OSC has mentioned several times recently in his columns that he is against pornography. I was wondering if anyone here read or heard his reasons. Of course, I would be delighted to read other peoples opinions with reasons spelled out. What do you see intrinsically bad in pornography that is specific to pornography and goes beyond bad taste?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it would be fair to assume that OSC agrees with most of the reasoning of his church on why pornography is bad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think it would be fair to assume that OSC agrees with most of the reasoning of his church on why pornography is bad.
Maybe, but he if his opinions on other topics are any indication, he probably has many reasons outside church literature.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That's a good point, BlackBlade. I think I might have inadvertently implied that OSC simply parrots the teachings of the church without reasoning through and forming his opinions in a thoughtful manner. That's not what I was going for.
I'm not aware of any writings that go into detail on OSC's feelings on this topic or the reasons for them, however, so I thought the church's official position on porn might serve as a reasonable proxy (and by his public affirmations of his church's correctness, I feel that OSC probably does endorse official church positions unless explicitly noted).
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
It's been a very long time since I read it, but I seem to recall his discussing pornography in his book of essays, A Speaker in Zion.
Again, from memory, I think he says that for the majority of people pornography is simply boring, but for a small number of people it is highly addictive and destructive to personal relationships.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Craig Childs: Again, from memory, I think he says that for the majority of people pornography is simply boring
That's probably totally wrong.
As for the potential destructiveness of porn: percentage wise, it's not very likely. Some video games have a higher percentile chance of ruining marriages, and porn is actually a constructive force in plenty of relationships, so
Posted by Crocobar (Member # 9102) on :
I see. My point was kinda like the last Samprimany's comment: I don't see that porn is much different in its constructive and destructive aspects from many other social phenomena. One may say this for TV, for example: it is mostly boring for many people, and highly addictive and destructive for some people.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote: 5.47 Number of subscriptions to adult-content sites per 1,000 households with broadband access in Utah, the state with the highest rate of subscriptions, according to a paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. [...]
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Here's the essay from A Storyteller in Zion y'all are speculating about. Talks about a "large" amount of people who are not susceptible to porn, but says nothing about the actual majority/minority percentages: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-talk.html
quote:Pornography is the obvious case of fiction enacting evil. Pornography is designed to give direct or indirect sexual gratification. The appeal of pornography is not literary; though the writer may be skilled, the effect of pornography is not aesthetic, but orgasmic; it teaches the reader or the viewer to seek more such instant pleasure.
Pornography is merely boring to large numbers of people-they are not susceptible to it, just as many people in a crowded theater will not panic and run for an exit when someone yells "Fire!" But for those who are susceptible, it can have serious debilitating effects. First, it is progressive. The regular consumer of pornography finds that what used to satisfy him now is boring, and he seeks ever more bizarre, brutalizing pornography to achieve his ends. Second, it is destructive, drawing the regular consumer into a fantasy world where women love to be treated cruelly and where the only good is self-gratification. Third, while pornography has never been proven to cause other sex-related crimes, it has been shown to accompany them. The sort of person who is likely to rape or murder or torture is also likely to be a consumer of pornography, and however the fantasies and the vicious reality may interrelate, it is difficult to extricate them.
Let's tackle his third point first -- linking pornography to sex crimes in that way is a problematic logical fallacy that weakens the rest of his arguments.
As far as points one and two go, I think we may be suffering from a problem of definitions, which is a central problem I have found with all arguments about pornography. What IS pornography? For certainly, there are ways of defining the word such that pornography is bad.
Card hints at a definition in his first paragraph -- as something designed to give direct or indirect sexual gratification. By this very definition, he is absolutely wrong that such pornography will lead someone to seek out violent, bizarre, or brutal pornography. I'm not at all sure where his second point came from. It seems almost random.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Let's tackle his third point first -- linking pornography to sex crimes in that way is a problematic logical fallacy that weakens the rest of his arguments.
Hmmm - to be honest, I don't see it. He's being surprisingly careful in his phrasing, as if he's trying to pre-empt being accused of confusing causation and correlation. Of course, that doesn't leave him with much of a point, in the end. Even the conclusion that porn may provide an alternative outlet for potential sex offenders doesn't seem incompatible with his statement, though I doubt that's what he's going for, somehow.
ETA: Oh, wait, I think I see what you meant: "other sex-related crimes" implies that consuming pornography is a crime in itself. Yeah, that phrasing is problematic.
quote:For certainly, there are ways of defining the word such that pornography is bad.
Example, please. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: From that article:
quote:Pornography is the obvious case of fiction enacting evil. Pornography is designed to give direct or indirect sexual gratification. The appeal of pornography is not literary; though the writer may be skilled, the effect of pornography is not aesthetic, but orgasmic; it teaches the reader or the viewer to seek more such instant pleasure.
Pornography is merely boring to large numbers of people-they are not susceptible to it, just as many people in a crowded theater will not panic and run for an exit when someone yells "Fire!" But for those who are susceptible, it can have serious debilitating effects. First, it is progressive. The regular consumer of pornography finds that what used to satisfy him now is boring, and he seeks ever more bizarre, brutalizing pornography to achieve his ends. Second, it is destructive, drawing the regular consumer into a fantasy world where women love to be treated cruelly and where the only good is self-gratification. Third, while pornography has never been proven to cause other sex-related crimes, it has been shown to accompany them. The sort of person who is likely to rape or murder or torture is also likely to be a consumer of pornography, and however the fantasies and the vicious reality may interrelate, it is difficult to extricate them.
Let's tackle his third point first -- linking pornography to sex crimes in that way is a problematic logical fallacy that weakens the rest of his arguments.
As far as points one and two go, I think we may be suffering from a problem of definitions, which is a central problem I have found with all arguments about pornography. What IS pornography? For certainly, there are ways of defining the word such that pornography is bad.
Card hints at a definition in his first paragraph -- as something designed to give direct or indirect sexual gratification. By this very definition, he is absolutely wrong that such pornography will lead someone to seek out violent, bizarre, or brutal pornography. I'm not at all sure where his second point came from. It seems almost random.
The connection of pornography to sex crimes is also tenuous at best. Obviously I am pulling only from personal experience, but in that limited experience 'consuming' pornography is the norm. So of course those who commit sex crimes will have consumed pornography. I imagine they have also consumed sandwiches. But neither is the root cause or impetus of the crimes.
Correlation is not causation.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:I imagine they have also consumed sandwiches.
quote:For certainly, there are ways of defining the word such that pornography is bad.
Example, please.
I remember reading an article in my first year of college (14 years ago...there I go showing my age ) in which someone first defined pornography as anything that degraded women and then went on to explain that it was bad. I only remembered it because I found myself thinking that it was difficult to argue that images of women tied up, beaten, and raped was particularly good but that it was also a very, very limited definition of pornography.
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
quote:First, it is progressive. The regular consumer of pornography finds that what used to satisfy him now is boring, and he seeks ever more bizarre, brutalizing pornography to achieve his ends. ...
[W]hile pornography has never been proven to cause other sex-related crimes, it has been shown to accompany them. The sort of person who is likely to rape or murder or torture is also likely to be a consumer of pornography, and however the fantasies and the vicious reality may interrelate, it is difficult to extricate them.
The arguments that porn is progressive and either leads to or accompanies sex-related crimes used to be quite prevalent when OSC wrote this essay (1980's, I think).
I wonder what the research says today, twenty-some-odd years later, when internet porn is so readily accessible?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Porn leads to repetitive stress injuries. *nod*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Craig Childs: The arguments that porn is progressive and either leads to or accompanies sex-related crimes used to be quite prevalent when OSC wrote this essay (1980's, I think).
I wonder what the research says today, twenty-some-odd years later, when internet porn is so readily accessible?
It's shown it to be completely wrong. More readily available porn reduces the amount of sex crimes and significantly reduces the prevalence of rape. Research showed that areas where porn consumption grew the fastest due to the internet were areas where the rates of rape and sexual assault correspondingly decreased the most.
We have also used Japan as a case study. While porn consumption in the United States is very widespread, it's even more prevalent in the Japanese population, and the porn they consume is notoriously violent and has a significant degree of rape fantasy. Despite larger consumption and more 'perversion' in the porn, studies largely dismiss the idea that there is any significant negative effect related to the porn.
Studies from the psychologist Gert Martin Hald were some of the first high-profile studies into how porn influences attitudes and behaviors in those who consume it, directly tackling whether or not it creates things like the dreaded Rape Myth Acceptance (belief that women secretly want to be raped), acceptance of interpersonal violence, gender stereotypes, negative attitudes toward women, sexism, etc. Studies in europe (prof. Hald), america (prof. Milton Diamond) and Japan (Ayako Uchiyama of Japan's National Institute of Police Science) all independently came to the same conclusions: porn does not cause sex crimes, and it is not shown to create these attitudes and negative attitudes towards women. In fact, porn consumption has a mostly positive effect on rates of sex crimes. It reduces them.
It's also completely wrong to assume that pornography is 'merely boring' to most people. The rates of porn consumption in this country (and pretty much the rest of the developed world) is extremely high. The male market is considered 'saturated,' with nearly no room left for growth in exposure, because a vast majority of american males are already porn consumers, and women's use of porn is the only area which can realistically experience growth, so it's been growing rather fast.
I know, shock of shocks, I'm totally disagreeing with Orson Scott Card again, but it's because he was very plainly wrong. These are 'facts' that vehemently anti-porn organizations and churches will stick to, but they are arguments contrived merely out of a moral allergy towards porn, a notion that it is sinful and ungodly and to be abstained from. From it is derived the preconclusively biased and factually incorrect notion that it simply must be bad for society and it simply must be a destructive force that simply must be curtailed.
