“After your eyes”—this means sinful thoughts. Seemingly an immodest or sexually arousing image in a picture or film does not involve sinful thoughts, because the sin cannot actually be carried out. Isn’t that so?

The Rabbis taught: “Guard yourself from every evil thing”—that a person should not entertain thoughts by day and come to impurity at night.
Seemingly this implies that from the moment of the thoughts during the day until nighttime there is a concern that he may come to impurity, but if a person knows he will be with his wife before going to sleep, it would seem he is no longer included in the concern that he might come to nocturnal seminal impurity. Isn’t that so?

And another question regarding nocturnal seminal impurity: nowadays, when all of us are anyway impure from contact with the dead, is there any point in being careful about seminal impurity?

Why assume there has to be a possibility of actual realization? Also, the realization could be with a woman other than the one in the picture.
As for impurity, people are careful even about corpse impurity (priests), despite the fact that they are already impure from the dead.

I intentionally came to ask the Rabbi, since he maintains that one should not change a halakhic responsum because of policy considerations, and I was very surprised by the answer:
A. You wrote that there is a prohibition against looking at immodest sights because of “do not stray,” and I am very puzzled where you found such a prohibition. Everywhere there is a concern of improper thoughts, the prohibition is because of “guard yourself,” not because of “do not stray,” which applies only to seeing actual nakedness. [Even the Yabia Omer you cited, which forbids pictures, does so because of improper thoughts. Only regarding a mirror image is there room to discuss whether this counts as seeing the nakedness itself.]
B. I wrote that it should not be forbidden because of “guard yourself,” since he knows he is going to release his seed in purity, and in the Talmud it is explicit that the prohibition is because of the concern for impurity—which is not present here.
And because of the concern that perhaps he may come to release it with his hands, there is no such [formal] prohibition. Someone who estimates that this could happen to him should refrain, and someone who does not, need not [similar to what you wrote here https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%94%d7%A1%d7%AA%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%91]
According to what you wrote, it is forbidden to look at any picture or movie in which there is some part of a woman’s body that is uncovered, just as it is forbidden to look at a physically present woman who is not covered [according to the Mishnah Berurah in sec. 75. And I do not know his source for that—when one does not intend to derive pleasure], and certainly one may not look with focused attention at her beauty, which according to what you wrote would be a Torah prohibition just like physical seeing [in that responsum there you wrote some strange leniency for this, and I mean aside from that].
From my experience, there is hardly any movie without episodes of acts of love between a couple, and many times they are “not fully covered,” so you are ruling out any possibility of watching such a movie. [For if the prohibition is because of “do not stray,” then even if he does not become mentally aroused to sinful thoughts but is merely watching, it is forbidden.] I think that in order to impose such a major prohibition, the ruling needs to be well supported. As far as I can see, there is no reason to forbid the above case.

The Rabbi himself watches movies, so I don’t know whether that’s a reason to refute it.

I don’t know where you got the idea that my position is that one may not change a halakhic ruling because of policy considerations. One may not lie if that is not the Jewish law, but the Jewish law itself can change because of policy considerations. True, someone who is not the Sanhedrin cannot change the Jewish law, so if he rules otherwise that is a lie.
But here this is an interpretive consideration, and in my opinion even a halakhic decisor nowadays can make such a consideration. Beyond that, this itself is what the Sages said—that an ember may be extinguished only in the public domain.
A. The prohibition can be because of improper thoughts. Does a picture not arouse thoughts?
B. Why not? It does. Not that he will release it with his hands, but that it will come out as at night. The question of what the law is if you estimate that in your case this will not happen (like Ritva at the end of Kiddushin) is relevant in the nighttime case too.
As for movies, I already wrote here in the past that this enters the discussion of “it is unavoidable and he does not intend it.” In my opinion one may watch a movie if he is going to it because of its artistic value, even if there are immodest scenes there. Everything depends on the case and the degree.

It seems to me that I got my answer.
Just to clarify: the link to the topic of “it is unavoidable and he does not intend it” is needed only in order to permit the actual looking at such acts—even though by their nature and content they can lead him to sin [by surfacing in his dreams]. But someone who fears that by seeing them he will become aroused to sinful thoughts in his mind has no such permission [because he does intend it]. That is what the Rabbi meant above when he forbade it, and that is what I was discussing in terms of possible grounds for leniency, as above.

If he intends improper thoughts, then of course there is no permission. But if he does not intend improper thoughts, then that too is included in what I wrote.

Do the prohibitions of “do not stray” and “guard yourself from every evil thing” depend only on intention?
In other words, what difference does it make what I intend when I go to an artistic film if there are immodest scenes there?
Is it permitted to look at them?

In Jewish law there is an exemption when a person does not intend it, and in principle this exists regarding all prohibitions. One has to know the parameters and the Talmudic topic, and I assume from your question that you are not familiar with it. You need to study the topic.

