Why is immodesty and pornography disgusting?

[Vort]

Many times in many threads, most recently here, forum members have maintained that immodesty and pornography are "disgusting". Just curious: What do you find disgusting about immodest dress or pornography?

As it happens, I completely agree with the sentiment, but I'd like to read the views of others as to why such things disgust them before sharing my own ideas.

[Jennarator]

Our bodies are temples and sex is sacred. No need to display it (except to a spouse.) In the right places, there is nothing disgusting about sex or nudity. When it is displayed in public or other inapporeate places it is disgusting because it is meant to be beautiful and sacred for a husband and wife to share.

(I know my wording and spelling are horrible, but please try to understand what I mean by my statment, and don't tear it apart. This is my opinion. Thanks. )

[LDSJewess]

Of course any sane minded person would agree that pornography is disgusting. But I think we need to be level headed enough to be able to define the difference between pronography and immodesty. It is far to easy to become self righteous and jump up on a band wagon and preach our personal definition of what pronography and immodesty are.

Pornography in it's simplest sense is perverted and/exploited sexual acts. Immodesty is a form of presenting oneself through dress, actions and speech in an inappropriate way.

As Mormons our own dress excludes dresses above the knee and sleeveless sheaths dresses. I would hardly say that Jacqueline Kennedy was disgusting because she wore clothing not considered modest enough for a Mormon woman.

Then comes the issue of nudity in fine art versus an inappropriate display of sexism.

In other words shall we call all women wearing a sleevless dress disgusting. Shall we call Michaelangelos statuue of David disgusting? Shoud we assume unmarried couples and Gay couples are engaged in pornography?

I think it is more important that we wear and live our lives what is modest according to the beliefs that we embrace and set a good example. But judging another is another story indeed.

Somewhere in scriptures it comes to mind that we judge not lest we be judged. And there is a very fine line between being disgusted in the behavior or attire of another peoson and being self righteous and prideful. History shows us that when we judge others whon are different it only leads to greater sin. We only need to remember the Puritans and bruning of witches and the Holocaust to see that viewing others with disgust and disdain can get us into trouble.

[Latter Days Guy]

Totally agree that porn is disgusting. The problem with immodesty is the standard you measure it by. Is my idea of modest dress the same as yours? Its certainly different between myself and my wife. For some a style of dress is modest to others it's revealing, do we have the right to decide for others what is modest or not?

[Vort]

Of course any sane minded person would agree that pornography is disgusting.

Why? What is disgusting about it? That is the question.

Pornography in it's simplest sense is perverted and/exploited sexual acts.

So as long as we confine our videos to such non-perverted activities as penis-in-vagina sex between married people, and as long as no one involved is trying to make any money from the venture, then such videos are not pornography and are perfectly okay. Is this correct?

Immodesty is a form of presenting oneself through dress, actions and speech in an inappropriate way.

Again, the question is: Why is that disgusting?

[Vort]

Totally agree that porn is disgusting.

Why? What creates the disgust in your mind when you encounter pornography? What is there about it that disgusts you?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm probably getting into a rat's nest here, but . . .

I think there is a significant number of women in the Church who, for reasons of their own, view male sexuality (and anything that satisfies it) as per se disgusting. It's funny, when you hear women talking among themselves, how many of them hold their husbands in utter contempt for wanting sex at all. At some family gatherings, in unmixed company, my wife has heard her relatives boast about either a) how they've slammed the door on a husband right when he thought he was about to "get some", and/or b) the concessions they've extracted from their husbands in exchange for sex.

Like so many other gender-based behaviors, we're being slowly conditioned to believe that the typical female approach (e.g., sex isn't that important) is more "civilized" than the typical male approach (e.g., sex is very important and should happen often). And perhaps a little more to the point: If you've been using sex to control your husband, and all of a sudden he doesn't need you anymore . . . that threatens the whole power dynamic of your marriage.

Let me emphasize this next part, lest I be accused of justifying pornography: Obviously pornography is evil. Certainly a lot of women legitimately fear for their eternal families where the husband is caught up in a sin like pornography.

