"ADULT CONTENT"

re your post #110 you said in part, "but I never said sex was bad. Not once. Everything I said was in relation to loss of freedom via loss of morals, the effects of pornography, and decency verses decadence."

I agree with your factual presentation as to the problems associated with pornography. Porn can be just as addictive as drugs. An addiction is a loss of freedom because whatever a person is addicted to becomes the main focus in life.

Porn, addiction and criminal acts often go hand in hand. Very sad indeed...

PURE INTIMACY

Good morning. =) To you, I'm sure it is. To me it is not. I decide what I think and feel, about women or anything else.

Moral absolutes come from God. By an honest examination of your conscience one can determine truths--provided one uses the conscience on a regular basis. Concrete reality does exist. Every argument made to me on this thread has been from a subjective argument, which denies concrete reality and instead plays into the "if it feels good it must be right" syndrome.

I restate that porn denegrates the sacredness of sex, marriage, and human life; it transforms sex and the communion of life and love within the sacrament of matrimony to simply a tool of masturbatory and voyeuristic gratification. It reduces sex to recreation and human beings with special dignity to mere playthings or sex machines.

And yes, one must take responsibility for one's actions and behaviors. However, words and ideas mean things and have power and influence. And actions have consequences. These are common-sense principles.

Spam? Just delete it and don't read it.

Nope; that's the same level of craven surrender as "Just Move On". Trace the perp and report him to his ISP.

If you want it, keep it. If you don't want it, toss it. Junk snailmail or junk email, makes no difference. The price of any communications system is commercial use.

How someone who's smart enough to reject the lines "It's all about sex" and "This is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy[tm] plot" could also be dumb enough to accept the lines "Spam complaints come from anti-commerce e-hippies" and "This is free speach[sic]" passeth all understanding.

The issue has nothing to do with commerce. It has to do with theft of services (specifically, bandwidth).

Among 932 sex addicts

For Ghu's sake, stop it with the Clinton definition games. The term "addiction" refers to an induced biochemcial dependency, not to a bad habit.

aww..lighten up steve--I was trying to debate a group of people at once. I probably should've put up better statistics, but when you want to make your point quickly then sometimes you get sloppy--and this thread wore me out last night.

Sorry -- I'm just tired of the modern use of the term "addiction" as a the-devil-made-me-do-it excuse for everything.

If you want to contact the sender's ISP, great. Go for it. I just delete it. For the spam I get from years of using the same email address, WHAM, 15 seconds, it's gone.

How someone who's smart enough to reject the lines "It's all about sex" and "This is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy[tm] plot" could also be dumb enough to accept the lines "Spam complaints come from anti-commerce e-hippies" and "This is free speach[sic]" passeth all understanding.

Oh really, by pointing out that commerical applications are a necessary evil to communication sevices accuses you of being an "anti-commerce e-hippie"? That's just the way things are in capitalist system. I prefer the capitalist system. I may complain about TV commericals, but I realize that to see the entertainment provided, that is the price. I just ignore them when thy come on. Would you prefer that television broadcasts be the exclusive domain of PBS?

The issue has nothing to do with commerce. It has to do with theft of services (specifically, bandwidth).

You have a physical mailbox and a post office address. There is no way you can stop anyone from sending you mail, who has acquired your address. That is just what is. You just have to deal with it as you see fit.

Now, there are federal laws regulating the contracted postal service under Article I, section 8, clause 7 that prohibit sending obsene material through the mails. And even that is defeated by the plain brow wrapper. Try to get that regulation imposed on email. But, the sender of porn via email would just put in a Subject line something like "For your Attention" and there is the plain brown wrapper again.

At the very end of the road is the responsibility of the citizen to deal with wolves in a hostile world. To have an agency to protect him involves the cost of that agency, whether in terms of money or precedent for more egredious limitations of free activity.

My opinion.

By an honest examination of your conscience one can determine truths--provided one uses the conscience on a regular basis

Exactly--by an honest examination of my conscience. And yes, I use it.

I restate that porn denegrates...

Simply restating it over and over doesn't answer the mail. I understand that you're thoroughly and sincerely convinced. But that doesn't mean it's a "concrete moral truth".

And before you say it, no, I am not a relativist. But some things are relative. The way you dress now would have been considered scandalous (pornographic in fact) in 1800. When I learned how to waltz, I found it to be a beautiful, romantic dance. That's not how it was viewed when it was introduced. It was considered vulgar and scandalous--the man (gasp!) touched his partner! You know what that leads to!

Much of what is called "fine arts" today was considered low and vulgar when first introduced.

When Ben Franklin invented the lightening rod, he was condemned by many religious leaders for "interfering with God's will" (I am always amused when I hear someone suggest that a mortal man can thwart an omnipotent God). I have little doubt that they considered that a "concrete moral truth". What say you? Was Ben in league with Satan?

Exactly--by an honest examination of my conscience. And yes, I use it.

Did I imply somehow that it wasn't "your" conscience? If you examine your conscience then you should be able to determine that using women in that manner is wrong. Concretely. We are not dogs.

