Looking at an immodest picture

Behind your eyes – this is a thought of sin, apparently an immodest or sexually stimulating image in a picture or film does not belong in it, a thought of sin because it is impossible to commit the sin. Isn't that right?

T”R: And you guard against every evil thing – lest a person think of it during the day and fall into impurity at night
Apparently this means that from the moment of thinking during the day until night there is no fear that he will fall into impurity, and if a person knows that he will have sex with his wife before going to sleep, it seems that he is out of the fear that he will fall into impurity of night. Isn't that right?

And another question regarding impurity of night, is there any point in guarding against impurity of night in our day when we are all already impure?

Why the assumption that there should be a possibility of realization? And furthermore, the realization can be with a woman not from the picture.
For a person who is unclean, even from a dead unclean person (the priests) are careful even though they are a dead unclean person.

I intentionally asked the rabbi, who takes the position that a halakhic answer should not be changed due to policy considerations, and I was very surprised by the answer:
A. You wrote that it is forbidden to look at immodest mirrors because you will not turn, and I am very puzzled where you found such a prohibition, wherever there is a fear of reflection, the prohibition is because and is observed not because you will not turn, which is only in the sight of *pubic hair*. [Also, Hibi”a that you cited says that the prohibition in a picture is because of reflection. Only with regard to a mirror should it be considered that it is considered the sight of pubic hair itself].
B. I wrote that it is not forbidden because and is observed since he knows that he will ejaculate in purity, and in the rabbi’ it is explicit that the prohibition is because of the fear of impurity – which is not here.
And out of fear that he might come and take it out with his hands, there is no such [formal] prohibition, and whoever estimates himself that this might be called upon should refrain, and whoever does not [like 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%5D
According to you, it is forbidden to look at any picture or film that has a part of a woman's body that is not covered, and just as it is forbidden to look at a woman physically who is not covered [According to the opinion of the Rabbi in the Bible. I do not know what the origin of this is - when one does not intend to enjoy it], and certainly not to look out of contemplation of its beauty, which according to you would be a Torah prohibition like physical sight [in your reply there you wrote some strange permission for this, and I meant this if it were not for me].
From my experience, there is almost no film in which there are no episodes of lovemaking between a couple, and many times they are not completely covered, so you rule out any possibility of watching such a film [which if its prohibition is because you do not turn away, then even if one does not think of contemplating the offense but watches it casually - it is forbidden]. I think that in order to impose such a significant prohibition, the ruling must be well supported. However, I do not see any reason to prohibit it in the above case.

The rabbi himself watches movies, so I don't know if there's any point in contradicting him.

I don't know where I got my position that a ruling should not be changed due to policy considerations. It is forbidden to lie if it is not the halacha, but the halacha itself can change due to policy considerations. It is true that someone who is not a Sanhedrin cannot change the halacha, and therefore if he teaches otherwise, it is a lie.
But here it is an interpretative consideration, and therefore in my opinion even a modern-day poske can make such a consideration. Beyond that, it is precisely what the Sages said that it is permissible to extinguish a coal only in a brahma.
A. The prohibition can be due to contemplation. And does not a picture provoke contemplation?
B. Why not? Yes. Not that he should take it out with his hands, but that it should come out as if it were night. The question of what is the ruling if you estimate that it will not happen (as in the end of the Kiddushin) is also true in the case of night.
Regarding films, I have already written here in the past that it enters the discussion of not being possible and not intentionally. In my opinion, one can watch a film if one goes to it because of its artistic value, even if there are immodest scenes in it. And it all depends on the matter and the dosage.

I think I got my answer.
Just to clarify: The link to the issue of not being able to do or not being able to do is needed only to permit the mere contemplation of these acts - although by their nature and purpose they can lead one to commit a transgression [by envisioning them in one's dream], but one who fears that by seeing them he will be awakened to contemplate the transgression in his mind does not have this permission [since he is intending], and for this the Rabbi intended above to prohibit, and for this I discussed ways to permit, and so on.

If he intends to reflect, certainly there is no permission. But if he does not intend to reflect, then that is also included in my words.

Do the prohibitions of “not turning aside” and “and guarding yourself from all evil” only apply to “intention”?
In other words, what difference does it make what I intend when I go to an art film if there are immodest scenes in it?
Is it permissible to watch them?

There is an exemption in Halacha if the person does not intend it, and in principle this applies to all prohibitions. You need to know the boundaries and the issue, and I assume in light of your question that you do not. You need to study the issue.