But there are also, I think,* a not-insubstantial number of LDS women who loathe pornography in large part because it threatens power they have historically been able to exert over their own husbands and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the male populace of the Church.

*And I'm not saying this motivated the thread cited in the OP; I'm just making a general observation.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

JAG, your analysis is chilling, but I fear it is often spot-on.

[Jennarator]

I'm probably getting into a rat's nest here, but . . .

I think there is a significant number of women in the Church who, for reasons of their own, view male sexuality (and anything that satisfies it) as per se disgusting. It's funny, when you hear women talking among themselves, how many of them hold their husbands in utter contempt for wanting sex at all. (At least, this is what my wife tells me.)

Also, from this same circle of women, I hear about women who indirectly (and sometimes directly) use sex to control their husbands' behaviors. If you've been using sex to control your husband, and all of a sudden he doesn't need you anymore . . . that threatens the whole power dynamic of your marriage.

Obviously pornography is evil. Certainly a lot of women legitimately fear for their eternal families where the husband is caught up in a sin like pornography.

But there are also, I think, a not-insubstantial number of LDS women who loath pornography in large part because it threatens power they have historically been able to exert over their own husbands and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the male populace of the Church.

That is sad. I know women out of the church that do the same.

I hope women don't hold sex as a tool to control husbands. If that is the case, then they are also (in a way) exploting sex. To me that is disgusting as well. I don't think it is a very large amount of women that do that, tho. Sex should have nothing to do with control or power. If women are controlling men with sex, then counsling seems to be in order, or at least better communication.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, your analysis is chilling, but I fear it is often spot-on.

Of course, there's an inverse corollary that also applies: a male who only tries to make his wife happy because he hopes to get sex in return, is going about marriage in completely the wrong way.

[Jennarator]

Of course, there's an inverse corollary that also applies: a male who only tries to make his wife happy because he hopes to get sex in return, is going about marriage in completely the wrong way.

Sounds like another reason for counseling....

[LDSJewess]

Why? What is disgusting about it? That is the question.

So as long as we confine our videos to such non-perverted activities as penis-in-vagina sex between married people, and as long as no one involved is trying to make any money from the venture, then such videos are not pornography and are perfectly okay. Is this correct?

Again, the question is: Why is that disgusting?

And again, I believe it comes down to what we each believe as pronographic and what we view as immodest.

So since you are asking what we think, I can only tell you what I think and believe regarding this.

In my opinion pronography is the exploitation and exhibitionism of the sexual act which degrades another human being, and exhibits and promotes violence in relationship to sex.

Immodesty is behaving a manner in speech, acts or dress in poor taste.

But neither of the above are according to the standards of the LDS church or how I choose to live.

In other words sundresses are not immodest and definitely not pornographic, even though they are not modest enough for a Mormon woman because garments cannot be concealed under them.

So does anything actually disgust me? Yes. But sexual issues are not necessarily on the top of my list. Here is what I find totally disgusting in no particular order:

I think malicious gossip is disgusting. I think hypocracy is disgusting. From a sexual standpoint I believe pedophilia, rape, incest and the harming of children in any way including beating them or abusing them even in non sexual ways is disgusting. Curelty to animals is disgusting. Advertizing prescription drugs on prime time TV telling people to check with their Doctor to see if they need a drug that they actually disclose as being a cause of heart attack, stroke and death. Cigarette smoking is disgusting and I find it highly offensive when skmokers smoke outside or on a public beach forcing others to smell and inhale their toxins. And I also find it disgusting when people harm the bodies of themselves and the bodies of their children by stuffing themselves with sugar, fats, salts and chemicals causing diabetes, obesity and early death.

All the above to me is equally disgusting and frankly more disgusting then someone wearing a bikini on a beach or serving food at hooters in short shorts and tank top.

Oh and not to personnaly offend Vort but to me your profile music borders on disgusting (in my opinion of course). Let's just say if I were attending a dance or function where this music was playing, I would vacate the place in less than five minutes.

So as you can see we all have varying opinions on what is and is not disgusting.

You asked so that's my answer. No intent to personally offend. Sorry also for any typos.

