for even residue of common sense, they turn to the Church for answers with greater frequency. If the above definition of pornography cannot be accepted, what does the Church say?
Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
—Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2354 (emphasis added)
For the sake of dispelling any preconceived notions, I think it is important to make note of what the Church does not use as criteria for defining pornography:
- Nudity – It seems that pornography is universally understood to go hand in hand with nudity, but this is not so. The Catechism only names “real or simulated sexual acts” and does not make a distinction for revealing certain parts of the body. The connection of nudity to pornography can lead to a significant misunderstanding of a legitimate display of nudity within art; one sees nudity as pornography in either all cases or no cases and has difficulty with those who might find a distinction between the two. Nudity can properly be displayed in art for the sake of beauty and, technically speaking, could exist in Hollywood movies, but given the secularization and sexualization of the western culture, nudity is too closely tied with objectification for it to to been otherwise (with rare exception as in movies with naked babies or those about the Holocaust or indigenous peoples). This is similar to the practice of liturgial dance, which is not actually forbidden, but is unusable in western churches:
Here, dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.
For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations. - Marketing as pornographic – A DVD movie containing sexual scenes might be sold in the same Drama section as The Song of Bernadette, but that does not change the fact that portions of the film meet the Church’s definition of pornography. Undoubtedly, this false pretense is often the only difference between what is and isn’t considered to be porn.
- Societal acceptance as pornographic – As I stated above, today’s “I know it when I see it” non-definition of pornography is a far cry from what it used to be. Movies with sexual content might be accepted by usually moral people if there is only one offending scene. Or two. Or there is no nudity. Or only brief nudity. After a while, it begins to sound like people who don’t think life begins at conception and start throwing out landmarks in development for the life threshold; when the heart starts beating, brainwaves, can survive on his or her own at 22 weeks, and so on.
- Intention of being pornographic – It seems unlikely that major Hollywood directors think, “I want at least one porn scene in my movie” and unlikely that major film actors think something similar, yet the scenes are directed and the actors star in them. In spite of the intention of producing “art,” grave damage is still done to the hundreds of participants (listed in the movie’s credits) as well as the public, as is mentioned in #2354. Matt Archbold at CMR brought up an interesting point about mature content in movies by drawing a distinction between the films that glorify sex and violence and the films that illustrate the degradation of illicit sex and violence. I agree with his point that such a contrast easily exists in regard to violence in movies, but the issue of sex is altogether different; an actor is never actually being stabbed in the heart, but an actress is actually revealing her body or “simulating sexual acts” – regardless of context.
I understand that this reading of the Church’s definition of pornography is not common and can cause a bit of disruption in one’s movie collection. There was a time that I owned all the movies I loved, but upon reading and meditating on #2354 I was faced with a choice: 1)Consent to owning some of the greatest movies ever made that happened to contain scenes of pornography; 2)Throw out the movies that contained scenes of pornography; 3)Deny the Church’s teaching and head to the Cafeteria.
Consider the comment box open for discussion. In the words of Fr. Z: Let’s keep it above the level of “they are poopy-heads for doing that.”
If you think I’m wrong at least in part, please leave a comment below and explain why.
If you think I’m spot-on, let me know about your own experience handling the entertainment industry or those that disagree with you.
As always, share this on Facebook and Twitter
35 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Four surprising things the Church doesn't use to define pornography... - Christian Forums - [...] some of the greatest movies ever made that happened to contain scenes of pornography,{pu... Four ...
- Four surprising things the Church doesn’t use to define pornography | Unapologetically Catholic - [...] Four surprising things the Church doesn’t use to define pornography http://truthandcharity.net/four-surprising-things-the-church-doesnt-use-to-define-pornography/ [...]
About the Author
Andrew is honored to be husband to a truly humble and loving woman and father to their three sons. His Catholic faith led him to Benedictine College where his studies focused on Theology, Philosophy, and Psychology. Andrew is an avid fisherman and an experienced musician. Since 2008, Andrew has taught Theology at Loyola College Prep High School in Shreveport, LA.
Download Children’s Rosary CD
Good post on a topic I’ve addressed many times. You highlight a number of valuable points not as widely recognized as they should be. It’s very much worth pointing out that sex scenes without any nudity at all can be pornographic — and also that exploitative images that fall short of the definition of pornography can also be degrading both to the performers and to the viewer.
I would only add that, granting your legitimate point about the problem of hyper-sexualization and objectification of the female form in particular in Western culture, the obvious cases noted above where nudity may be legitimately depicted (infantile nudity, highly problematized nudity as in Holocaust films, ethnographic nudity) aren’t necessarily the only cases in which nudity may be legitimately depicted. (Which, of course, you hadn’t said they were.)
For example, the edifying documentary Babies includes depictions of maternal nudity, not only in the portrayal of indigenous peoples (notably the Himba mothers in Namibia), but also in developed urban contexts (mothers in San Francisco and Tokyo). Nothing in my Western cultural context compels me to regard frank depictions of nursing mothers as morally legitimate only in an indigenous context.
I think there is also room for liberty in cinema for nonsexual nudity used to legitimate aesthetic and dramatic effect. The painterly use of nudity in the religiously charged art film The Mill & the Cross (a young mother dressing in the morning) is a good example (even though it is slightly sexualized by the naturalistic touch of a young boy’s furtive curiosity in his mother’s naked form).
Where to draw the line is a question on which I think Catholics may, within limits, reasonably disagree. I can understand someone objecting to the erotically charged scene in Peter Weir’s Witness in which the Amish widow allows a detective to see her topless; for me the use of nudity is informed by the moral significance of the scene, resisting temptation. There are also movies without any nudity that all that I find exploitative that others might not.
What movies are no longer in your collection? “Keep calm and Catholic On”….I think this is a great motto to live by. Thanks. Blessings to you.
Many of IMDB’s top 100 like The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, The Count of Monte Cristo. The scene in TCoMC was brief and from a distance… but it’s there.
Very interesting post. Just curious if you’ve seen the new Les Mis movie, and how two scenes would be classified: the prostitute and the inn scene with “Santa”. I was not bothered by the prostitute scene – it was done tastefully, and necessary in the context of the movie / plot. The inn scene with “Santa,” however, disturbed me greatly. I understand the intent was to show the degradation of the innkeepers – but pieces of the scene were not essential to get that point across. Did anyone else have thoughts on this?
No I have not seen it, but I think illustrating issues like prostitution in movies doesn’t actually require the depiction of any acts of prostitution nor do they need to show prostitutes in (undeniably) sexual dress. It is possible to convey that someone is a prostitute without accurately dressing the part. Moviegoers may cry “UNREALISTIC!” at a modestly dressed prostitute, but I think it more appropriate to sacrifice a little realism rather than an actress’s dignity.
Very interesting piece, and I guess a lot of us will have a lot of thinking to do in terms of what we define as pornography and what it is. One could take a movie like ‘Titanic’ for example, where there is nudity and one might think “well sure then, I’ll throw this one out”, but based on the logic (which I can totally concur with), nudity is not all it takes, so one can conclude that it is fine. But then again there is a sex scene in the movie that, even though nothing overtly crude or explicit is shown, it does kind of show a moment of climax which can bring a dilemma again… I guess my question here is: where do we draw the line? or how do we separate one and the other? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for redefining our views on what is harmful and pornographic and I do want to follow the church’s teachings in this regard. But it just got me thinking… Again, great piece. Thanks
Titanic has nudity in one scene that may not be pornography per se, but Titanic also does have a sex scene.
Thankfully, the movie was terrible and I never felt the urge to watch it again.
One thing that can be done is to use video editing software and just cut the offensive scenes out of the movies.
Then you can watch (or friends, family, etc) without them seeing that trash.
Most movies have one sex scene to them so its never anything that’s hard to and never takes away from the story (which shows you the scenes never had to be there in the first place…).