Of course, at this point, the average male in any modernized country is going to view the notion of porn abstinence as being about as quaint as a church telling them never to masturbate.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:someone first defined pornography as anything that degraded women and then went on to explain that it was bad.
I bet that was part of the required reading in Truisms 101.
quote:It's also completely wrong to assume that pornography is 'merely boring' to most people.
Yeah, the numbers speak for themselves - porn makes up a significant proportion of internet traffic, somewhere on the order of 10% and among the overall top five areas of interest. Unless there's a rabid minority of porn-addicts who own all the fastest connections, the only way to account for that figure is by admitting that the majority of users must be contributing. The funny thing is that this is the point at which I personally find myself most in agreement with him - from my limited insight, the vast majority of porn is really quite boring. This quote characterizes a lot of the mainstream rather well, I thought:
quote:Women too like to see other people having sex. What they don’t like is the endless close-ups of hammering bodyparts without a story.
I'm not normally a fan of these "boys like blue, girls like pink" type statements, but if this is an accurate representation of the status quo, and if most of the current mainstream is consumed by males, they may have a point in this case.
As nobody seems to be agreeing with Card, maybe we should consider a more controversial subtopic. Looking at the rate of progress in computer hard- and software, the kind of realism one sees in computer-generated imagery in major motion pictures today will, to a degree, be achievable with the average PC in the not-too-far future. At that point, it would, for example, be possible to create cheap and more-or-less realistic-looking virtual child pornography. Should it be legal to distribute and own such, considering that nobody was harmed in the creation process? What are the other ethical factors here? Does it come down to the question of whether a pedophile who consumes child pornography is more or less likely to become a child molester than one who does not?
quote:What are the other ethical factors here? Does it come down to the question of whether a pedophile who consumes child pornography is more or less likely to become a child molester than one who does not?
I think that is an important question, but I hesitate to say whether it should be a deciding factor. I will say that it's unjust to punish the possession or production of virtual child pornography with the same penalties that are applied for pornography involving actual children.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kassyopeia: At that point, it would, for example, be possible to create cheap and more-or-less realistic-looking virtual child pornography. Should it be legal to distribute and own such, considering that nobody was harmed in the creation process? What are the other ethical factors here? Does it come down to the question of whether a pedophile who consumes child pornography is more or less likely to become a child molester than one who does not?
Good question. My gut reaction is that this should not be illegal because it harms no one. If someone can show that this is a harmful act, I would certainly be open to considering the other viewpoint. It's not something I've given a lot of thought to, to be honest.
I just don't like legislating morality. We make laws in order to keep one person from encroaching on another's rights. Whose rights are being violated in cartoon porn? Ick factors don't make for good laws.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:If someone can show that this is a harmful act, I would certainly be open to considering the other viewpoint.
Some possible angles to argue from:
At the point at which one can't tell the virtual and the real product apart any longer, the only way to punish the producers would be to catch them in the act, which is presumably much harder than to trace back the product. Better to err on the side of caution and outlaw anything that looks real.
Legalizing any expression of pedophilia makes the entire subculture somewhat more socially accepted. This must be avoided because it has such a huge potential for causing harm.
Pedophilia is a mental disorder. As such, pedophiles aren't necessarily entitled to the same level of protection of privacy that would allow normal people to enjoy harmless sexual fetishes regardless of ickyness.
You can probably tell I'm not entirely buying any one of those...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kassyopeia: porn makes up a significant proportion of internet traffic, somewhere on the order of 10%
I have heard ballpark figures thrown around that were shockingly higher than that. It definitely depends on how you cut up the bandwidth pie, how much actual end-user content being viewed is in fact pornography. Even then you'd have to define your terms carefully- streaming a video online is orders of magnitude more taxing on bandwidth than posting in this thread, and yet I spend more time on low bandwidth websites than on the ones that eat up server space. Are we counting industrial and monetary information exchanges? Mass media as well? Are we counting time spent on the site, amount of content viewed, amount of bandwidth used, amount of content hosted, and by what metric is all that measured?
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:I have heard ballpark figures thrown around that were shockingly higher than that.
Yeah, I think everyone has. After some superficial googling, I got the impression that somewhat reliable, up-to-date figures range from 5% to 25%, depending on sample choice, what is being compared to what, and the other factors you mention. Any figures above 50% tend to be from the 90s and based on extrapolation from rather specific cases. I think it's fair to say that the bandwidth needs of non-porn content have increased more rapidly than those of porn content, so if one assumes a constant porn consumption per internet user, the chunk it takes out of the total traffic is bound to have dropped.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just don't like legislating morality.
how can a just law be immoral?
Sorry, Christine, you just hit a pet peeve of mine. I think what you mean is that "to have a right to do something is not at all the same thing as to be right in doing it." I think everyone can agree with that statement and can also probably agree that it's easy to forget. Unfortunately, people often confuse it for its inversion-- that morality has no place in law.
Protecting individual rights is a moral exercise and a law that exists in absence of moral justification is simply a tyranny. The only valid reason for force of law is to prevent a wrong-- chief of these being the infringement of rights, yes?
IOW, your assessment that laws should only exist to prevent the violation of rights is a *moral* judgement.
apologies for the diversion... back to teh porn!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Jim-Me, I said nothing that isn't so commonly said that it's cliche, it's meaning perfectly understood except by those who purposefully choose not to understand. Were it something I had come up with off the top of my head, I would agree with your clearer rephrasing. But in this day of sound bites, shorter phrases such as "We shouldn't legislate morality" are greatly preferred to "to have a right to do something is not at all the same thing as to be right in doing it."
Besides, the purpose of the phrase goes deeper. And of course, all philosophies regarding law-making are a form of morality in and of themselves, but the point is that too many people have different views of what is and is not moral. When judging between them which to make into laws and which to leave to the individual, there needs to be some standard, preferably one that isn't "the majority rules" as it so often ends up being in practice.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
This is how I interpret the phrase: Laws are the means by which a community may impose a common set of values onto each individual. But it should only employ those means where a different set of values has the potential to harm the community, and not simply to create uniformity for its own sake.
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by kassyopeia: At that point, it would, for example, be possible to create cheap and more-or-less realistic-looking virtual child pornography. Should it be legal to distribute and own such, considering that nobody was harmed in the creation process?
Good question. My gut reaction is that this should not be illegal because it harms no one. If someone can show that this is a harmful act, I would certainly be open to considering the other viewpoint.
I don't think the standard of law-making is simply "Was anyone harmed?"
After all, most of the time drunk driving doesn't harm anyone. It's still illegal -- and it should be -- because sometimes (although probably a minority % of the time) it does lead to harm.
I would make the argument that the same principle applies here. Photo-realistic kiddie porn may be harmless to 90% of the people who view it. But if it causes just a small number of people to act on their pedophile impulses, then probably the entire practice should be outlawed.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Craig Childs: I would make the argument that the same principle applies here. Photo-realistic kiddie porn may be harmless to 90% of the people who view it. But if it causes just a small number of people to act on their pedophile impulses, then probably the entire practice should be outlawed.
I agree, but not only am I not convinced that this is true, I would be more inclined to believe the reverse...that viewing pornography would replace potentially worse behavior. Of course, in the absence of scientific proof, we are left guessing and then the question becomes, where do we err? Either direction could put children at increased risk.
quote:I don't think the standard of law-making is simply "Was anyone harmed?"
Me neither. What I said was that it harms no one. This includes potentiality. Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:After all, most of the time drunk driving doesn't harm anyone. It's still illegal -- and it should be -- because sometimes (although probably a minority % of the time) it does lead to harm.
That's still a little too simplistic. After all, the exact same argument could be made for sober driving. It comes down to deciding how to balance the benefits, including the potential benefits, and the harm, including the potential harm. From looking at driving legislations, we can conclude that the benefits of greatly improved personal mobility to anyone who can afford a car are generally seen to outweigh the dangers fundamentally inherent in road traffic - driving is legal. However, the benefits of somewhat improved personal mobility to people who enjoy driving very fast or under the influence are apparently not seen to outweigh the increased danger these forms of traffic would create - speeding and drunk driving are prohibited.
Along the same lines, there is no controversy about outlawing real child porn - its creation necessitates child abuse, which tips the scales no matter what, so the question of the effects of consumption (beneficial or harmful, inherent or potential) never comes up.
Posted by Brayden (Member # 11996) on :
In my opinion, I see it as something that should stay illegal whether or not it's virtual. Lusting something in one's heart and mind has the same effects on a persons moral decisions as actually committing the crime. That's why I view all pornography as "bad". We can't really make exceptions.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Lusting something in one's heart and mind has the same effects on a persons moral decisions as actually committing the crime.
Say what?
quote:That's why I view all pornography as "bad".
Same logical fallacy as Card - linking "all pornography" to "crime". Unless you count what I believe used to be called "fornication", there is no such connection.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brayden: In my opinion, I see it as something that should stay illegal whether or not it's virtual. Lusting something in one's heart and mind has the same effects on a persons moral decisions as actually committing the crime. That's why I view all pornography as "bad". We can't really make exceptions.
So if I fantasize about a man who is not my husband, even if in reality I am completely faithful, I am being immoral?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Some of us believe so, yes. In "reality" you would only be "completely faithful" in the physical sense.