[Vort]

And again, I believe it comes down to what we each believe as pronographic and what we view as immodest.

No, I am not asking what you think qualifies as immodest or pornographic. I am asking why you find such things to be disgusting. What is there about immodesty or pornography, however you choose to define them, that disgusts you?

In my opinion pronography is the exploitation and exhibitionism of the sexual act which degrades another human being, and exhibits and promotes violence in relationship to sex.

So, then: If my wife and I make a video of ourselves engaged in sex, but we don't degrade or do violence to each other in our sex acts, and we don't charge anyone for the DVD so as to profit from the venture, then it's not pornography. Correct?

If the above is your definition of pornography, then it's evident to me why you might find it disgusting, but I'm a bit surprised that your definition of pornography is so narrow.

Immodesty is behaving a manner in speech, acts or dress in poor taste.

Why do you find this disgusting?

Oh and not to personnaly offend Vort but to me your profile music borders on disgusting (in my opinion of course). Let's just say if I were attending a dance or function where this music was playing, I would vacate the place in less than five minutes.

Glad I could be of service.

(Btw, Linkin Park put out two great albums, and Figure.09 is an absolutely amazing song.)

So as you can see we all have varying opinions on what is and is not disgusting.

Yes, I do indeed see that. But my purpose was never to ask people what they thought qualified as disgusting. Rather, what I have been trying to ask you is why you are disgusted by these things.

[Backroads]

I'm probably getting into a rat's nest here, but . . .

I think there is a significant number of women in the Church who, for reasons of their own, view male sexuality (and anything that satisfies it) as per se disgusting. It's funny, when you hear women talking among themselves, how many of them hold their husbands in utter contempt for wanting sex at all. At some family gatherings, in unmixed company, my wife has heard her relatives boast about either a) how they've slammed the door on a husband right when he thought he was about to "get some", and/or b) the concessions they've extracted from their husbands in exchange for sex.

Like so many other gender-based behaviors, we're being slowly conditioned to believe that the typical female approach (e.g., sex isn't that important) is more "civilized" than the typical male approach (e.g., sex is very important and should happen often). And perhaps a little more to the point: If you've been using sex to control your husband, and all of a sudden he doesn't need you anymore . . . that threatens the whole power dynamic of your marriage.

Let me emphasize this next part, lest I be accused of justifying pornography: Obviously pornography is evil. Certainly a lot of women legitimately fear for their eternal families where the husband is caught up in a sin like pornography.

But there are also, I think,* a not-insubstantial number of LDS women who loathe pornography in large part because it threatens power they have historically been able to exert over their own husbands and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the male populace of the Church.

*And I'm not saying this motivated the thread cited in the OP; I'm just making a general observation.

Scarily enough, there may be some truth to this. A lot of truth. It's not necessarily evil the way women think of it, but it comes off as such. We realize we have womanly wiles and they work. I've seen it said by many that so-n-so is capable of looking at porn and never at all thinking of cheating on his wife or even preferring the porn to his wife. But I think a large part of catching-husband-with-porn would be some jealousy. "Am I not good enough?" I think that mindset can be definitly due to the differences between man/woman thought processes, but why do females think that way?

Back to my thoughts on the OP...

I think pornography is disgusting because it can go beyond the often-cited "tips for bed" purpose into situations that are uncomfortable and even beyond a person's ability. Expectations rise faster than ability and suddenly a partner is no longer "good enough". Pornography is disgusting because it is capable of making someone not love his/her partner for who they are and what they can do.

Why immodesty is disgusting... oh wow. This is a difficult one for me. Frankly, if the Church would smile upon it, I would love to wear the short-shorts and show off my midriff and shoulders and the whole 9 yards. I don't think I would look like a stripper, persay, but there are many styles that are immodest that I find adorable. I doubt my mindset would be all come hither, but I would feel so darn cute. We also have some old threads that discussed whether or not modesty was dependant on culture. So I do believe there is a fine line in the immodesty issue. Frankly, I think a lot of it is fine even if our church gasps in horror at these people.