I would mostly echo SDG’s comments. I would caution on a per se rule of throwing away movies just because there is some troublesome scene. I have a Sesame Street movie where there is a scene that insidiously suggests moral relativism, but I have no inclination to throw it away, just to caution the kids if I think it could be negatively influential. If you have a movie with a pornographic scene (church definition), you are cooperating with evil (pornography) and possibly committing your own sins of pornovision. Yet if you know that you have generally conquered concupiscence and are not likely susceptible to the pornovision/lust, then the question of watching the movie is one of cooperating with the pornography. The remote form of cooperation and not internally willing the evil would seem to permit the possibility of owning and watching the movies as long as they have some intrinsic merit. Prudence and scandal certainly inform the question as well.
@ Micah Murphy: agreed – pragmatic theology for the win!
I think you raise a valid point, but even if a person had entirely conquered concupiscence, it seems that it still offends the dignity of those involved simply by their participation. Whether or not that disqualifies a movie from moral ownership might be it’s own question.
I would advise against the understanding that one has “generally conquered concupiscence”. The Magisterium has taught, repeatedly, that one is never truly free from concupiscence and thus should always avoid near occasions for sin. The only time we will be free from concupiscence, outside of specified grace given by God, is when we die.
Therefore, I would say that Mr. Sciba is right on regarding his distinction in movies concerning different “sinful acts” (i.e..killing vs nudity/promiscuity)
Thanks for that… I was just about to ask how does one conquer concupiscence!
Christ calls man to overcome concupiscence in the redemption of the body, not merely as an aspect of heaven but in the here and now. To think we are totally depraved and must flee the presence of sin like madmen is to deny Christ’s redemptive power working within us. I’m not advocating chasing sin or its near occasion. Yet, if we have some reason to believe we understand and respect the ethos of the subjectivity of the body, we can tolerate serenely some misunderstanding in its portrayal by others. If we find that we have problems in this area, we prudently take greater steps to remove this temptation (e.g., throwing away the movies). Concupiscence is always with us until death, but it need not dominate us. For some reference of these ideas, see John Paul II’s “Man Called to Overcome Concupiscence” here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=929
I agree with Matt Archbold at CMR. Watching the controversial sex scene made me find prostitution and pornography in general all the more repulsive – The natural reaction to such blatant ugliness is disgust. It practically puts flesh on the church’s teachings about the sins (pun intended) and shows them as hideous.
As for options for your DVD collections, assuming that you and your household do not have a problem keeping away from the sex scenes, I see absolutely no problem with merely skipping the pornography and enjoying the rest of the films.
I intend to take all of my High School Senior Religion classes to see Les Mis at the theater in the next week with the blessing of my principal and diocese.
Those are really good points, and they’ve made me think a bunch. One question that occurred to me is “Does pornography have to be visual?” Could books, by that definition, become pornographic?
Also, you mention throwing out movies which contain pornographic scenes, a pretty unusual decision even among Christians. If you say that owning such movies is wrong, how do you begin to draw a line there? Do you also throw out any books that contain such scenes, even if their other content is valuable? Do you stop subscribing to TV channels that have programs with pornographic scenes? A decision like that, to me, seems like it could start a slippery slope into excess scrupulosity, which can also become sinful.
Actually, I don’t believe that pornography has to be visual – stuff like 50 shades of grey (so I’ve heard) would certainly qualify.
Personally, I draw the line with porn on one side and me and the family on the other. To answer your question: yes. We don’t have books with sexual content, we don’t have cable. The way I see it, even if the other content of the book or movie is valuable, is it necessary? The new Les Miserables movies apparently has quite a bit of sexual content, but the values and lessons can be found in the book (or an abridged version of the book) and probably in greater depth. If the good stuff must go along with the bad, tear the pages out or consider the possibility that refusing to own any form of pornography may bring a greater moral value than something produced by Hollywood.
Not that it is still in force, but the novel ‘Les Miserables’ used to be on the Vatican’s Index of Forbidden Books…!
Actually it may still be in force – apparently the Catholic Encyclopedia says that the non-updating of the index doesn’t mean that we can read them with impunity.