I, for one, would feel like I was betraying my wife in a very major way if I were to fantasize about someone other than her. It doesn't mean it will never happen -- we're all human -- but if it does, it means I am not living up to my moral standard and need to change my behavior.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: Some of us believe so, yes. In "reality" you would only be "completely faithful" in the physical sense.
I, for one, would feel like I was betraying my wife in a very major way if I were to fantasize about someone other than her. It doesn't mean it will never happen -- we're all human -- but if it does, it means I am not living up to my moral standard and need to change my behavior.
I shared this attitude for the first few years of my marriage. In fact, I've spent the past year or so trying to overcome it as it is causing problems in my marriage. Ironic, I suppose, that when I allow myself to have an active fantasy life my real life marriage gets better.
There is a difference between real life and fantasy and it is all right to enjoy an active imagination.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I'm all for imagination; wouldn't be on a sci-fi writer's board if I wasn't. But I also think that we can use our imaginations for good and bad purposes, and fantasizing about being intimate with anyone other than my spouse would be one such destructive purpose.
[ August 07, 2009, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:I, for one, would feel like I was betraying my wife in a very major way if I were to fantasize about someone other than her.
Does it, from your point of view, matter if a) you're daydreaming or dreaming while asleep, b) if the "someone other" is a real someone or an original creation?
quote:Ironic, I suppose, that when I allow myself to have an active fantasy life my real life marriage gets better.
I'd call it natural - suppressing mental expressions of one's subconscious is never healthy. That's such a basic psychological truth it's almost a cliche.
Still, I think I can see the rationale of the opposite position. Lots of religions emphasize the striving for a state of grace/enlightenment, which requires purifying one's mind by letting go of base desires.
Personally, I'm not sure I accept the notion that monogamy is intrinsically more moral than polyamoury. This may be an oversimplification, but it seems to require regarding jealousy as a nobler emotion than lust.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
If I consciously do anything that I believe to be immoral, it is obviously my fault; most of us can't control our dreams, except in the crudest way of regulating our mental intake while we're awake (ie, if we know we get nightmares from horror movies, we can decline to watch them before going to sleep).
However, because I can choose what I think about, fantasizing about someone other than my spouse would be wrong regardless of whether or not the object of my fantasy is someone I've met or some sort of imaginary ideal.
I don't think this is "suppressing" my subconscious, I think it's me choosing to behave a certain way. Even if one does consider it "suppression", I think suppression itself is a morally neutral term, since it can -- like imagination itself -- be used for good and bad purposes. No one has ever exploded from "suppressing" a desire they believe to be wrong too much.
And I can certainly value monogamy more than polyamory without regarding jealousy as a nobler emotion than lust.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think this is "suppressing" my subconscious, I think it's me choosing to behave a certain way.
You consider thought to be a behavior?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
In some ways. If I'm consciously dwelling on a given subject, if I'm choosing to, then yes, I think of it as something that I'm actively doing.
There are triggers, of course - at a funeral, I'll probably be thinking about death, at college I'll be thinking of my schoolwork, etc., so in that sense, of course the exigencies of life "force" certain topics to come to mind. And underneath rational thought there is that flowing stream of consciousness that is based more on intuitive "feelings" (bad word, but it's the best I can do at five in the morning *grin*) of causality and how the world functions, what's right and true, good and bad, etc. But I still have to choose how to think about things, work things out.
If that makes sense?
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:If I consciously do anything that I believe to be immoral, it is obviously my fault [...]
Obviously. Let me see if I understood you correctly (not trying to trap you into a contradiction or anything like that, just to appreciate the underpinnings of what you're saying): The dream is as immoral as the daydream, but because it isn't in one's power to prevent oneself from having it, one should feel guilty about the one and not the other. More or less?
quote:I think suppression itself is a morally neutral term
I guess I disagree, "suppression" does have a per-se slightly negative slant to it from my point of view... but anyway, that's not what I was saying at all. I was talking about healthy and unhealthy, not about moral and immoral.
quote:And I can certainly value monogamy more than polyamory without regarding jealousy as a nobler emotion than lust.
Again, that's not what I was saying. I can value things differently because of many factors that do not involve morality at all.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Having dreams about participating in immoral acts is not in itself immoral. We all have unasked-for urges that might surface and be turned into stories of any kind while we're in an unconscious state. But I think that consciously fantasizing about those same actions - if I believe them to be wrong - would be immoral, yes.
I think everything in our experience of life is tied up with some form of morality, including our definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy", so I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. I think the concept of "value" has no meaning except as a part of a system of morality.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Having dreams about participating in immoral acts is not in itself immoral.
Thanks, I guess that's what I really wanted to know about.
quote:I think everything in our experience of life is tied up with some form of morality, including our definitions of "healthy" and "unhealthy", so I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. I think the concept of "value" has no meaning except as a part of a system of morality.
We're probably using the term morality differently, then. Choosing an unhealthy (detrimental to one's own state of wellbeing) course of action may be exceedingly moral, so how the two concepts align depends on the circumstances. And valuing my yacht more than my rusty paperclip seems to have little to do with morality either way.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Zotto -- Is fantasizing even something you are prone to doing? If not, you may not understand it.
It is not that your view of morality is out of the ordinary. In fact, it's somewhat common. It's just that I find it illogical. It also doesn't seem consistent with my understanding of psychology or basic human nature. I've seen more people hurt by that viewpoint than helped because they end up hating themselves, unable to reconcile who they are with who they think they should be. Not that morality is about making us happy, but it also doesn't need to be about making us unhappy or someone other than who we are. IMO, it is about how we live together.
In that vein, morality can only be judged by what I do. So if I think charitable thoughts but do not engage in any real charity, then I am not charitable. Likewise, if I think about being with men and/or women who are not my husband but I would never engage in such activities in real life, then I am faithful.
In fact, this goes along with something I believe very much about marriage and romance: Love is a verb. You can feel all the lust and fondness you want in your own head but unless you actively work to maintain and improve that relationship, it is meaningless.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brayden: In my opinion, I see it as something that should stay illegal whether or not it's virtual. Lusting something in one's heart and mind has the same effects on a persons moral decisions as actually committing the crime.
If you want to argue this on a philosophical level, this is invalidated by any philosophy that admits a difference between thinking about something and actually acting upon something (pretty much all of them), so is untrue.
If you want to argue this on a psychological level, it's completely and testably untrue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think this is "suppressing" my subconscious, I think it's me choosing to behave a certain way.
You consider thought to be a behavior?
I know I do. Sure there are random stimuli and impetuses for thoughts. But the things you make a point of thinking about or observeing become a sort of undercurrent or theme to your general thought bank.
For missionaries in my mission, the concept of focusing one's thoughts on their missionary responsibilities and pushing other distractions out is strongly emphasized.
Heck even Mao recognized the usefulness of thought reform. He was so successful that many people found it impossible to do anything he might frown upon, even thinking about it was difficult.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
The efficacy of brainwashing is still a matter of much debate. Controlled experiments are difficult to perform because of ethical issues, case studies often suffer from an inability to distinguish between actual changes in thought patterns and disingenuous acquiescence to coercion.
I mostly agree with your basic point in the current context, though - we can control the topmost level of our thoughts to an extent, depending on our mental discipline. Few of us are able to resist momentarily thinking about X when something directs our attention to X (the classic example being "don't think about a pink elephant right now!"), but most of us are able to entirely abort or at least push down to a lower level the train of thought that may develop out of the momentary thought, if we wish to do so.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think this is "suppressing" my subconscious, I think it's me choosing to behave a certain way.
You consider thought to be a behavior?
I know I do. Sure there are random stimuli and impetuses for thoughts. But the things you make a point of thinking about or observeing become a sort of undercurrent or theme to your general thought bank.
For missionaries in my mission, the concept of focusing one's thoughts on their missionary responsibilities and pushing other distractions out is strongly emphasized.
Heck even Mao recognized the usefulness of thought reform. He was so successful that many people found it impossible to do anything he might frown upon, even thinking about it was difficult.
Thoughts are not behaviors, but they can lead to behaviors. This is why you may wish to adjust your thoughts. For example, someone with depression and low self-esteem may work hard to create a better self-image.
The trouble with the schools of thought that have you repress every "immoral" or "distracting" thought is that they fail to understand the relationship between thought and behavior. This isn't an equivalence thing. I don't DO everything that crosses my mind.
In fact, the relationship between behaviors and thoughts often goes the other way. You can act your way toward having certain thoughts and moods. A simple psychological study once observed that the experimental group, which was asked to bite down on a pencil (forming their face into a bit of a smile) while taking a mood survey reported being happier than the control group (which did not bite down on pencils). There are others that I'm struggling with the details about, but I know they did one in which people were asked to read an opinion aloud and many of them reported later that they agreed with that opinion. (Not as clear on the exact design or details there.)
My point is that the relationship between thoughts and behaviors is complex, bi-directional, and not equivalent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As for the potential destructiveness of porn: percentage wise, it's not very likely. Some video games have a higher percentile chance of ruining marriages, and porn is actually a constructive force in plenty of relationships, so
What's the percentage exactly, Samprimary? Of porn being destructive, and of video games being destructive that is. I'm only asking because while you're mentioning percentages, you're not really mentioning them, y'know?
Anyway, I suspect the sorts of video games you're referring to are the big time sinks that some folks get so into they let the rest of their lives slide, and I suspect it's likely that there are some porn addicts out there too, for whom pornography is just as destructive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you want to argue this on a philosophical level, this is invalidated by any philosophy that admits a difference between thinking about something and actually acting upon something (pretty much all of them), so is untrue.
