just me wrote:Just like the video in the OP this anecdote villianizes the man. That is the whole point of what the OP on the other board wanted to discuss. Why are the men always being villianized and why are the most drastic examples being used?
Both the husbands and the wives in your story could have handled the situation better. It's not about one being right and the other being wrong (black/white). It is about reaching a mutually beneficial, or palatable, compromise. Or at least gaining an understanding. Lots of information is absent from the story. We don't know if their was an actual addiction in any of these men, we don't know if they had removed their affections from their wives, we don't know if the wives had removed their affections from the husbands. We don't know why the men were using porn. I know of some military couples who make their own erotic pictures and porn for the one who is away.
Most people are very ignorant about male sexuality and female sexuality. In school they teach you how babies are made and how they are prevented and STD's. They don't teach much else. The LDS church maligns male sexuality as a bad and dangerous thing that needs to be overcome or supressed. The LDS church also tends to treat females as if they have no natural sexual desire and that they are in charge of keeping themselves and the males "worthy" and "pure." This is unhealthy.
Male sexuality isn't bad. Female sexuality isn't bad. They are just different.
Turning the husband, father and man into the bad guy will not strengthen homes and families.
The story didn't villainize the men. The wives did. Their behavior in addressing the issue at my borther villainzed them. Their behavior was pathetic, without porn. With that said, I admit I have very little dealings with the issue of Pornography. I have even less interest to learn about it and whether its a problem or a plague. It all seems disgusting and unhealthy to me. I don't' want any part of it, even if it works for some people.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Droopy, I saw a big long dissection of scratch's post providing counterpoint to his views, but with no substance behind the contrarian views.
Scratch says some couples use porn without ill effect you say they don't and scold him for lack of evidence. So please provide evidence supporting your views.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Buffalo wrote:Yeah, that's another problem the church has really tried to fight, but that also the church has really been the cause of. Depending on your income, tithing can be 60, 70, 80% or more of your net income (after non-discretionary expenses, taxes, etc). It's not 10 percent. Middle and lower class people live and die at the margins. No wonder Utahns are heavily in debt.
I just live frugally. I admit your numbers aren't far off of what I've experienced in terms of how much tithing and fast offerings come to. We're not in debt though, luckily. The church certainly expects people to live as we do. People just don't do that these days.
Yes, instead of foregoing buying a car to replace the one that broke down or paying unexpected medical expenses, Mormons are going into debt so they can still pay tithing as well. They're in a double-bind, Stem. Don't blame this on the members.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Well, most military men seem to be pretty conservative, and it's the conservative areas that see the highest porn usage.
So now its a political thing? That seems to be a little inconsistent, Buffalo. What do you do about liberals who view porn?
Did you read the study? The red states have the highest porn consumption. So it's a conservative/religious thing. Did you glance through the study I linked?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Some Schmo wrote:It would help if you people understood the difference between an argument and speculation.
Never once did I get the impression he was trying to argue that Holland had a porn problem. Something about the phrases, "I have to even privately speculate sometimes", "I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite" and "I disclaim any knowledge of his private life" tipped me off.
Which is akin to saying, "I don't mean to offend you, but damn you stink and you're kids are ugly!", and then wondering why the person got offended! After all, he said he didn't mean to offend you so you have no right being offended!
He flat out accused Holland of having a problem, and then tried to cover it up. It doesn't work that way.
Wow. Well man, if you have the need to vicariously feel offended through Holland, there's nothing I can say.
It's strange though. I expect this kind of nonsense from stem, but not you.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:Wow. Well man, if you have the need to vicariously feel offended through Holland, there's nothing I can say.
It's strange though. I expect this kind of nonsense from stem, but not you.
You mean to tell me that if I were to say,
I'm pretty sure that Schmo molests little boys. Now, I'm just speculating here. I believe he's a good guy, and I don't have any insight into his private life, but I've read a few posts on a message board!
You'd be just okay with that?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Some Schmo wrote:Wow. Well man, if you have the need to vicariously feel offended through Holland, there's nothing I can say.
It's strange though. I expect this kind of nonsense from stem, but not you.
You mean to tell me that if I were to say,
I'm pretty sure that Schmo molests little boys. Now, I'm just speculating here. I believe he's a good guy, and I don't have any insight into his private life, but I've read a few posts on a message board!
You'd be just okay with that?
You're comparing "he might have a problem with it himself" to "I'm pretty sure that Schmo molests little boys"? Seriously, Scottie?
Some Schmo wrote:Wow. Well man, if you have the need to vicariously feel offended through Holland, there's nothing I can say.
It's strange though. I expect this kind of nonsense from stem, but not you.
You mean to tell me that if I were to say,
I'm pretty sure that Schmo molests little boys. Now, I'm just speculating here. I believe he's a good guy, and I don't have any insight into his private life, but I've read a few posts on a message board!
You'd be just okay with that?
You just did it, and I don't care. What difference does it make?
People say stupid crap about me all the time on this board. I don't understand why it should affect me in the least. Nobody knows me.
I think a person has to have a serious problem to be influenced by off-the-cuff speculations of strangers.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.