I seem to remember that the forbidden book list has been changed to a “make sure you are aware of possible moral issues” list, and I can’t remember where (I thought it was the Catholic Encyclopedia), but I thought that the Church had no longer made it any sort of crime to read them. Naturally, common sense is still required. Some may not be able to read the books without having moral difficulties, so reading them should be done on a case by case basis.
The Index of Forbidden Books was formally abolished in 1966 by Pope Paul VI.
“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.”
This, of course, leaves me wondering what in the mind of the Church are sexual acts? More and more it is dawning on me that when I watch a couple in a movie (not married in real life) kissing one another passionately, I am in fact watching sexual intercourse. We know what social intercourse is, though the term is not frequently used. Obviously not all intercourse is sexual, but when a man and a woman are wordlessly embracing, passionately kissing, they are obviously engaged in some sort of intercourse. It is in fact sexual intercourse. That we don’t see it come to climax does not alter the nature of the behavior. It is a sexual act displayed for our enjoyment. This we are very used to, and have come to expect. In other words, practically everyone not living a cloistered life is a voyeur to one degree or another, aiding and abetting pornography, channeling it into our homes and into our immortal souls.
Is this scrupulosity? If so, on what basis exactly?
There is another aspect to this. Somewhere St. Thomas Aquinas says that actors are not permitted to do onstage what they are not permitted to do in real life. Yet we routinely give material support to actors and actresses, many Catholics included, who make love to non-spouses routinely onstage and in films. How do we justify this exactly? Rather than reproving and exhorting them as we should, we pay them for this display, endanger their marriages and corrupt them. WE do this, not “the entertainment industry,” not Hollywood, not producers. And we have been doing this for a very long time. It’s a good thing it hasn’t corrupted us, ruined our marriages, destroyed the very idea of family, given our children atrocious example and led to more and more men and women living together without benefit of marriage. Is it really possible that future historians of our civilization’s ruin will determine that we lost it at the movies? To me it seems very possible.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the meat of your argument, could a good Catholic’s response to pornography in art be 4) Enjoy the good and actively avoid the bad? It seems to me that a moderate course might be preferable to the (seemingly implied) correct choice of 1), which seems to me to be a tad excessive. The undeniable goodness of a film or book (or whatever instance of art) seems able to outweigh the portrayal of a sin found within. I suppose I’m troubled simply because the idea of completely eliminating the enjoyment of any art wherein sin is portrayed with anything less than complete and unequivocal condemnation would be both a poor imitation of the human condition and also be next-to-non-existent. It doesn’t seem correct to me to say it is better not to read Aristophanes, Lucretius, Chaucer or Shakespeare (for instance) than to read them and be exposed to occasions of sin.
Scaevola,
I think that there are definitely legitimate defenses to be made of the authors you mention, but I think your particular defense of them here falls short. After all, if Our Lord can say that it’s better to cut off your hand than to use it to commit a sin, I think one can quite correctly say that it’s better to never read Shakespeare than by so reading be led into sin.
I think we don’t really think very often about how horrible sin is or about how inessential most things of this life are to our salvation. I mean, I hardly think Lord is going to ask me at the last judgment whether I lived up to my sacred obligation to read Shakespeare and Aristophanes during my lifetime – or even obligation to read “great works of literature.” Or even to read at all! I just don’t seem to recall anything remotely like that being any sort of grounds for separation of sheep from goats.
Don’t get me wrong. I love great works of literature. And other great art. But just being realistic about how truly essential they are.
They aren’t.
The crux of the whole matter is here:
//each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others//
I do not see sex simulation scenes being any different from violent simulation scenes appropriate to the art of the narrative for that very reason.
Is the rape in “Dead Man Walking” there for providing a sensual moment to make the film more attractive, or to show part of the brutal reality behind the protagonist’s sentence of execution? Is the sex scene at the beginning of Shawshank Redemption to entertain our lusts for a minute and cash in, or is it there to connect us with the jealousy Andy feels and so ponder the nature of his claim of innocence?