How can something be invalidated by a philosophy, Samprimary? Not to say I agree with his point, but your quoted response is strange.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:As for the potential destructiveness of porn: percentage wise, it's not very likely. Some video games have a higher percentile chance of ruining marriages, and porn is actually a constructive force in plenty of relationships, so
What's the percentage exactly, Samprimary? Of porn being destructive, and of video games being destructive that is. I'm only asking because while you're mentioning percentages, you're not really mentioning them, y'know?
Anyway, I suspect the sorts of video games you're referring to are the big time sinks that some folks get so into they let the rest of their lives slide, and I suspect it's likely that there are some porn addicts out there too, for whom pornography is just as destructive.
Perhaps some marriages are torn apart by uncontrolled obsessions on the part of one spouse or the other, regardless of whether that obsession is porn, video games, or bowling? Any time someone is completely out of touch with the needs of their partner, it will cause problems.
I often think our entire approach to the marriage relationship is flawed. We want to blame outside influences for our problems. I would say that porn never breaks up a marriage, only the people who can't see the needs of their spouse because they're so wrapped up in it.
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
This will mostly be towards men, who are the vast majority of porn consumers, and who are married, though I think my opinion still applies whether you are married or not, though I don't go into that too much.
Opposites: Men to women, women to men. Pornography: The viewing or imagining of provocative opposites.
The problem with pornography (in my opinion, obviously) is not the fact that you are looking at pictures/videos/games of nude (even semi-nude, there are some bikini's that cover less than someones own hair) opposites, the desire to see a nude opposite is a perfectly natural and expected desire. The problem is the lack of respect that you would have had toward your opposite sex, because you then see them as less then what they once were.
Lets take diamonds as an analogy. Imagine if everyone's clothing was covered in diamonds, how much would they be worth? A little more then the fabric they're sewn into.
So... how precious would your wife be if you had a harem? A more imporant question: How precious does she view herself as? If she sees you using her and using your other women. She will immediately think that she isn't enough for you. She obviously isn't, because she wasn't enough to satiate your desires.
So, comparing pornography to a MASSIVE harem (which it is, minus the physical part of a harem). The value of your wife compared to your pornography collection is now laughingly worthless. And thats exactly how she will see herself, because she's absolutley right, her value shot down to physical use (sexually speaking). You can say "Porn is different then my wife, I don't see them as the same.". Of course not, they are different, TO MEN. Don't forget, I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about you and your spouse. Why? Because you are married, you are now one, physically, -and lets hope- emotionally, one.
Men tend to view women and pornography as two different things, because men are visual creatures, while women are emotional. Want proof? Take what I just said "women and pornography", if men didn't view the women depicted in pornography as not-women then they wouldn't call the lot of them "pornography". That in and of itself is lessining the value of women because the woman depicted IS A WOMAN (and for the high-school debate students: I don't care if men are technically looking at pixels or paint), but she is now viewed as porn, item, bitch, whatever you want. Again, she is now less.
Please don't forget we are talking about real people here! People tend to view pornography as "porn" instead of "nude women" or "nude men", again, they are now less than human, they are items (and a bargin too!).
Some comments were made about dreaming of someone other then your spouse. Here is the question to ask to differentiate between right and wrong dreaming: Did you enjoy it? Did you wake up saying "Man! I hope I get to bang her again!" That is cheating, that is disloyal, that is wrong. Did you wake up and say "Ugh, who was that? He's not my husband!" Then you didn't cheat because you didn't want to, and its nearly impossible to control your dreams (I've done horrible things in my dreams I would never do, but I don't feel guilty because I didn't want to). Now to day-dreaming, its wrong on all accounts, because you CHOSE it, you WANTED it, and you were obviously ENJOYING it. We can't help what we dream (usually), but we can help what we think. If someone raped you would you be guilty of cheating? No. If (for men) someone drugged you up and raped you, would you be guilty of cheating? No. Your choice was taken away, and so is the guilt and wrong. This ties back into pornography, do you want to have sex with someone other then your wife? Physically or in your mind? That is wrong. Are you attracted to someone other then your wife? Not wrong. "Whoa, what?" You ask? You can't turn off the fact that another woman is pretty, but you can change the fact that you imagined her naked.
Thinking another woman is pretty/attractive/nice whatever you call it, is not wrong. Because it's true, she obviously is pretty isn't she? Duh. But do you want her in the way you agreed to only want your wife when you married her? If you do, then you are cheating, whether or not you acted on it. All fornication is wrong, all fornication comes from thoughts, therefore all thoughts of fornication are wrong. But not as bad you actually doing it, I highly doubt there is a person in the world who hasn't wanted -for just a second- to have sex with someone other then their spouse, it was wrong, fix the problem -however you need to- and move on.
Now, branching off of pornography. The problems mentioned basically lower the worth of your opposites. This can be true with many things, a prominent one is video games. Many a spouse will get addicted to a game and will put that at a higher priority then their spouse. That is wrong, that is "cheating". As I mentioned in the beginning: the desire to see a nude opposite is a perfectly natural and expected desire. So the viewing of a nude opposite is not bad, it is the fact that it isn't your spouse, its the fact that you are lowering your spouse's worth by viewing it. The same is for video games, you are viewing that game instead of -lets say- picking your wife up from the airport. This is the same for anything, if you have some crazy obsession with grooming poodles, and your wife needs to talk, and your poodle grooming obsession is getting in the way of communication, then it is wrong, you are "cheating". (sorry, i got a laugh with the poodle thing...)
I assume many people reading this are saying "whoa, whoa, if all of this is true, then you expect perfection! No thoughts, no viewing, no nothing but with a spouse!" You are basically right. Except the fact that you need the throw in the fact that we are all human, and I expect that most of you (and me!) will not be able to follow these "rules" because they are very strict. You and I are human, I don't expect perfection, I just expect you be continually trying to better yourself.
[ August 10, 2009, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Rolo Bio ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Opposites: Men to women, women to men. Pornography: The viewing or imagining of provocative opposites.
So a woman looking at a picture of two naked women is not enjoying pornography by your definition?
quote:If she sees you using her and using your other women. She will immediately think that she isn't enough for you.
I think you give my wife too little credit. She's not an insecure twit.
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
My definition has to do with what I said. Homosexuality is a totally different subject.
I didn't say your wife is an insecure twit, I said she that she isn't enough for you. She cannot be, because you sought out more besides her. If she was, you would stop with her wouldn't you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My definition has to do with what I said.
So there's no room in your definition of pornography for homosexual porn? At all? Wow.
quote:I didn't say your wife is an insecure twit, I said she that she isn't enough for you.
And you know what? When I need my car repaired, I take it to someone other than my wife. Does that mean she "isn't enough" for me?
The purpose of my wife is not to sexually gratify me, any more than it is her purpose to fix my car. I didn't marry her for sexual gratification or car repair. That is not to say, of course, that she doesn't do a fine job of either -- but rather that the extent to which I consider those duties exclusively her responsibility should not be taken as an estimate of her value to me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Rolo, I think you are seriously underestimating women...or maybe just misunderstanding marriage. I'm not sure, but your entire diatribe rang entirely false to me, so I'm not even going to bother quoting bits of it.
Here's what's important:
The extent to which I feel valued by my husband has to do with how well he responds to my needs.
I believe my husband feels the same way.
Here's my big problem with this entire line of thinking. Who are you to tell me what works and does not work in my marriage? I'll tell my husband when I feel like he's not valuing me. I have, in fact, very recently, because he's spending too much time at work and it's driving me up the wall.
quote:Now to day-dreaming, its wrong on all accounts, because you CHOSE it, you WANTED it, and you were obviously ENJOYING it.
I fail to see how choice, desire, and enjoyment make something wrong. The other day I wanted chocolate. I chose to eat it. And I enjoyed it.
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
Again, my view of homosexuality has nothing to do with my view with pornography. This is a discussion of pornography (which yes, does include homosexual pornography) but my post had to do with heterosexual pornography, which I stated.
You're absolutely right, your wife has many different values, (i can see how you would view my opinion as that, my mistake) those could include fixing a car. Her sexual value (i don't like it but i'll use it, if you have a better term please suggest it) is not enough to satiate you because you seek out others besides her, her value is not decreased, only her value to you is. If she was your only outlet for sexual desires wouldn't she be far more important IN THAT AREA? Having one well inside a city makes it far more valuable to the inhabitants than if they had twenty wells. That isn't her only purpose, but obviously you admire her for it and are ready to defend her. But being human you of course find her sexually attractive, and that outlet is one of her purposes, just like (typically) the man works to provide food for the family, it isn't his only purpose but it is a purpose nonetheless. The same can be reversed, women are attracted to men, and therefore a man fulfills a woman's sexual desire. It's not his only purpose, but a purpose nonetheless. I want to clarify that I'm not saying a woman's purpose is to satisfy a man. That sounds like I'm saying that you would marry a woman just for that purpose (which is wrong), but sex is usually associated with marriage. Which is what I was discussing. A woman sexually satisfies a man, and a man sexually satisfies a woman. There are homosexual relationships, but I won't get into those.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If she was your only outlet for sexual desires wouldn't she be far more important IN THAT AREA?
Sure. And if she were my only outlet for fresh water, she'd be far more important in that area.
But a scenario in which I am dependent upon my wife for my well-being is not healthy; it's dependency. I am perfectly capable of loving and remaining faithful to my wife without needing to make myself dependent on her for survival.
quote:There are homosexual relationships, but I won't get into those.