Simply restating it over and over doesn't answer the mail. I understand that you're thoroughly and sincerely convinced. But that doesn't mean it's a "concrete moral truth".

And before you say it, no, I am not a relativist. But some things are relative. The way you dress now would have been considered scandalous (pornographic in fact) in 1800. When I learned how to waltz, I found it to be a beautiful, romantic dance. That's not how it was viewed when it was introduced. It was considered vulgar and scandalous--the man (gasp!) touched his partner! You know what that leads to!

You indeed are a relativist. I reiterated my position because you keep telling me that because you like porn then it is okay. What learning the waltz [and the other examples you used] have in common with women acting like base animals aren't comparable. We are talking about specific and explicit sexual behavior that has nothing to do with love. There is nothing dignified in the behavior and there are no benefits. Simply, it is as I said--a tool of voyeuristic and masturbatory gratification. If that is what floats your boat, then so be it, but it is a vice not a virtue.

I was wondering if you could weigh in with your insights into the dignity and worth of humanity and how it is degraded by the effects of porn. Thanks.

I can, but people will only see what they want to see.

When I was in high-school one of the "cool" conversations I found myself in had the guys discussing what they liked best about girls. One would say in a very cool voice, "I'm a legs man." Another would say, "I'm a breasts man." (We were boys, but we didn't admit that.) If I just put down a transcript of the discussion, you would be hard pressed to know whether we were talking about women or a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken (which was what it was called in those days, not KFC). We had reduced women down to their component parts and decided whether we liked them or not based on how pleasing those parts were to us as men with "discriminating tastes."

Of course, we were boys of the Playboy generation. Hugh Heffner had shown us all how to base the value of women on their body parts. I can't really blame Hugh. All visual media have done that since the photograph was invented. But what has the result been?

Men have two views of women that directly conflict with one another. The first view is that of an equal member of the human race. If you're religious, a woman is a bearer of the image of G-d just like a man is. Men and women have complex emotions, wants, needs, dreams, desires, goals, etc. But the other view is that a woman is a tool to satisfy a man's desire for pleasure. It may be sexual pleasure or more simple pleasures like appreciating beauty, listening when the man talks, keeping the man from being lonely, etc.

The conflict has totally destroyed the way men and women relate. If you've ever seen "Fiddler on the Roof" you will remember the song in which Tevye asked Golde whether she loved him. She danced around the question for a while then finally declared, "For twenty-five years I've lived with him, fought with him, loved with him. Twenty-five years my bed is his. If that's not love what is?" Of course, Tevye and Golde had an arranged marriage. Love wasn't required, but they both learned it. They close the song with, "It doesn't change a thing, but even so, after twenty-five years it's nice to know."

Talk about love that way today and people will look at you funny. You're supposed to love somebody before you marry. If you talk about why you love them, the discussion will turn to what she does for me (or vice versa). "She's so fun to be with. She makes me laugh. She makes me feel important." You won't hear, "I've decided to dedicating my whole life to being there for her whatever she may ask of me." But that's what love is. And it doesn't require an emotional roller-coaster ride of infatuation to do. It's an act of will, not a feeling.

Where did this newer version of love come from? I couldn't pinpoint an exact date. Some blame Shakespeare and "Romeo and Juliet" where the two commit suicide over their undying love when they've known each other for less than 24 hours. Some blame music or T.V. I blame the reduction of women to objects fo pleasure. If that's what women are, then certainly I can't love one who doesn't provide pleasure. Is she starting to look old? How can I love her. Is she getting boring to talk to? How can I lover her. Does she take me for granted? How can I love her.

Of course, this didn't start with my generation (or we wouldn't blame The Bard). But widespread pornography that you could buy at the corner market did. That's when the idea that a woman was an object really took off. In my father's day a man might marry for the wrong reasons, but like Tevye and Golde he would stand by her and learn to love her over time. But my generation?

"Who do you like better, Miss December or Miss November?" We didn't know either one, except that dumb stuff in the "fact sheet." How could we like either one better, except as an object. But one was a "legs man" and Miss December had better legs, so of course he would like her better. Too bad she wasn't available drive-thru.

So-called hard core porn isn't required to degrade our concept of women. Automobile ads, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues, Borg women in skin-tight uniforms, they can all do it. All they have to do is constantly reinforce the idea that a woman exists to give the man pleasure. Even those who should know better, those who know G-d, may be heard to exclaim, "I may be married, but I can still window shop."

As if the drive-thru is just around the corner.

JMJ, I hope this was what you were looking for.

Shalom.

Since you're now telling me what I am, there's probably no use in taking this any further.

It never ceases to amaze me, how many expert psychologists there are here at FR. No, better than expert. Most doctors need to actually know their patients before they make a diagnosis. Not at FR!