Anyone taking sexual satisfaction from, say, the aforementioned scene in Shawshank, do not participate in the intent of the scene. People can and do lust after their favorite stars in scenes having nothing ultimately to do with sexuality or even wearing/doing suggestive things. Adults ought to be responsible enough to make the choice to walk past any temptation to lust and properly appreciate movies that do not have such an intention.
One approach would be to secure edited versions of the production. I understand that there is a company in Utah which prepares licenced versions of popular films with graded degrees of objectionable material rendered acceptable.
God bless you,
Greg
This is an interesting discussion, but I’m not sure you can remove “intent of being pornographic” from the Catechism’s discussion. The part you cite in bold says, “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.” That phrase “…in order to…” and following seems to me to be talking specifically about what most people think of when they talk about pornography, and not just any possible “sex scene” in a book or movie.
Otherwise, how do we avoid lumping in the works of, say, Flannery O’Connor or Walker Percy with those of the “Fifty Shades” author? Can we do so at all? Or how do we avoid the explicit sex passages in Chaucer–do we throw out Chaucer entirely as pornographic?
I’m not arguing in favor of explicit sex scenes in movies by raising this question; certainly I think that there are some things movies shouldn’t show (and I’d like to add bathroom humor and depictions of vomiting to the list–ew, really?). But I’m not sure the wording of the Catechism’s definition makes it imperative to throw out Walker Percy or Chaucer, and that it just possibly might not cover every film depiction of sex either (though in our graphic and gratuitous age it certainly might cover many or most of them).
The issue I have with this definition is that it does not clearly define what is a sexual act. There is a specific type of “porn”, as labeled by society, that does not actually have anything to do with sex. For instance, I have been told by many people that the simple portrait of a naked woman (without any sexual actions, etc) is not porn in their eyes. One can simply admire her beauty. Also, there is BDSM erotica, which shows acts of dominance, submission, discipline, etc and never gets around to sex. These may be done naked or fully dressed or any state in between. Are they legitimately “porn”? Does this depend upon how the viewer sees it? For example, is it porn if a scene shows a young lady, fully dressed, take a paddling? Or, is it porn if a picture shows a woman, fully dressed, only to display her natural beauty? Does it change the definition if she is naked in either case?
Lee stated above that actors are not permitted to do anything on stage that they could not do in real life, so this would eliminate practically every movie in my collection. There is always a murder scene, or theft, or speeding, or cursing, or flying into outer space. Aquinas would have banned the whole of Hollywood, in that case. Just making a point.
I don’t think we can just assume that’s what Aquinas meant. Obviously a “theft” in a film is not a real life theft in most cases. Same goes for murder. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Aquinas would not have objected to depictions of this content, while of course he would have objected to anyone whose acting was objectively a sin. I would argue that kissing passionately on screen is in the muddy in between waters. Two people who don’t care about each other in real life could theoretically kiss passionately without sinning. I admit that “passionately” is a somewhat vague term to use here, so I will fully disclose that I’m not suggesting that Bond-style making out is ok, just that we need to be clear that the problem is the sin being a part of the acting as well as any messages that glorify sin to the viewer.
Raymond wrote, “Lee stated above that actors are not permitted to do anything on stage that they could not do in real life, so this would eliminate practically every movie in my collection. There is always a murder scene, or theft, or speeding, or cursing, or flying into outer space. Aquinas would have banned the whole of Hollywood, in that case. Just making a point.”
No, this is not the case. In movies and plays the murders, beatings and robberies are only simulated, but the lovemaking is real. I take it that according to Aquinas in a play it is morally illicit to really murder someone, to really beat someone, to really make love to someone. But we see real lovemaking all the time and think nothing of it. In fact, we expect it and support it as a matter of routine.
If custody of the eyes and heart is not kept in movie watching, internet browsing and magazine reading, then it won’t be kept in everyday interactions with human persons of the opposite sex.