*shrug* Your loss, from what I hear. j/k
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
quote:I fail to see how choice, desire, and enjoyment make something wrong. The other day I wanted chocolate. I chose to eat it. And I enjoyed it.
I was talking specifically with day-dreaming, liking something is fine, its when it causes problems in your life that it becomes an issue. Maybe you like chocolate more than him? Like you said: "he's spending too much time at work and it's driving me up the wall." he was doing something that got in the way of your marriage, which is wrong, to a point. If he's going to lose his job unless he stays at work, then it might be best that he stay there, but if he's doing it for fun (hey, it could happen) then it would be wrong. Thats getting into a very specific line of thinking, which I would say: leave it up to you two to discuss. I don't know, I don't know the facts.
quote:The extent to which I feel valued by my husband has to do with how well he responds to my needs.
That sounds reasonable to me. I don't want to get into specifics here, but, lets pretend your husband did look at pornography (not detrimental and obsessive) would it not make you feel a little less? Not even a little? To me it would seem you aren't enough for him, because he needs more then you.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
Looking beyond several fallacious lines of reasoning, there are two basic premises in Rolo's post that I strongly disagree with.
Re pornography,
quote:Please don't forget we are talking about real people here!
Well, I'm not talking about real people when I talk about porn, any more than when I talk about other types of content. Jenna Jameson is a porn actress, Daniel Radcliffe is an actor. She is not any of the roles she played, any more than he is Harry Potter.
Re marriage,
quote:But do you want her in the way you agreed to only want your wife when you married her? If you do, then you are cheating
Why are you making such far-reaching assumptions about what people commit to when they get married? Agreeing to never again desire anyone else is not something the majority of people would feel comfortable doing, I reckon. In fact, I would be almost as terrified if someone promised me that as I'd be if they promised me to stop breathing.
quote:I've done horrible things in my dreams I would never do
Hmmm. I don't think I have, ever. Make of that what you will.
quote:I don't expect perfection, I just expect you be continually trying to better yourself.
Sounds like a nice sentiment. Except for the fact that you seem to expect everyone to better themselves according to your standards, which makes it a bit scary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To me it would seem you aren't enough for him, because he needs more then you.
Are you married? Do you feel like your love for your wife is lessened every time you get your own glass of milk?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio: lets pretend your husband did look at pornography (not detrimental and obsessive) would it not make you feel a little less? Not even a little? To me it would seem you aren't enough for him, because he needs more then you.
I don't know how to answer that, since my husband is not drawn to pornography. However, *I* am drawn to fantasies and daydreaming. I read them and write my own. I spent the first 4 years of my marriage sure I was doing something wrong when I daydreamed and do you know what happened? I felt absolutely no sexual desire whatsoever -- for my husband or anyone else. Lately I've been allowing myself that outlet and let's just say things have improved for us.
I've asked my husband how he feels about the fact that I fantasize and he says that while he doesn't understand it, he can't argue with results.
I'd like to think I would feel the same way if my husband needed an outlet like that. Of course, there is a big difference between occasionally looking at pornography and being addicted to it.
All your lines of thinking about pornography, daydreaming, and the like make the cardinal mistake of assuming that everyone is precisely the SAME. That we all think, feel, and react to stimuli in the same manner. This is patently untrue.
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
quote:Why are you making such far-reaching assumptions about what people commit to when they get married? Agreeing to never again desire anyone else is not something the majority of people would feel comfortable doing, I reckon. In fact, I would be almost as terrified if someone promised me that as I'd be if they promised me to stop breathing.
You'd be terrified if your husband/wife said they would only have sex with you?
quote:Hmmm. I don't think I have, ever. Make of that what you will.
I had to kill my dog once (in a dream), does that make me want to murder my dog? I've died in my dreams, does that make me suicidal?
quote:Sounds like a nice sentiment. Except for the fact that you seem to expect everyone to better themselves according to your standards, which makes it a bit scary.
Is it so wrong to hope everyone would improve themselves? This thread sort of turned into a view on marriage/pornography, so I posted mine. It doesn't apply to everyone, and I don't expect it to, I've gotten used to the idea that people will disagree, how else have we created a world like ours? If we all thought the same, we'd be no where.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I didn't marry her for sexual gratification or car repair.
Boy did you get shafted. When I get married, car repair skills will be second on the list behind the willingness to watch, nay, the enthusiastic participation in, reruns of Quantum Leap.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: he says that while he doesn't understand it, he can't argue with results.
Awww, I think that's sweet.
quote:All [Rolo's] lines of thinking about pornography, daydreaming, and the like make the cardinal mistake of assuming that everyone is precisely the SAME. That we all think, feel, and react to stimuli in the same manner.
No, that's not it. The way I understand him, he doesn't claim that submitting to the outlined morality won't make some people unhappy, merely that it would be wrong for those people to let themselves be guided by what does make them happy.
---
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio: You'd be terrified if your husband/wife said they would only have sex with you?
No, that I could probably live with. There are two aspects about a vow to curtail something like sexual desire that I consider problematic. Firstly, giving up something for someone else's sake has the potential to lead to resentment. People should be sexually exclusive because they want to be, not because it is expected of them by their partner or the community. Secondly, more importantly, I would never want someone I'm in love with to promise to fundamentally change some facet of themselves unless there's something harmful about that facet. I'm in love with the person as they are, I can't be sure if I'll be in love with whoever they become if they succeed in making the change. This is why so many young marriages fail - the couple firmly believes that they can honestly promise to love each other for the rest of their lives, without realizing that both of them will change significantly within a few years.
quote:I had to kill my dog once (in a dream), does that make me want to murder my dog? I've died in my dreams, does that make me suicidal?
Those aren't examples of what you said, though - "horrible things I would never do".
quote:Is it so wrong to hope everyone would improve themselves?
No, it's a nice sentiment. That I share.
quote:If we all thought the same, we'd be no where.
Allright, we certainly agree on that. I'm usually careful about distinguishing between objective and subjective statements in my own posts and tend to get peeved when other people are less so. No offence meant. Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
quote:Those aren't examples of what you said, though - "horrible things I would never do".
Horrible was too strong a word, I've never raped or murdered someone, though I have killed. A robber came to my house and was about to stab me, what else was I supposed to do? In my mind, having to kill him is horrible, but it was necessary.
quote:No, that's not it. The way I understand him, he doesn't claim that submitting to the outlined morality won't make some people unhappy, merely that it would be wrong for those people to let themselves be guided by what does make them happy.
Nicely put. Humans are born to make themselves happy, babies cry to get what they want, and later in life we realize that we have to pull our own weight and work with other people. If we all did whatever made us happy then people would rape constantly to make themselves happy at that moment, kill their boss in a moments of frustration, etc.
Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
Posted by Uchiha2 (Member # 12154) on :
For the sake of rolo im going to say that although aggressive i have to agree with what he has said.
Porn is in fact degrading towards women. Even through jenna jameson (sorry for spelling im not into porn) is a porn actress but that doesn't mean that she is just a porn actress. She is in fact a women. She used to be a little girl. she used to be a little baby in a crib. Although it is completely her choice to be in porn and use that to make money that doesn't change the choice you are making to have a sexual experience with someone who is not your wife. You are choosing to open then screen, put that movie in, go to that website, and you are choosing to Sexually releive your self while viewing another women.
Now lets say your walking down the street and you see someone of the opposite sex changing in there front yard. take a seat and watch the entire "show" When you get home would you go to your wife and say "Honey as i was walking i saw someone changing. they got completely naked, ill be right back im going to finish it off in the bathroom" I highly doubt she would be happy. In fact i know that my wife would flip her lid.
In the same sense i don't think that any of you would be happy to inform your spouse of every time you viewed someone else as a sexual potential, that would make trips to wal-mart or the mall very uncomfortable. When you say your marriage vows do you not include that you will "cherish and love" them "untill death do you part" I think that a great way to cherish and love your spouse is to be exclusive to them. to let them know that they "are the only boy/girl" for you. and that you would never leave them. and that you would never desire someone else in the way you desire them. is that not what were doing by getting married. Telling the world and your love that you will be with them forever and that you only want to be with the. I think that if you have intentions on viewing porn you should but up front with everyone on your wedding day saying "to love and to cherish you and jenna, and that hot blonde chick from hotblondchick.com and all the girls from playboy"
Deep down inside of every person desires exclusive love. especially a girl. I know out of the girls i have talked to with there husbands who have viewed porn or do view porn, that they feel as if there husbands are sharing there love and there marriage right with every other girl they masturbate to.
bottom line is that by viewing, imagining, wanting, seeking, taking, sexual pleasure from someone other then your spouse is wrong. you are sharing something meant for your spouse. This even applies to pre-married people. Sexual acts period should only be shared with your wife. not with your computer not with your tv not with magazines but with your beautiful wife, handsome husband, which you have chosen. Why would you desire someone other then your spouse why would you choose to do the act to yourself rather then having a sexual experience with your lover?
In closing i want to as to ask. Who out there will honestly say they would rather masturbate to an image rather then have sex with your spouse?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm going to call B.S. on the "killed a robber" bit.
quote:Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
Have you never considered the possibility that one's wife might enjoy pornography?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that a great way to cherish and love your spouse is to be exclusive to them. to let them know that they "are the only boy/girl" for you. and that you would never leave them. and that you would never desire someone else in the way you desire them.
Heh. Are you married?
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
quote:I'm going to call B.S. on the "killed a robber" bit.
Ok, what did I dream? I seem to have forgotten. Please don't presume to read my mind from however far away you are.
quote:Heh. Are you married?
for you:
quote:In fact i know that my wife would flip her lid.
quote:bottom line is that by viewing, imagining, wanting, seeking, taking, sexual pleasure from someone other then your spouse is wrong. you are sharing something meant for your spouse. This even applies to pre-married people. Sexual acts period should only be shared with your wife. not with your computer not with your tv not with magazines but with your beautiful wife, handsome husband, which you have chosen. Why would you desire someone other then your spouse why would you choose to do the act to yourself rather then having a sexual experience with your lover?
Well said.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio:
quote:No, that's not it. The way I understand him, he doesn't claim that submitting to the outlined morality won't make some people unhappy, merely that it would be wrong for those people to let themselves be guided by what does make them happy.
Nicely put. Humans are born to make themselves happy, babies cry to get what they want, and later in life we realize that we have to pull our own weight and work with other people. If we all did whatever made us happy then people would rape constantly to make themselves happy at that moment, kill their boss in a moments of frustration, etc.
You want to rape people all the time? Eek!
Most of the men I know prefer willing women.
I'm not so sure about the boss thing...my husband's boss....sigh. All right, I'll restrain myself.
But the reason that I restrain myself is because things like rape and murder infringe upon someone else's rights. That is why they are deeply immoral. And in truth, because they are so deeply immoral, because we understand how terribly wrong they are from such an early age, it would not make me happy to kill anyone, not even my husband's boss. Moments of anger do not usually lead to death and destruction. If they do, you need anger management classes. And even then, I doubt very much the actions would make you happy.
quote:Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
So what makes it immoral, the fact that it makes you happy, the fact that you aren't thinking about the effects it may have on your wife, or the actual effects if may or may not have on your wife?
I'm asking because whether or not it makes you happy seems somewhat irrelevant. Failing to think of how something would effect your wife is insensitive, but I'm reluctant to call it immoral.
As for the last -- any actual effect it may have on your wife -- let's say, for argument's sake, that your use of porn causes your wife to feel bad. Then one of two things is true. Either you got involve din a bad marriage without fully understanding what each of you needed and expected from the relationship. That is rash and naive, but not immoral.
Alternately, you made this fundamental change after the marriage, in full knowledge that your wife would find it unacceptable, in which case you have broken your marriage agreement and have, in fact, behaved in an immoral manner.
So summing up, I would only agree that porn is immoral if you and your spouse went into the marriage relationship in full agreement that such a thing was unacceptable and then you reneged.
In other words, marriages are negotiated.
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
That post was talking about doing whatever makes you happy. If we were reduced to doing what made us happy, then we would be reduced to our base desires: survive, reproduce, eat, etc. And if someone else's desire is competing with your survival/reproduction (base animal desires here, no conscience) what do animals do? Fight! Kill! Dog eat dog! Its you or them.
What I said isn't what I currently want to do, its what the base animal self I WOULD be if I just did what made my happy, which is what animals do, basically.
quote:In other words, marriages are negotiated.
I've never heard a girl who was excited to sign a prenup. What girl would like put on a mask of her husbands favorite porn star? They might as well. Basically: "the fact that you aren't thinking about the effects it may have on your wife" is a good summary. What does marriage mean to you? It seems pretty vague and a pointless ceremony if you aren't planning on monogamy... sounds like a tax write off to me. Or a "I'll love you as long as you're still young and hot" agreement.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: Now lets say your walking down the street and you see someone of the opposite sex changing in there front yard. take a seat and watch the entire "show" When you get home would you go to your wife and say "Honey as i was walking i saw someone changing. they got completely naked, ill be right back im going to finish it off in the bathroom" I highly doubt she would be happy. In fact i know that my wife would flip her lid.
You kind of make sex sound like going to the bathroom. I hope you don't speak this way to your wife.
Seriously, though...why is he going off to masturbate? Did I refuse to help him out? If so, then sure. I have no problem with masturbation.
quote: In the same sense i don't think that any of you would be happy to inform your spouse of every time you viewed someone else as a sexual potential, that would make trips to wal-mart or the mall very uncomfortable.
This part I agree with. There is such a thing as too much honesty. I don't expect my husband not to think it, but I would prefer that he not go around telling me about every beautiful woman he sees.
quote:When you say your marriage vows do you not include that you will "cherish and love" them "untill death do you part" I think that a great way to cherish and love your spouse is to be exclusive to them. to let them know that they "are the only boy/girl" for you. and that you would never leave them. and that you would never desire someone else in the way you desire them.
I agree with you until the last part, and then I'm just confused. What do you mean by "desire someone else in the way you desire them?" Because even if my husband were to look at pictures of naked women, I am certain he would not desire them the way he desired me.
quote:is that not what were doing by getting married. Telling the world and your love that you will be with them forever and that you only want to be with the. I think that if you have intentions on viewing porn you should but up front with everyone on your wedding day saying "to love and to cherish you and jenna, and that hot blonde chick from hotblondchick.com and all the girls from playboy"
Well, I think if you have intentions of viewing porn that you should be up front with your SPOUSE, but the rest of that is nonsense. "Love and cherish" is not something you do to a woman in a playboy magazine.
quote:bottom line is that by viewing, imagining, wanting, seeking, taking, sexual pleasure from someone other then your spouse is wrong. you are sharing something meant for your spouse. This even applies to pre-married people. Sexual acts period should only be shared with your wife. not with your computer not with your tv not with magazines but with your beautiful wife, handsome husband, which you have chosen. Why would you desire someone other then your spouse why would you choose to do the act to yourself rather then having a sexual experience with your lover?
Wow. This is just messed up. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't even THINK about sex before we get married?
You also have an odd view of masturbation. Self-exploration and masturbation can ENHANCE the sexual experience with your spouse and lover. This is especially true for women. Draw a bath, spend some time with yourself, figure out where you like to be touched and how, and then share it with your partner. It's not as if sex is all natural and instinctive. It takes practice and communication and how can you communicate anything if you don't know what you want?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio:
quote:In other words, marriages are negotiated.
I've never heard a girl who was excited to sign a prenup. What girl would like put on a mask of her husbands favorite porn star? They might as well. Basically: "the fact that you aren't thinking about the effects it may have on your wife" is a good summary. What does marriage mean to you? It seems pretty vague and a pointless ceremony if you aren't planning on monogamy... sounds like a tax write off to me. Or a "I'll love you as long as you're still young and hot" agreement.
I think you purposefully misunderstood what I said. This has nothing to do with my post. And "negotiate" in this context has nothing to do with a prenup or signing a contract. For goodness sake, didn't you talk to your wife before you got married and decided what was ok and what wasn't?
Posted by Uchiha2 (Member # 12154) on :
Christine i completely agree with self exploration and enhancing my sex life with my wife. i personally think it is one thing about our sex life that we are open with (among every other aspect) to share with each other what is good and what is not good. i also think that sharing that experience of self gratification is a fine thing to do with your spouse. what i am saying is self gratification while viewing another person is wrong. i know from experience that while looking at someone else i am using there body to help me.
self gratification itself isn't wrong its the intentions of the heart that are the issue. that sharing that with someone (other then yourself other then your spouse) is wrong. to give your tv that desire is wrong.
My view is completely based on sharing your sexual desires with someone other then your spouse. not the act of masturbation but the act of masturbation while wanting someone else. Sorry to be redundant but i feel as if i need to clarify every thing i say to the furthest degree is necessary.
Once again i want to ask, are YOU ok with your SPOUSE sharing his sexual desire with SOMEONE other then you. in the act of masturbation while viewing a form of media? Does this not seem like he is seeking that "release/desire" with someone/something else?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rolo,
quote:Its the same thing with pornography, its a way to make yourself happy without thinking about the effects it would have on your wife.
I'm late pointing this out since others have already responded, but there are two mistaken assumptions here: 1) That any married man who uses pornography is doing it without considering how it affects his wife. 2) Every wife would have a problem with it.
I think that many wives DO feel exactly as you've described when their husbands use porn. That he doesn't value her, that she isn't "enough" for him, that he betrays and insults her with his actions.
But what if she doesn't care, because otherwise he is meeting her needs? Or what if it's an entirely minor irritant like not separating the laundry the right way? What if she likes it and joins in?
As long as one isn't obsessed and neglectful, both spouses could easily agree that porn is OK. It's only a betrayal if it is breaking a promise. It's only demeaning if someone feels demeaned. These aren't rigid characteristics of all humans.
[It is probably even true that relationships exist where preoccupation and distance might be preferable for both, as a side note.]
[There's a ton of cultural and even biological inertia around monogamy and fidelity - which is a good thing - and I think mass media pornography has thrown a wrench in. Here's something that seems similar to promiscuity, in a way, but without significant downsides of actual physical promiscuity - no developing extramarital emotional bonds, no disease or pregnancy. It seems to me that the harm done is proportional to the degree to which individuals are convinced that looking at porn is tantamount to adultery. Though I know it sounds trite, and probably self serving, I think it's harmful to the degree that people treat it like it's a big deal. I think we're fooled into reacting to it as if it's the same as adultery, triggering responses that were developed over time to protect institutional monogamy, when it really doesn't pose the same threat if we don't act like it does. Not that I expect people to turn off their reactions like a light switch, but I think it's worth really examining how and why pornography use has been detrimental to relationships, which is very much in the mind of the beholder.]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Ok, I see what you mean. And I can accept the difference between masturbating while thinking of your wife and doing so while thinking of others.
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: Once again i want to ask, are YOU ok with your SPOUSE sharing his sexual desire with SOMEONE other then you. in the act of masturbation while viewing a form of media? Does this not seem like he is seeking that "release/desire" with someone/something else?
I am not ok with my husband having sex with another woman. I am not ok with him flirting with or making passes at another woman. However, he is free to look at pictures and get whatever pleasure he wishes from this encounter. I have no problem with it. It does not seem at all unfaithful to me. I do not expect him never to desire another woman. This was not at all implicit in our marriage vows. What I do expect is that if he desires another woman, he not act on this desire. He has promised to be faithful to and monogamous with me. If he is not getting what he needs from me and is being tempted by other women, then I expect him to tell me so we can work it out. The moment another real woman gets between us, we are done.
But images of women? Daydreams of women? No. It doesn't bother me. I see a clear distinction. I can respect that others don't, which is why I say marriages are negotiated. You and your wife decide what is ok and what isn't and if it works for you, then more power to you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we were reduced to doing what made us happy, then we would be reduced to our base desires: survive, reproduce, eat, etc.
I'm not sure this necessarily follows. Even if we're reduced to doing only what makes us happy, we might still postpone pleasure for the promise of greater pleasure, or to avoid displeasure. If tomatoes make me happy, but gardening does not, I might still plant some tomatoes in order to be happy later.
Posted by Uchiha2 (Member # 12154) on :
Christine i am passing my entire argument on the intentions of the heart. the intentions of your husband when he looks at another woman. I know for me and most of my guy friends when you view another woman you are lusting after her and desiring her body. you are wanting to have sex with them and you are trying to emulate that sensation you would get from having sex with them. On the purest nature he is having sex with himself while viewing another person. would you be ok if your husband sat in on a sexual encounter between some other people?
I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
Wow, thread is moving fast.
I think it comes down to two basic points of view. All of us seem to agree that it is immoral to break faith with one's partner. My reason for thinking this is that it is a very hurtful thing to do, I guess others may have additional, more philosophical reasons. Where we differ is what constitutes breaking faith. To me (and Christine is saying the same thing), it depends entirely on what each relationship is specifically based on. All it takes to make a relationship faithful and successful are general virtues such as honesty and trust. In this view, the morality of a specific sexual behaviour is entirely (within the usual limits, obviously) context-dependent. Others seem to judge sexual behaviours on a more absolute scale. Some things are right, others are wrong. Some of the wrong things are wrong not because they cause harm or unhappiness, but in themselves. I imagine this point of view is motivated by some engrained value system, religious or otherwise.
From where I'm standing, attempting to bolster these convictions by rational arguments is impossible and unnecessary. You're not going to convince anyone who bases their understanding of morality on not causing harm that something like porn is always wrong, because there is no way you will be able to demonstrate that it is always harmful. It's just not true. What you need to do is convince them to accept your underlying value system, and that's just not going to be accomplished on an internet discussion board.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: There's a ton of cultural and even biological inertia around monogamy and fidelity - which is a good thing - and I think mass media pornography has thrown a wrench in.
Ah, a new line of reasoning, this is more like it. Why would there be biological inertia? Other primates aren't monogamous, as a rule. Removing civilizing norms, I'd expect the dominant pattern to be alpha males with small harems and subordinate males with greatly reduced chances at procreation. Cultural inertia is certainly a major factor, though one could argue that the classic western tradition is more about the appearance than about the essence of fidelity. "The affair" and "the mistress" are very much part of our cultural heritage, demonstrated by the fact that they are often almost as ritualized as the supposedly monogamous martial relationship.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even if we're reduced to doing only what makes us happy, we might still postpone pleasure for the promise of greater pleasure, or to avoid displeasure. If tomatoes make me happy, but gardening does not, I might still plant some tomatoes in order to be happy later.
Exactly. The pleasure principle is morally neutral, but that doesn't mean it must lead to immoral behaviour. I have a conscience, so I need peace of mind to be happy. Punishments are designed to reduce happiness, so avoiding them by not breaking the law is usually the path of maximum happiness. Even among other higher mammals, guided entirely by the pleasure principle and instinctual behaviour patterns, violence within the species at a level that would constitute murder or rape among humans is very much the exception, not the rule. It just doesn't pay, the aggressor is too likely to get injured in the process.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
kassyopeia summed it up nicely, but I just want to tackle one thing:
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
There is a real and tangible difference between having sex in your mind, and having it in real life. Pregnancy and disease come instantly to mind.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Pregnancy and disease come instantly to mind.
In this context, "come to body" might have been the better way of putting it. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
That must come as something of a surprise to both the person viewing the pornography and the person performing the pornography.
There may of course be some similarities between strongly imagining a specific thing and doing that specific thing, but they're not the same. Similarity doesn't equal sameness.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kassyopeia:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: There's a ton of cultural and even biological inertia around monogamy and fidelity - which is a good thing - and I think mass media pornography has thrown a wrench in.
Ah, a new line of reasoning, this is more like it. Why would there be biological inertia? Other primates aren't monogamous, as a rule. Removing civilizing norms, I'd expect the dominant pattern to be alpha males with small harems and subordinate males with greatly reduced chances at procreation. Cultural inertia is certainly a major factor, though one could argue that the classic western tradition is more about the appearance than about the essence of fidelity. "The affair" and "the mistress" are very much part of our cultural heritage, demonstrated by the fact that they are often almost as ritualized as the supposedly monogamous martial relationship.
I can't strongly defend it, but I think that it's likely that our tendency to civilization has genetic/biological aspects, and that the norms of society that are most common are potentially bred into our populations. In other words, over time social systems and reproduction might work together to encourage the persistence of inherited traits that are most compatible with stable civilizations.
Of course, since the psyche doesn't emerge fully formed from the womb, it could be that the emotional rewards of stable relationships aren't really genetic at all, but just a product of the way we actually socialize each new human.
This is all just idle speculation. I'm sure there's good information on this topic that I'm not aware of. (You've already noted some holes.)
I'm still of the mind that pornography use can tend to trigger responses that probably inhere to adultery-that-violates-norms, and that the novelty of realistic and widespread pornography means that in general, we haven't developed a separate response for something that is actually different from adultery. I think the idea that porn = cheating is a default reaction because we weren't prepared for another way to think about it. [I'm aware that porn wasn't invented in the 20th century or even A.D., but it's certainly become a LOT more effectual in the last few decades.]
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:In other words, over time social systems and reproduction might work together to encourage the persistence of inherited traits that are most compatible with stable civilizations.
Of course, since the psyche doesn't emerge fully formed from the womb, it could be that the emotional rewards of stable relationships aren't really genetic at all, but just a product of the way we actually socialize each new human.
This has a very Card-ian ring to it, if you don't mind my saying so. I imagine he would say that since a) the traditional nuclear family is the ideal child-rearing environment, b) ideal child rearing conditions both maximize population growth and perpetuate community values, and c) population growth is the primary metric of success for a civilization, it follows that successful civilizations will always have a value system that cherishes traditional families.
But this covers only half the issue - it links an emphasis on monogamy to civilization fitness. The other half is to link that emphasis to personal inclinations, because only at that level do genetics come into play. In other words, if we accept for the moment that monogamy results in an advantage for the civilization, what is it that results in monogamy? After all, it runs contrary to a very basic instinct for at least the male half of the population. The one thing I'm quite sure of is that it's not one single factor, because none of them seem to stand by themselves. Until a few decades ago (readily available contraceptives), infidelity directly lead to more offspring. So it can't be primarily genetic. Lust is a strong incentive, and punishments for infidelity are comparatively mild. Also, infidelity is more common among the rich and famous than among the masses, unless Hollywood and the tabloids have been totally lying to us. So it can't be primarily about social sanctions. Maybe it's about delayed gratification, about the deliberate sacrifice of fleeting pleasures in the middle years in order to enjoy the comfort of a stable relationship in old age? Maybe I'm being altogether too cynical, and most people really let themselves be guided by the values the community suggests to them.
quote:I'm aware that porn wasn't invented in the 20th century or even A.D., but it's certainly become a LOT more effectual in the last few decades.
You mean the I Modi don't really do it for you, ey? The trend is bound to continue, full-immersion virtual reality isn't all that far away.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So, comparing pornography to a MASSIVE harem (which it is, minus the physical part of a harem). The value of your wife compared to your pornography collection is now laughingly worthless. And thats exactly how she will see herself, because she's absolutley right, her value shot down to physical use (sexually speaking).
The logic you infer on the part of women here does indeed make them sound like insecure twits whose 'value' must be upheld by exclusivity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The logic you infer on the part of women here does indeed make them sound like insecure twits whose 'value' must be upheld by exclusivity.
As frankly absurd as I think Rolo's speaking for the entirety of women and men is, if you accept the conclusions given as fact as, well, facts (big stretch, I know), your characterization doesn't hold up, Samprimary.
Because if pornography is actually a harem (somehow minus, y'know, the actual harem component of a harem), and if a given man makes use of that harem-of-the-mind...well, that given man has a very finite amount of time in his life. Time being spent with his mind-harem is not (or at least, not likely) being spent with his wife. If the mind-harem did not exist, the chance that he would spend that time with his wife either in sexual pursuits or playing scrabble or some fun blend of the two would increase. Assuming this given man values his wife due in part to those pursuits, she wouldn't be an insecure twit necessarily to feel less valued by sharing space with the mind-harem.
It's not the last part that doesn't make sense, Samprimary, it's the ten link in the chain that come before.
Posted by Rolo Bio (Member # 12153) on :
So from what I gather, the line people seem to draw (who are 'pro-pornography' if you will) is that men/women are allowed to wander in their minds as much as they want (within socially acceptable 'genres'). The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s. They can imagine whoever/whenever doing whatever (again, within socially acceptable 'genres') and are allowed to act upon those imaginings with their own bodies. In short: Mind ok, anothers body bad. Does that draw the line well?