It was what I was looking for and I thank you. I'll add a few remarks of my own.. Every human being is a worshipper [whether they want to admit it or not]. In both Hebrew and Greek, the term worship conveys the idea of bowing down or prostrating oneself in submission and adoration to another. There is an altar, so to speak, in every person’s heart. Enthroned on that altar is whatever a person is devoted to and has submitted himself to in life.

The most frightening feature about worship is that a person becomes a slave to the object of his deepest affection, and ultimately, he resembles or even becomes what he idolizes. This makes the act of worship extremely dangerous and helps to explain why it is crucial to reserve one’s worship for God alone. To place anything else in that sacred position of one’s heart is exceedingly sinful—it is idolatry.

How different is the life of one who bows “At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry.” He has made the act of sex his god. He is in complete submission to this master. Paul said, “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”

A man cannot be a slave to sin and a servant of God at the same time because no one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other.

I thank you again.

I didn't define you...you did...by telling me that there is nothing concrete in regard to pornography.

Regardless, I thank you for the polite debate. Have a nice day.

There is no question, however, that the advent of chemical and surgical contraception which rendered the notion of procreative sex somehow medieval has resulted in ......... reduction of woman to an object for self-gratification ......"

I don't entirely agree with your premis on this point. Girls/women (and some boys/men) have been outright held against their will and enslaved for the purpose of sexual gratificaton for eons. This still goes on in parts of the world. (In addition girls/women have been rendered economically dependent for essentially the same purposes for eons).

All this was well before modern contraceptive methods. Children of such unions were often cast aside as garbage... left to fend for themselves, sexually enslaved or enslaved as workers or simply killed if no use could be found for them.

Resource Links to indepth info regarding trafficking of women and children:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE: HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Put the word "trafficking" in the CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA's search box for articles regarding trafficking of women and children

And perfectly reasonable Greeks used to pot their children ... particularly the unwanted females.

These are some pre-Christian and non-Christian realties that are about to be taken to a whole new level in what folks like to call the Post-Christian World.

It's worse than you think ... and it's true that the fish is rotting from the head.

Some Post-Christian Realities

Yeah but all this stuff (and worse) was going on to women and children (of both sexes) and some men BEFORE the advent of contraception and widespread access to pornography. Also, the debauchery and abuse continued apace in Christian as well as non-Christian countries and cultures.

Sorry, I don't agree with the rose colored glasses view of history that many Conservatives like to engage in. Although I agree that pornography probably contributes to the cultural acceptance and continuance of girls/women/children as ojects of sexual gratification, I don't agree that it started it or is the primary cause.

The primary cause is the superiority complex of elite groups of people with virtually unlimited social/economic/political power over others .... who feel ENTITLED to do as they wish. Just look at the recent sex slavery scandals with both UN and USA contractor employees in Bosnia. As long as these people have any kind of power over others ... in this case enslaved young girls and women bought and sold like cattle, these people will abuse that power to the detriment of the weaker members ... the weaker the better for these "priveledged" degenerates ... which is why they frequently target children.

Actually, I think women have proven remarkably keen on pornography and -- given the supervision, clothes and moral guidance they give their girls (en route to some $70 seats at the Back Stage Boys or Britney's latest concert, best friends that they are) -- I'm no so sure they really care all that much about "the children" as long as their girls don't end up pregnant and costing 'em an abortion.

Look at the way they dress, much less the way they mutilate themselves with silicone and liposuction and botulism, for Pete's sake. If what passes for "entertainment" on television's any example, having some guy urinate on you is the stuff of Lucille Ball situation comedy slapstick these days.

So ... hearkening to the libertarian "right to self-destruction", I don't really have much sympathy for the poor women -- the dancers, the strippers, the 900-operators, the porn stars -- or the daughters and sons of mothers and fathers who are allowed to embrace wholeheartedly the culture of death whose signature is the vampirish sex that will not be sated ... sucking as it is on a bone that's sere.

Instead, I feel sorry for those who have no clue that the primary effect of porn is indeed to condition a person to being an object of manipulation and destroy utterly his self-sovereignty by reducting himself (or her womb) to a thing subject to the control of images and chemicals and Peer Pressure.

It's little wonder the government's so inclined to dumb down Free Speech to sexual expression and their agit-prop artists in Hollywood wrap the likes of Larry Flynt in a US flag.

So what's your solution? Censorship?

I really don't care how much porn a person watches or what they do in consensual relationships. It's their business, not mine. While I do agree certain media probably affects behaviour towards others, I don't agree we should get involved UNTIL the behaviour is manifested.

In other words, indulge in all the porn you want, indulge in all the consensual activities you want, I really don't care. But cross that line and break laws such as rape, slavery, trafficking, violence, anything non-consensual or statutorily so with children ...etc.... and I'll have your head served on a platter (fos).

Re porn: If we don't like it there is plenty we can do short of censorship to curtail it. People are welcome in this country to protest whatever they wish and boycott places of business (such as Disney) which produce or are involved in porn. There is a huge difference between protest(even open and loud protest) and organizing boycotts, picketing businesses which sell porn, etc.... and calling for the government to censor. Free speech goes two ways.