I think a number of comments above are leaning harder on the first sentence of the Catechism’s passage on pornography than the writers intended. It is necessary to read that sentence in the context of what follows. If we do this, we will appreciate the following:
1. By “sexual acts” the Catechism has in mind primarily the act referred to in the next sentence, “the conjugal act.” To this I would also add intimate acts that are by nature ordered toward the conjugal act (i.e., foreplay).
2. The Catechism has in mind acts that are by nature private, acts that could not be engaged in before third parties without grave sin. Passionate kissing is not in view here. A passionate kiss between spouses in a public or semi-public setting (e.g., when one has just returned from a long journey, etc.) is not gravely sinful. I’m not saying that passionate kissing between actors doesn’t present moral issues — it does — but they are not in view in the Catechism’s definition of pornography.
3. The Catechism has in mind acts displayed so as to make the participants “objects of base pleasure and illicit profit for others.” The definition of pornography cannot be separated from the end of erotic stimulation and titillation. For example, a fleeting shot of a sex act lasting less than a second long in an otherwise nonsexual narrative would probably not constitute pornography — even if it were explicit enough to be morally objectionable with respect to the dignity of the actors. A non-titillating representation of a sex act in which the actors’ dignity were not gravely compromised would not be a grave strike against the film. (It’s been awhile since I watched The Count of Monte Cristo, but I suspect I would not object to this scene, and I’m pretty confident it doesn’t rise to the level of pornography.)
4. The Catechism has in mind representations that inherently distort the reality of sexuality. Pornography “immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world” — obviously, in some more meaningful and relevant sense than all cinema could be said to do! The Catechism doesn’t elaborate on this, but pornography has been aptly described as depicting “sex as worldview,” i.e., a world in which “sex is never more than a heartbeat away,” potentially in any social situation or interaction. This is not the world depicted by restrained depictions of cinematic portrayal of sexual intimacy.
Finally, an opinion that, FWIW, is the fruit of a great deal of thought and discussion: I think the first sentence of the Catechism’s section on pornography is intended less as a technical definition of the genre than a description of the offense. What makes pornography wrong is that it “removes real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.” Not everything that could possibly be construed as fitting that description, especially when none of the subsequent observations apply, is rightly called pornography.
If we don’t recognize this, for what it’s worth we would be forced to conclude from an overly wooden application of the first sentence to any applicable scene that the 1995 Vatican film list published by the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications endorses pornography, since a number of films on the list include representations of sexual acts (e.g., Schindler’s List, The Sacrifice). While some might be prepared to argue for this, I for one am not.
SDG, good points. I would also like to point out the problem with trying to equate depicting acts of sexual behavior with depicting other acts that one is morally require to refrain from. Murder and theft were mentioned. But by the same token, it wouldn’t be just sins: taking a vow on stage, that you weren’t really going to follow through on, even though you really could take such a vow morally, would also end up being proscribed under the above theory. You could not, for example, depict a wedding with vows exchanged, except by using an actually married couple for the 2 actors.
The problem, I think, is the difference between generic actions which have more than one possible “natural” meaning, and actions which inherently mean something all of themselves, by nature. Acts of foreplay, for example, are inherently meant to lead to and culminate in the conjugal act, they “mean” something definite between the 2 parties, and so it is fundamentally impossible to engage in foreplay with someone not your spouse without violating moral norms – even “for the sake of” depicting something true and important about the emptiness of sex outside of marriage.
But much more specifically: it is impossible to DEPICT the use of foreplay, without violating the moral norm that such behavior is meant to be private. It is simply that the 2 actors are doing something with each other that they are supposed to not do (in “real” life) with each other, it is that they are doing something with US watching that nobody is supposed to be watching.
I just had a thought. The paragraph says pornography CONSISTS IN “removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties”.
It of course does that and no one will deny it. But the paragraph does not say that any and everything that involves that [e.g., a brief, nonexplicit sex scene in a film] is pornography.
Thoughts?
Do you really believe directors do not intend for scenes to appear as they intended in a movie?! (Point #4)
No no. My point is that, while a sexually explicit scene may appear just as the director intended, his intent was probably not for it to be “pornography” per se, but “art” or something of that nature.