Immodesty is disgusting when it is uncomfortable to the person wearing it or changes their attitude. I find it disgusting because it makes the person more about their clothes/fashion/body than themselves.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Backroads

[estradling75]

For me its when I feel it perverts or otherwise twists that which should be special and holy into something common. In essence degrading it.

I do understand that each person will have a different level at which this will happen for them.

[Vort]

I think that maybe I did not explain what it is I'm looking for. Several people seem to want to agree that pornography is "disgusting", but then go on to talk about how we should not judge other people's standards or whatever. That's all fine, and maybe they're even right, but it is not at all relevant to what I'm asking.

I want to know, specifically:

• What is disgusting about pornography, however you choose to define it?
• What is disgusting about immodesty, whatever you believe that involves?

Let me give a few examples so you can see what I mean:

• Pictures of animals, not sexually suggestive: I feel no sexual attraction to animals. I do not find pictures of animals disgusting per se. This is true even if said pictures show the genitalia of said animals.

• Pictures of animals, meant to be sexually suggestive: If I can tell a picture of an animal is designed to be suggestive, I am repulsed by the thought of sexual congress with the animal and disgusted with whatever person would think such a repulsive thing enticing.

• Pictures of nude babies or children, not suggestive: I feel no sexual attraction to babies or children of either sex. I do not find pictures of children disgusting, even if the children are nude (though in today's society, I might be concerned that such pictures might legally constitute child pornography or exploitation).

• Pictures of nude babies or children, suggestive: As a father and, frankly, as a human being, I am outraged at the thought of sexual exploitation of children, and my disgust arises at the thought of children (or their images) being used to sate the carnal lusts of those who, for some perverse reason, do find sexual stimulation in children and their images. (I do not recall ever having seen such pictures, thankfully, but given the great amount of press kiddie porn has received, I have no doubt they exist.)

• Pictures of nude adult men, non-suggestive: I am not sexually attracted to men. I do not find such pictures offensive or disgusting, even if the men are naked.

• Pictures of nude adult men, suggestive: I admit that I do find such pictures disgusting, though I am not completely sure why. I suspect it is because the thought of engaging in sex with men is unpleasant to me, so seeing men in pornographic pictures is like seeing a plate full of steaming dog excrement, complete with knife, fork, and napkin. The reasons I list below about suggestive pictures of naked women may also apply to some extent.

• Pictures of nude adult women, non-suggestive: I do not find such pictures disgusting. If said women are much younger or older than me, I feel little particular sexual attraction. If said women are around my age or younger, say within about 15 or so years of my age, I may feel such attraction, which would in turn cause me to feel disgust at myself. So I avoid such pictures.

• Pictures of nude adult women, suggestive: Because I am naturally heterosexual, I do not find the pictures per se disgusting. However, I do find the trafficking of sexuality (which I believe to be a sacred and Godly thing) to be a profanity of the darkest hue, and so I find the idea of pornography (or other sexual sin, like prostitution or even blatant immodesty) to be a cheapening and violation of something that should be kept sacred, portraying a desire for fornication. This disgusts me. I am equally or even more sickened at the idea that such images might damage or destroy marriages, which are supposed to be eternal, and separate people from the God who would save them. Thus, even though the images themselves might not disgust me, the implications of those images do so.

It is my supposition that many people, especially women, are disgusted by pornography because they find the pictures themselves disgusting, and not merely the implications or effects of those pictures. I suspect that others don't really find pornography disgusting, but say they do because that's what everyone else says. This is why I'm asking for people to describe why they find pornography and immodesty "disgusting" rather than what they think constitutes pornography or immodesty.

[Latter Days Guy]

Why? What creates the disgust in your mind when you encounter pornography? What is there about it that disgusts you?

I guess its the whole thought of people having sex for other peoples pleasure/enjoyment/being paid for sex acts thing. It just doesn't sit right with me.

[Backroads]

If I may, I'm going to go with yours:

Pictures of animals, not sexually suggestive: No problem with it. They're animals. I am not a pervert that can make anything sexual. I've found some sexual pictures of animals that are actually downright hilarious--meant to be so in the context.