What is this nonsense?!?!?
You must not watch such films under any circumstances!
First and foremost, it contradicts the opinion of all the great men of Israel and this should be enough in itself.
If that is not enough for you, I will provide a source (and it is a shame that a source should be provided for such a thing at all)
In the Gemara of Baba Batra, in the chapter of Chazkat (and also in Baba Metzia), it is stated that a person who has two ways to go, is prohibited from going the way that women wash their clothes (for fear that there will be a view of their shins or elbows, I don't remember)
From here it is easy and a foregone conclusion that a person is prohibited from going to see a film in which he may see immodest scenes, הוא.
I am not a rabbi and I do not rule, in general a student in Shiur A, a Baal Teshuvah, who is personally dealing with difficulties in the subject and only wants to do the will of God and sanctify His name.
It's so unfortunate to me that there are sites like this that legitimize the desire of young men to hate and grieve their Father in Heaven.
Forgive me for the aggression at the beginning of the response, the content of this page simply shocked me.
How can Torah scholars try to legalize such filth?
We must not give in to the desire and let it make excuses for why it legalizes such filth.
Instead of just pleading with yourself, close your eyes and ask yourself if this is the will of God.
Wishing you success in your endeavors and looking forward to complete redemption soon!

Look 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 topic
I love everyone from Israel….

I apologize in advance for the questions but I must know the answer to this.
I know that it is forbidden to enjoy the beauty of women who are forbidden to you, if they are menstruating, if they are married, if they are incestuous (relatives who are forbidden) and it is also forbidden to see their pubic hair.
But is it permissible to be frustrated with immodest girls (and enjoy the beauty) who are not naked (you do not see their pubic hair), they are not married, they are not incestuous to you, and they are not menstruating?
And is there a difference between Jewish or Gentile women?
And is it permissible to enjoy paintings of women? (Not real women)

When I mean cartoon people, I mainly mean anime, and is it okay to get frustrated with cartoon pubic hair? (Really sorry for asking)

And I am not married.

It is difficult to go into details and sources here, so I will write briefly.
What is forbidden is looking that may lead to forbidden contemplation. The poskim also forbade it in the naked state (see Ezekiel 20 Ezekiel 1, 3, and Rambam Issou 2 21, 3, and Shulchan Abba Ezekiel 22, 3). It is necessary to discuss whether this is from the Torah or not (and they disagreed on this).
This is not a formal prohibition, and therefore there is no room for divisions between a picture and a painting or an actual woman, as long as it leads to forbidden contemplation, it is forbidden. Forbidden contemplation is sexual contemplation in general, and therefore it is not necessary that you reach a transgression with this woman herself. Ejaculation is also a result of forbidden contemplation. One thing is that in simple terms the prohibition is not just a means to avoid ejaculating, but reaching ejaculate is an indication that forbidden contemplation was present. Therefore, even if you have not reached that point, sexual contemplation is still forbidden.
Of course, common sense is important here. A person is not supposed to abstain and stay away from public places or not look at women. Conduct Normal is permissible, and if you have forbidden thoughts, you should let them go. This is considered “like this, like this, after this”.

The fear of becoming impure at night is not because of the impurity but because of the prohibition against ejaculating in vain.

Thank you very much mikyab, that's exactly what I was thinking, lately I've been having a lot of bad thoughts, and I saw on several sites that "it's not a prohibition" and I just wanted to be sure.

Regarding your answer to Adam: a) If contemplation is forbidden, there is no permission according to the following: This is said for someone who performs a forbidden act and also enjoys something forbidden [a smell that comes in an involuntary act], but if he does a voluntary act for the sake of the prohibition [for example, he intends to smell, as explained there in the Rishonim] there is no permission, because with regard to this act he intends.
Thus, someone who enjoys it in the course of his normal dealings with women has this permission, but if he contemplates it in his mind in a voluntary act, then it is a forbidden act.
b) As for the substance of the matter, you wrote that impurity is an indication that contemplation was forbidden, and the prohibition is not related to impurity that came or not. I don't know where you got that from. The Torah warned against becoming impure. A person who is careful not to become impure, whether he intends to come to his wife today, or whether he knows his body is not aroused by such things, has not transgressed the warning of observing the Torah. There is no source that contemplation in itself is problematic.

A He repeated my words. I didn't see anything beyond that.
As for B, they've already gone into this a long time ago, and the things are old.