DaisyJane
I probably should be working.
In the Mary thread the idea of porn=lust of the flesh=sin was proposed by blackbelt. I disagreed with the notion that porn=lust of the flesh. I would probably also have some issues with the notion of porn=sin, though I need a bit of time to unpack that. For me, the issue would be consent, and most particularly the consent of the people in the pornographic images. If the porn was produced without exploitation, and mutually consenting adults enjoy consuming porn, I fail to see sin.
In terms of the porn=lust of flesh, I understand that for many porn may trigger lust however I believe it is inappropriate to declare porn=lust a universal definition. Is the conflation of porn=lust the fact that it depicts images of lust? Or triggers lust (for some)? I see an argument for the former, but not for the latter.
I, personally, find most pornographic images I have seen to be troubling. When I view porn I see exploited women and embodied images of male sexual fantasies. I do not found porn arousing, or inciting of lust at all. Generally, it leaves me feeling icky. I have no desire to view it. The notion of porn=lust of the flesh does not speak to my lived experience and I do not identify with blackbelt's definition. Granted, my exposure to porn has been limited.
My exposure to erotica has been even more limited. Though, since I can control the images in my head and be more selective about the narrative (ie: it could be loving and consensual), I could see the potential for erotica to be more arousing (at least for me).
What I do found potentially arousing, and most certainly attractive, is an image of a middle-aged man with salt and pepper hair in the L L Bean catalogue. Is this my porn? Do I need to toss the catalogues? Does LL Bean = porn = sin?
In terms of the porn=lust of flesh, I understand that for many porn may trigger lust however I believe it is inappropriate to declare porn=lust a universal definition. Is the conflation of porn=lust the fact that it depicts images of lust? Or triggers lust (for some)? I see an argument for the former, but not for the latter.
I, personally, find most pornographic images I have seen to be troubling. When I view porn I see exploited women and embodied images of male sexual fantasies. I do not found porn arousing, or inciting of lust at all. Generally, it leaves me feeling icky. I have no desire to view it. The notion of porn=lust of the flesh does not speak to my lived experience and I do not identify with blackbelt's definition. Granted, my exposure to porn has been limited.
My exposure to erotica has been even more limited. Though, since I can control the images in my head and be more selective about the narrative (ie: it could be loving and consensual), I could see the potential for erotica to be more arousing (at least for me).
What I do found potentially arousing, and most certainly attractive, is an image of a middle-aged man with salt and pepper hair in the L L Bean catalogue. Is this my porn? Do I need to toss the catalogues? Does LL Bean = porn = sin?
Last edited: