Wouldn't that make underwear ads soft porn too?
What about regular clothes ads, with tops that show cleavage?
Where exactly do they draw the line?
2007-07-17 19:50:55 · 12 answers · asked by Al Shaitan 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To: the old dude below
A male could see a photo of a beautiful woman fully and modestly dressed, and be aroused.
Does that make it porn? I don't think so.
2007-07-17 19:59:20 · update #1
ignore them. to them thinking about clouds is considered "soft-porn"
those who do their best to deny themselves what they inherently have ( a sexual drive) will find themselves in a billion uneasy situations.
to them i say this "HA!"
2007-07-17 19:54:33 · answer #1 · answered by johnny.zondo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-07-20 06:37:46 · answer #2 · answered by Kermit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it's the intention of the "reader" that makes it wrong. Anything that someone looks at with the intention of getting aroused is wrong (unless it's your husband or wife).
Jesus said:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matt. 5: 28)
One reason Mormons have a relatively strict dress code is to help keep people's minds pure.... but like you said, if someone is determined to get aroused, they will. Respecting modesty is to allow for the weakness of the people with weakness in the area of self-control.
I think when going to the beach, we all have the responsibility to mind our own thoughts, and if a person has a big problem with that, then they would be wise to determine for themselves not to go (until they've mastered themselves).
As far as "soft porn" goes, every member will have "draw the line" wherever they find their minds wandering to lust. We're suposed to obey "the spirit of the law"....
2 Corinthians 3: 6
... for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2007-07-18 09:12:13 · answer #3 · answered by MumOf5 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you can say just Mormons consider Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition to be soft porn as I consider it to be as well, and I am anything but Mormon. The intention of the content as well as the intention of the person looking at it is where the line is drawn. SI Swimsuit is purely for the purpose of creating lust. This is my way of answering. Hope it helps.
2007-07-17 19:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by The PENsive Insomniac 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Underwear ads often qualify as soft porn. If an image of a woman arouses sexual interest in men, the image may be considered pornographic. Since some men are very easily aroused, a great many images that many might consider fairly innocent could fall on the "dirty" side of the line.
2007-07-17 19:56:16 · answer #5 · answered by Charley M 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Honestly, why else would those attracted to women look at sports illustrated if not for some sort of sexual pleasure.
2007-07-17 21:06:50 · answer #6 · answered by Liesel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not just mormons, and the reason is because when a woman shows her body and temps a man, its sinful on both parts.
2007-07-17 19:53:32 · answer #7 · answered by cindy h 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it has to do with the fact that the women are exposing way more of their body than they should. It's like these women have no modesty at all. Allah (God) knows best!
2007-07-17 20:02:03 · answer #8 · answered by Red Dragon 2007 {Free Palestine} 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i wouldn't disagree really - perhaps it needs a new class, featherweight porn. i don't see, however, why it's such a bad thing.
2007-07-17 19:56:56 · answer #9 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes and women Tennis :)
we must give the sport girls that black full cover cloth ..called Abaya :))
2007-07-17 19:53:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