Pamela Anderson's anti-porn piece panned


#1

Apparently, it’s upsetting a lot of people. :rolleyes:

edition.cnn.com/2016/09/02/entertainment/pamela-anderson-porn/

This is her article they’re referencing: wsj.com/articles/take-the-pledge-no-more-indulging-porn-1472684658


#2

Good for her for sticking her neck out.


#3

That’s a good start, hopefully she will be a Christian soon like fellow Playmate Donna D’errico, who is said to pray everyday.

Happy that my prayers are answered about and hopefully all porn sites will shut down and be replaced by sites promoting women’s beauty as persons and that having premarital sex will lead nowhere.

That being said, Pamela Anderson is the way many people get into porn. I remember in the late 90s, long before I started that terrible habit, guys at school would talk about watching her porn videos.
She was featured on Playboy’s cover more than anyone up until this year’s January issue, she is the synonym of Playboy, many people do not know any playmates except for her, of course many people do not consider Playboy porn.

Does anyone know any official church opinion on the subject, I do not consider it porn, but I also do not like their articles, as many people claim, I think that what they stand for is worst than their nudity, of course, it is now teen friendly,


#4

You know some of these feminists IMO. They don’t like being degraded. But they want the right to be degraded by porn. There’s no logic here that I’m seeing. If she becomes Christian we probably won’t be seeing her anymore. I hate Hollywood anyway.


#5

Well, it’s to be expected. She got raves from some; slammed by others.
I’m sure she’s hardy enough to take it, she’s tough and has had plenty of negative publicity before.

I’m guessing being a mother of two young men, age 18 and 20, has helped her see–or at least be concerned about–the unhealthy effect porn can have on some men and their sexuality.

.


#6

I don’t understand. If feminism is about the liberation of women, and it would thus be anti-pornography, why do the feminism-supporting social liberals attack anti-porn things? The liberation of women should come from improving their image (something associated with second wave feminism), not from destroying their own ideals.

Hypocritical. :shrug:


#7

Rather than hate Hollywood, please join us in prayer at 3pm Pacific Time:

cloisters.tripod.com/stgenesius/id8.html

As it says on the page, we are not associated with the Holy Cross Fathers or Family Theater Productions.

Blessings,
Cloisters


#8

Sweden banned prostitution because it exploited women.

The Netherlands has licensed prostitutes. But they also euthanize the depressed; the autistic; and those with eating disorders.

Porn always seems to fall into another category for some reason. All of porn are sins of the flesh, by those who have been exploited as children. They need our prayers.

Blessings,
Cloisters


#9

From the article:

e issue isn’t porn. The issue is the complete absence in our society of an open, healthy, honest conversation around sex in the real world."

The most honest conversation that can be had revolves around the truth of sex being a part of a marital relationship. But somehow I don’t think that’s what’s being referenced in the quote.


#10

People seem to be very addicted to their kicks. They just can’t give it up. People want to do anything but they don’t want others doing anything.


#11

It’s so sad to me that an anti porn piece would be criticized. Truly, of what value possibly is porn? None, I say it’s from the Devil himself to warp thoughts about sexual intimacy and what it involves, and makes sex outside of marriage simply not a problem.


#12

Well all they do is put out trash. Especially now days. I will look forward to the new Star Wars. But everything seems recycled. The quality is bad. And the politics terrible. If you don’t at least pretend to have a certain political bent, you’ll get now where. Art is upside down urinals. I liked Magnum PI years ago. Even further back Audrey Hepburn and Carey Grant were kind of entertaining. I just have better things to do like stare at the walls if needed. These people seem to have or think they have influence and they are nobodies.


#13

Playboy is porn. Porn is a grave offense (CCC#2354). It is against the virtues of chastity and modesty which includes proper clothing to display oneself nude for all to see and it entices men and probably women too to sin against chastity. It stimulates sexual arousal which is only legitimate in the context of marriage. It is a sin both for the women displaying themselves nude and those who look at the magazine and nude pictures. These are sins against the 6th commandment. Nude women or nude men having pictures taken of them are sinning against their neighbor by enticing their neighbor to sin against chastity. As I said, it is also a sin against modesty of clothing and dress in which in these cases their is no clothing at all. God clothed Adam and Eve after their sin in the garden of Eden for a reason. There is a lesson to be learned here. There is a proverb which is in order here which says ‘I don’t have to wallow in the mud to know its dirty.’


#14

IDK now. They are no longer porn. The women are clothed. nudity isn’t a sin it’s porn. Scantly clad women might not be porn. Then you can look at a clothed woman and lust. :shrug: It’s a bit confusing sometimes.


#15

If the sin of porn is just by lusting after a woman, so I am in a safe place, because most Playboy’s playmates are not my type, so to speak, they are pretty but I do not imagine myself with any of them, the couple that I really liked, I thought if I can get to marry this girl, not fornicate with her.I always thought that imagining myself with a woman is wrong.

But I am happy with Pamela’s position and I think, as someone posted earlier, she must have caught one or both her sons touching themselves to online porn, so she took the stance, whatever her reasons are, good for her and I think that Jesus is waiting for her.


#16

The sin of porn is porn. Lust is not necessarily involving porn.


#17

She is not getting any younger, she has made her millions and is losing attention. She has to do something to stay relevant. :rolleyes:


#18

That’s a rather stupid thing to say. What evidence do you have that she isn’t sincere in her stance. She’s older and probably wiser now…or do you expect people to be young and dumb their whole lives? Give credit where it is due.


#19

The fact that it benefits her now and would have hurt her 20 years ago is all the evidence I need. This is just more shaming of male sexuality from a woman who profited greatly from it.


#20

How does it benefit her now? By being pillared for her views? Have you read some of the responses written about her article? Is she somehow making money from echoing basically what the Church says about pornography? If she was looking to stay “relevant,” then there is a myriad of left-wing Hollywood causes that she could have hitched her wagon to.

And “shaming of male sexuality?” Have you ever seen hardcore porn? People who delight in that stuff should be shamed.

You’ve got nothing against her other than your own misguided opinion.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.