MG: Meaning a person can become desensitized and build up a tolerance of sorts in regards to porn. Chances are that individuals who are deeply into hard core porn did not get/arrive there overnight.
Scratch: And your evidence is....? Your gut feeling, once again?
...you are LDS, right?
MG: Yes. Are you? I haven't heard you say one way or the other.
Scratch: And why do you think that is?
Good question. How about an answer? Look up evasive in the dictionary, and there you are.
Regards, MG
So...are you LDS? I really can't recall whether you've stated whether you are or not.
GoodK wrote:As far as porn stars are concerned, it's sort of cute in a naïve way how you think they are so tremendously different looking as to cause a second glance and a thorough background check at some potential job interview in the future.
No, that's not the image I had in mind. I had in mind the idea that a person would be well-known as a porn star and that it could come back to haunt her. Apparently Dr. Laura Schlessinger posed nude once upon a time, and then pictures leaked out again a couple of years ago. It was embarassing for her. Another thing I had in mind would be that people who you talk to (neighbors, potential employers, fellow employees), may be unable to see past your body and into your personality unless they get to know you before they see you in porn.
Maybe I am just extremely fortunate, but I don't think any of my porn star friends look different from the average girl nor do I find any of them particularly attractive.
I don't doubt you, but the I had in mind that things would work the other way around--those who view porn would recognize the women who participate in them becaseu they themselves view it and then have a distorted image of the real-life woman.
Like I said, porn doesn't exploit women, and even if it did, that's not why Christians would care.
Perhaps that's not why Christians care, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss what I write out of hand just because I might be biased.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
What do you actually think about anything? You sure like to hang others out to dry...but who are you? What do you stand for...if anything.
Regards, MG
Boy, you seem really upset, MG! Calm down! There is no need to turn this into an obsessive ad hominem fest. The well-known plagiarist JAK, and his dutiful accomplice marg are already doing that on a separate thread.
As to your question: I stand against the notion that a "gut feeling" constitutes legitimate evidence for anything beyond that fact that a given TBM happens to have a "gut feeling." I also stand against the silly and completely unsubstantiated views of those on the MADboard, hence the OP.
asbestosman wrote:I had in mind the idea that a person would be well-known as a porn star and that it could come back to haunt her. Apparently Dr. Laura Schlessinger posed nude once upon a time, and then pictures leaked out again a couple of years ago. It was embarassing for her.
Schlessinger was embarassed because she had turned into such a rigid prude and that image clashed with her nude pictures. I think a person like Schlessinger would be equally embarassed if the events happened in reverse order: word leaks out that a successful porn star used to be an obnoxious, over opinionated talkshow host, and it damages her screen career because former fans come to associate her beautiful body with a horrid radio personality. Look: talk radio exploits the hosts!
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
GoodK wrote:I only dismiss what you're saying because it makes no sense, logically.
I find it difficult to discuss assertions without explanations. Fortunately, The Dude provides an explanation.
The Dude wrote:Schlessinger was embarassed because she had turned into such a rigid prude and that image clashed with her nude pictures. I think a person like Schlessinger would be equally embarassed if the events happened in reverse order: word leaks out that a successful porn star used to be an obnoxious, over opinionated talkshow host, and it damages her screen career because former fans come to associate her beautiful body with a horrid radio personality. Look: talk radio exploits the hosts!
I find the latter scenario to be incredibly unlikely. The fact of the matter is that we associate porn with something that should be kept somewhat private--otherwise we wouldn't have laws restricting the usage or viewing of Porn in public places, even where children are not present. I am quite certain that these laws aren't a simple matter of religious prudes imposing their standards on everyone. Now, I'll grant that what counts as pornography is to a large degree dependant upon culture--you've been to Brazil and I've been to Holland so we've both experienced it. However, just because a definitive line can be difficult to draw doesn't mean we shouldn't draw one at all. It may be hard to know what the minimum age of marriage should be (I vote for 25), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:The fact of the matter is that we associate porn with something that should be kept somewhat private--otherwise we wouldn't have laws restricting the usage or viewing of Porn in public places, even where children are not present.
What does that have to do with Dr. Laura and the reverse situation I described? It is legal for adults to create, sell, purchase and consume porn. So if it were really exploitative of women then it wouldn't be legal. ?
I am quite certain that these laws aren't a simple matter of religious prudes imposing their standards on everyone.
I think it's worth considering that religion has something to do with it even if that's not simply it.
Now, I'll grant that what counts as pornography is to a large degree dependant upon culture--you've been to Brazil and I've been to Holland so we've both experienced it. However, just because a definitive line can be difficult to draw doesn't mean we shouldn't draw one at all. It may be hard to know what the minimum age of marriage should be (I vote for 25), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one.