What kind of nonsense is this?!?!?
It is forbidden to watch such movies under any circumstances!
First of all, and most importantly, this contradicts the view of all the great Torah authorities of Israel, and that should be enough in itself.
If that’s not enough for you, I’ll bring a source (and it’s a shame that one even has to bring a source for such a thing).
In the Talmud in Bava Batra, in the chapter Chazkat, (and also in Bava Metzia), it is brought that if a person has two paths to walk, he is forbidden to walk on the path where women are washing clothes (for fear that he might see their thigh or their elbow, I don’t remember).
From here it is a kal va-chomer, and the son of a kal va-chomer, that a person is certainly forbidden to deliberately go into a movie knowing that he may see, God forbid, immodest sights there.
I am not a rabbi and not a halakhic decisor, just a first-year yeshiva student, a ba’al teshuvah, who is himself struggling with difficulties in this area and just wants to do God’s will and sanctify His name.
It pains me so much that there are websites like this that give legitimacy to the evil inclination of young men, causing them to sin and causing pain to our Father in Heaven.
Forgive me for the aggressiveness at the beginning of the comment; it’s just that the content of this page caused me emotional shock.
How can Torah scholars try to validate such filth?
We must not surrender to the evil inclination and let it come up with excuses for permitting such filth.
Instead of engaging in hairsplitting argument, just close your eyes and ask yourselves whether this is God’s will.
Wishing success in your struggles, and hoping for the complete redemption soon!

See here https://www.dirshu.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%9E%D7%95_-_%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%91_-_%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-1
Please look there and understand the issue.
Love every one of the Jewish people….

I’m sorry in advance for the questions, but I have to know the answer to this.
I know that it is forbidden to derive pleasure from the beauty of women who are forbidden to you—if they are menstruating, if they are married, if they are incestuous relations forbidden to you—and it is also forbidden to look at their nakedness.
But is it permitted to look at immodestly dressed girls (and enjoy their beauty) when they are not naked (their nakedness is not visible), they are not married, they are not your forbidden relatives, and they are not menstruating?
And is there any difference between Jewish women and gentile women?
And is it permitted to enjoy drawings of women? (Not real women)

When I say drawn people I mainly mean anime, and is it permitted to look at drawn nakedness? (Really sorry for the question)

And I’m not married.

It is hard to go into details and sources here, so I will write briefly.
What is forbidden is looking that may lead to prohibited sexual thoughts. The halakhic decisors also forbade this even regarding an unmarried woman (see Avodah Zarah 20a, and in Maimonides, Forbidden Intercourse 21:3, and in Shulchan Arukh Even HaEzer 21:3. There is discussion whether this is a Torah prohibition or not, and they disagreed about it).
This is not a formal prohibition, so there is no room to distinguish between a picture, a drawing, or an actual woman. As long as the thing leads to prohibited sexual thoughts, it is forbidden. Prohibited thoughts means sexual thoughts in general, so there is no need for you to be able to commit a sin with that very woman herself. Emission of seed is also a result of prohibited thoughts. Let me sharpen the point: simply speaking, the prohibition is not only a means to avoid emission of seed; rather, reaching emission is an indication that there were prohibited thoughts here. Therefore, even if you did not reach that point, sexual thoughts are still forbidden.
Of course, common sense is important here. A person is not supposed to abstain and keep away from the public domain or avoid seeing women. Normal conduct is permitted, and if prohibited thoughts occur to you, we do not worry about it. This is considered “there is no other way.”

The concern that perhaps he may come to impurity at night is not because of the impurity but because of the prohibition against wasting seed.

Thank you very much, mikyab, that’s exactly what I thought. Lately I’ve been having a lot of bad thoughts, and I saw on a few websites that “it’s not in the category of a prohibition,” and I just wanted to be sure.

Regarding your answer to Adam:
A) If there are prohibited thoughts, there is no permission of “there is no other way.” That was said about someone who is doing a permitted act and incidentally also benefits from something forbidden [like scent that comes during an unintended action], but if he is doing a voluntary act for the sake of the prohibition [for example, he intends to smell it, as explained there in the medieval authorities], then there is no permission, because with respect to this act he intends it.
So someone who incidentally derives pleasure in the course of his normal conduct with women has this permission, but if he is entertaining thoughts in his mind through a voluntary act, that is a forbidden act.
B) On the substance of the matter: you wrote that the impurity is an indication that there were prohibited thoughts, and that the prohibition is not connected to whether impurity actually comes or not. I do not know where you got that from. The Torah warned one to guard himself from becoming impure. A person who is careful not to become impure—whether because he intends to have relations with his wife that day, or because he knows his body and knows that such things do not arouse him—has not violated the Torah’s warning to guard oneself. There is no source that the thought itself is problematic.

A is just a repetition of what I said. I didn’t see anything there beyond that.
As for B, this has already been discussed at great length, and the matter is old and well worn.