Droopy wrote:Just for the record, and so as not to paint anyone into a corner they are not in, who in this forum would defend the creation, dissemination, and indulgence in pornography, on principle, against the Church's view of the matter?
Who is pro, and who is con?
Every American should defend the creation and dissemination of, and indulgence in, pornography, especially in light of the LDS church's view on the matter. The First Amendment is your inalienable right and any attempt to establish the moral code of a religious institution as the standard by which sexual expression is judged is patently un-American.
Shame on you, Loran, for not standing up for the inspired constitution of the United States of America. And double shame for needing a Canadian to point it out.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
Fiannan wrote: Oh, and maybe one of the biggest reasons it has mainstreamed into the culture is due to hotel chains offering it on their room menu services. People tend to believe that if family businesses offer such things then it must be okay.
Porn (and masturbation) is unnecessary even if you aren't married. Your body has a way of taking care of things naturally.
Romance novels aren't in the same ballpark as porn. No real people are exploited in romance novels. I admit I don't know much about romance novels, but I'm guessing that one difference is that porn treats people as objects for sexual gratification while romance novels are very much about a person's personality, emotions, etc. Even so, I think I've heard counsel to avoid romance novels too--just nothing about how dangerous and evil they are. It sounds more akin to the badness swearing than to the badness of porn or adultery.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
CaliforniaKid wrote:And consumption is a problem if it's a betrayal of trust in a marriage relationship.
I agree, but I think it's a bit deeper than that. The question is what expectations are permissible in marital trust? If I expect my wife to refrain from snacking on Oreos and she says she will but sneaks off and gobbles down several when I'm not around, how much betrayal should I feel? I think in such a case the blame lies chiefly with me by setting a foolish expectation and then pressuring her into it when she never really agreed--or maybe she did agree but her sweet tooth made her change her mind.
She may feel guilty, but in big scheme of things her eating Oreos shouldn't be a big deal. Most people would agree that I'm being too controlling by trying to set such an expectation in a marriage. They would likely claim so even if I point out how her eating Oreos is not just a skin-deep problem. It impacts her health which impacts our family finances and what activities we can do together. Tough luck for me though. Society's standards are clear: a woman's diet and weight is nobody's business--not even Darrick's.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
sock puppet wrote:When it comes to pornography and masturbation, both are unnecessary, carnal indulgences. I am very much in favor of sexual tensions building in individuals with no release, to the point that these people cannot focus on their work or school, and to the further point that they commit rape and other violence.
Oh, wait, that's the LDS position.
On second thought...nevermind.
Regarding the standard, orthodox social leftist position on pornography, to wit, that it does not in any manner influence or incite sexual violence or provoke criminal sexual activity, it's now interesting to see someone assert that sexual tensions themselves are quite enough, if left unreleased, to provoke rape, molestation, and sexual assault. It would seem that if sexual feelings, thoughts, and fantasies are enough to create a situation, in normal, civilized male adults, in which they become predatory animals seeking orgasm at any cost, then pornography, which concentrates and heightens sexual apatite, incites craving, and provokes highly unrealistic expectations in the sexual area, would, if unfulfilled in some actual behavioral way, lead to the very same conditions, and lead to them with greater frequency and intensity.
Of course, this idea of sexual tension leading otherwise normal males to running amok in the streets seeking release is pure left-wing bosh that is only taken seriously by the most intellectually facile and unreflective cultural lapdogs of Kinsey and in movies like Porky's, in which unreleased sexual tension leads to visits to whorehouses and statutory rape.
Yes, let's all organize our views of social reality and the human condition around prurient Hollywood T&A flicks made for young males behind in their psychological maturity but not in physical maturation.
Droopy, you know how you insist that people who believe in the First Amendment are all leftists? Stop saying that you're a libertarian. You're a libertarian in the same sense that people who play John Madden Football on XBox are athletes.
The sock thing is weird, but I will bet some people have such fetish desires.
However, one thing that should not be ignored is the fact that many men, and some women, have foot fetishes. So maybe women should keep their shoes on at all times -- who knows what someone is thinking when you are bare foot.
Fiannan wrote: Oh, and maybe one of the biggest reasons it has mainstreamed into the culture is due to hotel chains offering it on their room menu services. People tend to believe that if family businesses offer such things then it must be okay.
LDSToronto wrote:Like Marriott?
H.
+1
And this has bugged me for years.
Tithing Trump's porn peddling. If Marriott peddles porn, makes a profit, gives dividends to Mormon shareholders who in turn pay 10% of those dividends as tithing, then it is okay with the COB.
asbestosman wrote:Porn (and masturbation) is unnecessary even if you aren't married. Your body has a way of taking care of things naturally.
Romance novels aren't in the same ballpark as porn. No real people are exploited in romance novels. I admit I don't know much about romance novels, but I'm guessing that one difference is that porn treats people as objects for sexual gratification while romance novels are very much about a person's personality, emotions, etc. Even so, I think I've heard counsel to avoid romance novels too--just nothing about how dangerous and evil they are. It sounds more akin to the badness swearing than to the badness of porn or adultery.
Unnecessary in what way? In a biological way? Maybe, but masturbating (which goes hand in hand with viewing porn) has not only positive psychological effects, but very good physiological health benefits. Here's a starting point, or I can get you the peer reviewed journal reference if you can access them: http://www.menshealth.com/health/health ... sturbation
Masturbating just 5 times a week actually reduces your risk of prostate cancer by 1/3rd.
Exploitation is very rare in the porn industry (which you probably know as little about as you do romance novels) now days. In fact, I would make a strong argument that pornography keeps desperate women from prostitution (a far more dangerous industry by any standards).
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."