Oh, excuse me, I didn't mean to say that Prince Komic's avatar was pornographic in nature, nor did I mean to say that Ms. Verona was committing the pornographic act, I was merely using his avatar as an analogous springboard from lust to the condemnation of the more specific act of lust, pornography.
I was meaning to suggest that out of respect for the basic dignity of Ms. Verona and her wishes that Prince Komic should change his avatar.
We are, as you have illustrated with restating your point, framing the issue in different manners. However, that is an argument from analogy, one I must reject on the fundamental differences between sport and porn, and I hope you will, as being a Christian and man of reason, reject it yourself.
Sport is not morally destructive in the act itself, nor is being hurt a fundamental tenant of sport, though it may occur as collateral. The act in itself is not sinful (criminal against the creator), lust and all its antecedents, however, is.
Lust, as the Catechism says, is "disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure", being an affront to the Natural Law, and an offense against the virtue of chastity and thence Divine Law. So too, pornography is characterized similarly: "Pornography consists of removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties." Hurting oneself through sport is not the intention nor the specific act, in fact, sport in itself is a glorification of God and our competitive spirits; Sex, too, is a glorification of God, lust and pornography are deliberate and disordered perversions of such and thus offenses against the Law. I imagine if sport is somehow perverted, such as the disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of winning, it too would be an offense. Such is not often the case, and even if it did I wouldn't know what to call it.
I am, for the most part, leaving out the consequences. But suffice it to say that I hate utilitarian philosophy and reject the notion that all pain is solely evil, I mean, if it was only evil, then why do good people get hurt?
Animals, or other animals I should say, do not have the rational capacity that we have, thus they are not bound by the same moral law, it would not be just to judge those without the ability to know the crime and sin.
We reflect this in our contract law (United States), if it can be demonstrated that one party did not or does not have the capacity to understand the crime they had committed in not giving the consideration or doing the deed that they were obligated to do by a contract, they are free from having to fulfill their obligation, but so too the other party receives their consideration back (if it can be) in return.