Pictures of animals, meant to be sexually suggestive: See above. This can be put in a funny-but-non-bestial way. If it's meant to turn me on, it's disgusting because bestiality is something that I consider unnatural.

Pictures of nude babies or children, not suggestive: For crying outloud, it's a baby.

Pictures of nude babies or children, suggestive: While I understand that pedophilia can simply be how someone is programmed and doesn't automatically mean they're a sex danger, I do find it to be unnatural. Children are innocent and even when they enter the stages where they can think for themselves and a law is just a law, it doesn't seem right to break that law. Therefore, on some level, that baby/child is being victimized.

Pictures of nude adult men, non-suggestive: While I can certainly appreciate the human body, a naked adult man picture for medical/artistic/etc reasons does absoutely nothing for me. In my mind, it's a situation where non-sexual purposes best required a nude man.

Pictures of nude adult men, suggestive: All right, boys, I'll be honest here: I don't think a man's "boy parts" are droolingly attractive. Sorry. I love my husband and I do find him very attractive, but I would be hard-pressed to enjoy staring at pictures of some guy's maleness. I like my intimancy just that: intimate, private, romantic, clandestine, etc. These kinds of pictures are against all I find romantic.

Pictures of nude adult women, non-suggestive: I'm a girl, I've seen it all. I do find the female body beautiful (even more so than the male body, sorry boys) but I am in no way sexually attracted to it. This goes again into the assumption this was merely the best way of presenting the body for non-sexual purpose.

Pictures of nude adult women, suggestive: Like I said before, I do find the female body very beautiful and I think that beauty can transcend into a certain sexiness that I may even want to emulate. But there is a definite line. These kinds of pictures go beyond expressing love for a husband and into selfishness and pride, once again going against my idea of romance.

And to add some...

People engaging in sexual activities: At a certain extent I can appreciate that. It's "Oh, sex. That's fun and romantice and I like that". But then it goes into selfishness and pride. I ask the question "Why are you displaying this?" To me, that selfishness and pride is disgusting. I suppose it's offensive to my humble spirit.

[Vort]

I guess its the whole thought of people having sex for other peoples pleasure/enjoyment/being paid for sex acts thing. It just doesn't sit right with me.

So as long as the people being photographed or filmed were engaging in sex for their own or each other's pleasure rather than for exhibitionist purposes or money, you're okay with it? No disgust in that case?

[Backroads]

So as long as the people being photographed or filmed were engaging in sex for their own or each other's pleasure rather than for exhibitionist purposes or money, you're okay with it? No disgust in that case?

I know you're not asking me, but I see nothing wrong at all with a couple photographing/filming themselves for their own non-commercial purposes. Y'know, an intimate scrapbook, so to speak. It's kept to themselves and their own comfort.

[Vort]

I know you're not asking me, but I see nothing wrong at all with a couple photographing/filming themselves for their own non-commercial purposes. Y'know, an intimate scrapbook, so to speak. It's kept to themselves and their own comfort.

There are tales of English explorers trying to take a sample of quicksand home to show the king. Of course, moments after securing the sample, it lost its quicksand-like properties. A colloidal suspension of sand particles, quicksand exists only where water circulation is such that the colloid develops. Remove the water circulation and you remove the agent that develops and sustains the quicksand's unique properties.

Sexual intimacy and fulfillment is like quicksand; it exists in the moment, due to the confluence of events. You can no more film the beauty of sex between husband and wife to catalog in in a personal library than you can bottle up a sample of quicksand. You end up with a useless bottle of sand and water, or in the case of the tape, a video of two people having sex. The vital elements that made the experience beautiful and holy cannot be captured by a camera. So I personally think it's a waste of time (at best) to videotape such intimate acts.

But that's neither here nor there with respect to my topic question. :)

[MorningStar]

I know you're not asking me, but I see nothing wrong at all with a couple photographing/filming themselves for their own non-commercial purposes. Y'know, an intimate scrapbook, so to speak. It's kept to themselves and their own comfort.

And then comes the day they both die in a tragic car accident together, their children find it, and they scream, "MY EYES! MY EYES!"

[classylady]

And then comes the day they both die in a tragic car accident together, their children find it, and they scream, "MY EYES! MY EYES!"

Or, the couple later divorce, and forget to erase or throw them away. Fast forward a couple of years, and husband is now remarried. He, along with new wife (me) are going through his old family movies and photos trying to decide what to keep. OOPS!!! and OMg, SO SORRY!!! Husband then takes old movies outside and literally stomps on them and lights them on fire. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. I can see the humor in it now (29 years later). But, at the time, it was VERY hard on me emotionally.

[LDSJewess]

Well if you are looking for simply an answer as to WHY a person is disgusted by certain things, my answer is the reason I am disgusted is when something that I find offensive has a direct effect on another person.

I do get annoyed however when it appears that transgressions are believed to be worse "sins" if they are sexual in nature. I believe that people that have that much focus on sex is not healthy themselves about how they view sex,

If a couple decides to take a video of themselves, that is purely their business and not considered pron in my book unless it is exploited for any reason, money thrill, or any reason). If they do this in the privacy of their own home that is entirely their business and certainly not pron. But I would still advise against even thoug I don't find it particularily disgusting.

I have a friend who allowed her husband to photograph them in the act, and later they were divorcing due to his being abusive to her. She was afraid to press charges because she feared him retaliating because he threatened to post the photos on a social,netowrking site. My suggestion is that you need to think of what "could" happen down the line. Photos, videos, posts on the web, they never go away, so if you are not comfy with sharing and baring it all to the public, don't create a situationn where it could ever become public.

But moving back to what is sinful, immodest, disgusting etc: I listed things that have nothing to do with sex that disgust me a lot more than a porn movie would. For instance, I can choose not to view porn. But I can't choose to get away from a drunk driver sharing the same road as me. I cannot get away from breathing toxic air of a smoker in a public place. I find all that a lot more disgusting than a girls wearing bikinis on the beach. And I think as far as "sin" or transgression goes, I don't think God thinks of sexual transgression or immodesty worse than other transgressions. A woman spreading gossip or bearing false witness about another is perhaps to me more disgusting than an honest hard working Hooters waitress clad in shorts and a tank top.

I am over 60 and well traveled and I have been to many a beach out of the country where it is customary for sun bathers to wear their "birthday suits" and as it is said some birthday suits are ironed and some are not ironed (meaning the old er unclothed folks have wrinkled birthday suits). Being an American where nudism is not accepted, I would not be comfortable sunbathing nude even in countries where it is perfectly acceptable. But sharing a beach with these folks and yes with my clothed kids and grandkids, we do not feel aroused or out of place, rather we just accept the culture for what it is. Plenty of people from children to seniors in their 80's and older walking around the beach in their birthday suits with it all flopping and hanging out, and no one thinking of it as porn or even imodesty. I think some of the obsession with nudity in America comes from those who lived a more sheltered life and find the nude body as mysterious as non members of the lds church find garments.

I think it is fine to choose to practice modesty for ourselves without being aghast or judgemental over the choices others make.

[RipplecutBuddha]

We understand only in part why our bodies are so important. Satan, however, understands exactly why they're so important. He and the spirits he led from heaven are so desperate to gain a body, they were content to be embodied in swine, with the approval of Christ.

Also, while all sin is grevious, two specific types of sin are most significant in the eyes of God; How we come into this world, and how we leave it. Murder and fornication were the two sins punishable by death under the Law of Moses. Considering that God allows us to participate in the creative process through procreation, I would safely say God is very cautious about this arrangement. Again, the exact reasons why may elude us in full, but they are significant enough for us to understand right now.

Every gift we have can be used to uplift and help others. Considering that becoming selfless is nearly a core concept of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, anything that turns our thoughts to ourselves would contradict that goal.

Thus utilizing sex as a mere pleasure would all but destroy the purpose for our being here in the first place, and immodesty shows we just don't value what God has worked so hard to give us. Pornography, as I've said elsewhere, reduces us as individuals to be judged solely upon our appearance and nothing else, which is also directly contrary to God's method of operation.

It all focuses on this life, this world, and our desires. None of these things are significant in the eternal perspective, nor are they useful as a means to salvation and exaltation.