Posted on 01/14/2006 12:02:09 PM PST by wagglebee
Amen!!!
As far as porn catalyzing a divorce: I tend to be a hardass about what constitutes legitimate grounds for divorce, WRT Xtian marriages. The wife I noted above had no good grounds. Once you make those vows in front of God and everybody, you have a responsibility to honor that vow for the rest of your life. Adultery (skin-on-skin, no philosophical conundrum like porn) is apparently a legit reason to file, according to Christ, and I would editorially add life-threatening abuse. Outside of those bounds, you have a duty to make it work.
Another poster above brought up a point that occured to me yesterday morning after I posted. The men and women, whether pro or amateur, who produce the porn we're going on about are degrading their sexuality by virtue of the pornographic acts. I do view sex as a gift to one man/one woman, and there is no room for that reality in the porn world. Men and women who produce porn are in need of serious prayer. And if they, by virtue of their actions, are apparently in serious need of a holy powerwash, then what business have I or anyone of faith supporting them in their efforts. Is how the logic goes in my brain.
Why, the faith just gushes out of you!
Since JC didn't do us the honor of listing any possible proxies for adultery, we each have to make our own call. For me that means being less than 100% sure about the porn/adultery thing. I just let his word on this serve as a big warning to "Don't even go there." If I make it through life having been a little or lot less ravenous with my eyes than I otherwise would have, I can't imagine that will hurt me or my marriage any. And I agree about Clinton; he's an adulterous, equivocating pig.
Taking a 30,000 ft view of porn, I do not consider it something that automatically reduces the user to a helpless slave, bound for a ruined marriage. But I consider the potential fruits, if you will, to be nothing but rotten.
I don't know if I'd agree with that.
It seems like it would be fairly obvious that porn has become more mainstream in the last 10 to 15 years due to the popularity of the internet. I don't have any revenue numbers handy, but that seems like a solid guess, at least.
The point I'm making is that porn was very much mainstream 30 years ago.
As far as the relation between then and now, revenue wouldn't be a good indication - especially considering inflation. A better one would be the degree to which serious people consent to make statements for porn venues (a la Carter's Playboy interview) or the degree to which politicians/businessmen/society types either praise (or publically associate) or condemn pornographers.
My subjective view is that it was cooler then.
If you are looking at those bodies as objects and forgetting they have souls, you aren't loving your neighbor.
Inflation could easily be adjusted for.
A better one would be the degree to which serious people consent to make statements for porn venues (a la Carter's Playboy interview)
I believe Rush gave them an interview a few years ago.
My subjective view is that it was cooler then.
I don't know whether it was more widespread or not, but it was certainly less extreme. To quote the link you posted, "The first appearance of pubic hair in Playboy was in an August 1969 pictorial featuring an actress. The first Playmate followed suit in January 1971. It was a BIG deal at the time." It's certainly not a big deal to see that and much more today.
BTW, you might want to warn people when you send a link containing nudity. I'm not offended myself, but some people will be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.