Except that what we were actually talking about is legal, and so we already have drawn a line, so to speak.
I guess my point was that the sense of stigma and exploitation largely comes downstream from a community's attitudes toward the career, attitudes like yours or mine. If your daughter picks a career that people have a bad attitude about, you may find that the same people with bad attitude about her career are pointing out that they stigmatize her for making money in that way. You have to see this to believe it.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
asbestosman wrote:The fact of the matter is that we associate porn with something that should be kept somewhat private--otherwise we wouldn't have laws restricting the usage or viewing of Porn in public places, even where children are not present.
What does that have to do with Dr. Laura and the reverse situation I described? It is legal for adults to create, sell, purchase and consume porn. So if it were really exploitative of women then it wouldn't be legal. ?
It doesn't prove it exploits women. It shows that we find reasons for it to be restricted, probably because we find it to be potentially dangerous (like guns), but not necessarily exploitative.
I guess my point was that the sense of stigma and exploitation largely comes downstream from a community's attitudes toward the career, attitudes like yours or mine. If your daughter picks a career that people have a bad attitude about, you may find that the same people with bad attitude about her career are pointing out that they stigmatize her for making money in that way. You have to see this to believe it.
Good point. However, I still think that people have a difficult time of seeing other qualities in porn stars if the first glimpse they have of the person is in pornography.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
I still think that people have a difficult time of seeing other qualities in porn stars if the first glimpse they have of the person is in pornography.
Okay, the reasoning behind this is not coming through to me. Maybe I am dense.
People may have a difficult time seeing other qualities in Mormons if they are forewarned that the person is a weirdo Mormon. ? Therefore...?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
DISCLAIMER: Any and all references to pornography from this point forward refer ONLY to that which is produced by and consumed by consenting adults.
With that out of the way, I freely admit it: I am a sometime connoisseur of the pornographic arts. I see no shame therein. Therefore, I believe I am uniquely qualified to weigh in on this issue.
Regarding whether pornography is a scourge, no, I don't believe it is. On the contrary, pornography is one of the greatest gifts that God has bestowed on mankind. Rather than something to be hated and feared, the pornographic arts are a sacrament to be partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving.
In my case, I can't begin to imagine the amount of happiness that pornography has brought me over the years. Is there truly a well-adjusted man in the entire English-speaking world who doesn't feel a deep debt of gratitude to one Hugh Hefner?
Regarding the assertion that pornography destroys marriages, that's just not the case. The KNEE-JERK NEGATIVE REACTION to pornography is what destroys marriages. If someone catches his or her significant other indulging in the pornographic arts, one can either A) freak out and divorce him/her, or B) take a chill pill, put things in perspective, learn and understand the reason for the significant other's indulgence therein, and hopefully begin learning to appreciate pornography together.
For whatever reason, religious folks tend to opt for A rather than the perfectly legitimate B. So if "pornography destroys marriages," then it's their fault, not pornography's.
Regarding the assertion that pornography makes the consumers view the performers as "one-dimensional" and renders them unable to appreciate her (or his?) other talents, my response is, "no freakin' kidding!" I'd like my religious friends to sincerely answer the following question: When you hire a plumber to come to your house to fix a leaky faucet, do you concern yourself with his poetry-writing skills, or do you only value the service for which you hired him? Yeah, I thought so.
Let's face it: Anyone who is anything other than an ascetic hermit is "exploited." We pay people for what they can actually do; it's perfectly natural and has been that way ever since we stopped being hunter-gatherers and started becoming farmers and ranchers.
Regarding the horror stories of guys who view pornography and then ask their wives to do some of the things they see, which then leads to divorce, I say this: GOD FORBID that the wives step one inch outside their comfort zone and actually give his suggestion(s) a try. Rather than freaking out and filing for divorce, why not open one's mind and give it a shot? Or, barring that, why not just have a mature, intelligent discussion of each other's personal comfort zones?
Regarding the accusation that apostasy generates a greater tolerance for pornography, well, that's true--but it's also perfectly natural and good. Let me ask my Mormon friends this: If a Jehovah's Witness apostatizes, is it shocking for them to no longer view birthday parties and Christmas presents as sinful? Are they to be condemned for beginning to indulge in such things, or is their learning that such things are perfectly normal a completely natural course of events?
Likewise, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam, is he to be hated and castigated because he no longer believes that the infidel must be sacrificed through the medium of Jihad, or is it to be expected that he cast off the artificial and unnatural viewpoints with which his parents raised him?
Hopefully that covers all the objections to the pornographic arts that have been raised in this thread so far. Did I miss anything? If so, please tell me and I'll happily address that too.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"