(Non-acceptable genres would be situations that would remove another's willingness during the 'imagining'.)
[ August 11, 2009, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Rolo Bio ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's a small simplification -- but, yes, I think we can extend to people the absolute privacy of their skulls.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, what about a couple that decides to rent a porno together, watches and then enjoy some quality bonding time? How about a gay man (or woman) who takes the same option as OSC gay characters and marries to fulfill genetic destiny (or whatever the justification was)? The gay guy is never going to be thinking of the woman lustfully, so if he views porn to get him ready for activities with the wife, is that immoral? Or how about someone whose spouse is medically unable to have sex for an extended period of time?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
As Tom said, it is a simplification but basically, yes. I just have one nit:
quote:Originally posted by Rolo Bio: The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s.
The only time a spouse is disloyal is if they break faith with their spouse. And this is what we keep trying to say, that it DEPENDS upon the relationship. You are free to decide that it's not ok to think about another woman. I think it's strange, but ti's not my marriage.
In my marriage, for example, my husband could break faith long before he had sexual intercourse with someone else. We're not ok with with touching, kissing, or even light flirtations with a member of the opposite sex. Flirtation is a behavior designed to attract and potentially form a relationship with another human being and as such, is not appropriate from a married man or woman. Fantasies are one thing, but any serious move toward stepping out of the marriage is not all right. And in fact, if those fantasies ever became true temptations involving a real live person, I would want to know, I would want to know why, and I would want to work it out. I would be upset, but at that point we could still heal whatever is broken. Once actual sexual intercourse takes place, we're done.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s.
I can't speak for the others, but I really mean what I say. I simply believe people should mean their wedding vows. When they break them, they are being disloyal. But what those vows encompass is entirely up to each case. If the couple is eccentric and vows to wear matching outfits every day, wearing something else is disloyal. If the couple has a very liberal understanding of sexuality and doesn't vow to be exclusive, casual sex with others may not be disloyal.
To put it in rather formal terms: Loyalty always needs a referent who determines its scope. In a marriage, that is the spouse. Not any outside observer.
quote:(Non-acceptable genres would be situations that would remove another's willingness during the 'imagining'.)
To be honest, I don't really know. I can see a case for considering indulging in daydreams that the partner would find morally repulsive to be disloyal, if one considers a mutual acceptance of each other's fundamental values to be an implicit part of any wedding vow. Seems an ethical borderline case to me. Christine may have a more fully formed opinion here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So from what I gather, the line people seem to draw (who are 'pro-pornography' if you will) is that men/women are allowed to wander in their minds as much as they want (within socially acceptable 'genres'). The only time a spouse would be disloyal is if they physically had sex with someone/s. They can imagine whoever/whenever doing whatever (again, within socially acceptable 'genres') and are allowed to act upon those imaginings with their own bodies. In short: Mind ok, anothers body bad. Does that draw the line well?
(Non-acceptable genres would be situations that would remove another's willingness during the 'imagining'.)
First off, 'pro-pornography' is akin to a pro-lifer saying that a pro-choicer ought to be called 'anti-life'. Not as bad a thing to say, but the method of imputing associations is similar, or at least that's how it reads to me.
Second, for some folks yes, that is the line. But not for everyone disagreeing with you on this matter, certainly not.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, if I could do what would make me happy I'd drink earl grey tea, read books, eat cookies and listen to music all the time and watch Pixar movies, not rape and kill people. Fact is, animals actually are capable of working together, even outside of each other's species. They can cooperate, treat each other with compassion, adopt each other's babies. Not every animal is out there killing and eating its own species to survive, there's more to survival than that.
Also, could folks stop saying that all men are more visual than women and all women are less interested in sex than men? I don't think that's totally true, because everyone is different. I have mixed feelings about porn. Straight porn is kind of icky to me for some reason. Maybe because they tend to have sex in ways I would not want to have sex in? I don't think I'd want to be in the woman's position. Gay porn with two men is interesting, but there's never enough kissing and romantic stuff like that. Plus porn folks KNOW people are watching them too... Ok, that is TMI, but fact is, I reckon it depends... It's folks' business if they want to look at it.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I think that the real problem hasn't been discussed yet. I believe this site covers the problem well.
quote:I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
On the same basic level that watching an action movie makes you want to be James Bond, sure.
Doesn't mean you immediately go out and shoot somebody.
Edited to ask, because I'm curious: When you read fiction or watch a movie that is powerfully romantic, and you get caught up in those feelings right along with the protagonists -- you feel their love, you cry at their tragedies, you rejoice at their triumphs -- are you being unfaithful to your spouse because those feelings rightfully belong to him or her?
Posted by masterxan (Member # 12158) on :
Hmm... I know this is kind of going back to the very beginning of the thread, but...
Since no one has commented on the religious side of things, I figured I would. Disclaimer: I'm not a representative of any particular church (much less all of them), so don't assume my opinions/beliefs are shared by all. Also, I'm not trying to make you believe as I do. Just explaining my viewpoint. (FYI, I belong to the LDS church, as does OSC.)
A great many things are considered "bad" because of their spiritual effect on oneself or others. Even if there is no immediate or recognizable consequence, there can be an impact on spirituality that is extremely difficult to measure.
At any given time, we are always being effected by what's around us. Music affects mood, as do colors, scents, etc. How messy or clean a room is, how bright it is, everything can effect us in different ways. The Spirit also effects us. It's pretty easy to identify a strong odor in the room, but most people have a hard time identifying whether or not the Spirit is around.
Ever try to do those MagicEye puzzles? Some people just naturally can see the image, but lots of folks have to learn how. If you've never learned how to identify the Spirit, you won't consciously notice it's presence or lack thereof. Even with practice, the Spirit is far more subtle than any MagicEye puzzle I've ever seen, and consequently harder to notice. But there are lots of things we don't consciously notice that still effect us; concentrations of CO2 are an example (we may notice CO2's effects, but not until it does affect us, and even then someone who doesn't understand CO2 will have no idea what's going on, nor how to remedy the issue).
I know this is a long intro to my actual point, but the background was necessary. The point is, some things, like viewing pornography, may not be bad because of physical harm to our bodies. But that doesn't mean they don't harm us spiritually. And without knowing what to look for, and because it happens slowly over time, it's hard to tell that you've been "spiritually damaged" (not a perfect phrase, but you all understand it's intended meaning).
There is nothing wrong with the human body. There's nothing wrong with sex. But God decreed ways to use our bodies, and ways we shouldn't. Viewing pornography will hurt a person spiritually, whether they are aware of it or not. For most of the world, they don't care and/or don't believe this assessment. Hence why nobody's trying to make it illegal. But for those who do view it as harmful, we of course discourage it, just as we discourage name-calling among children or dozens of other things that aren't illegal, yet still can be harmful.
I suppose there are people who say "pornography is bad because God said so". I can't say I entirely disagree with that point of view, but it's never a bad thing to have your own reasons for your behavior. I for one have noticed the differences in how I feel on a spiritual level when I see suggestive images. I'm still attracted to pornography, but I choose not to view it not only because my church/God says not to, but also because I can't feel the Spirit when I look at anything like that.
I don't feel this is suppression of my natural desires any more than choosing not to punch my annoying boss. I view both as a bad idea, and decide how to respond. My choosing one way or another doesn't point to suppression, but the wonderful fact that we as humans are capable of overriding desires we don't approve of in an effort to live in society, or get along with others, or even change our own personalities.
And if you don't believe that's possible, you should have talked to me a few years back... man, did I have anger management issues! But through consistent effort, I changed my perception of events and my responses, moving away from that aspect of my personality, changing it to be something else. I don't even have to think about it anymore, and it definitely has improved my life, not hurt it.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:A great many things are considered "bad" because of their spiritual effect on oneself or others. Even if there is no immediate or recognizable consequence, there can be an impact on spirituality that is extremely difficult to measure.
Could you be a little more specific about what you're referring to here? Is this spiritual damage something purely metaphysical, or is that something that could at least in principle be measured in a careful sociological study, e.g. if one were to compare a culture that embraces porn with one that strongly rejects it?
Posted by masterxan (Member # 12158) on :
It's like tracking down what makes a person gain weight; is it fat? Is it sugar? Carbs? All three? There are so many factors, it's hard to pin point.
Theoretically, "spiritually healthy" individuals would be happy, irregardless of their financial or other circumstances. Similarly, "spiritually injured" individuals would be unhappy, again irregardless of their circumstances.
If you were to take extremes, a very "spiritually damaged" person would probably say they are completely unhappy with their life. They are not satisfied, they don't have any answers to anything and feel like they are missing something. To a lesser extent, just about everybody feels like this some of the time; it's part of being human. But the same symptoms can come about through clinical depression; it would be hard to figure out the cause of the symptoms.
I can't think of a single way to do a conclusive study; every effect of being "spiritually injured" or "spiritually healthy" can also come about through other means (or be explained by other means, depending on your point of view). The closest I can think of would be to take past, powerful societies (like Ancient Rome), and observe the state of such a nation over time as their morals relaxed. It's well-known that Romans started out more... conservative, shall we say, than they ended up. But how would you prove that's what ended their empire? I suppose you could compare and correlate your findings with other similar situations, but even then that's pretty weak evidence.
Really, the only way I can say it is there at all is because of my personal experience with it over years and years. Hence it is hard to quantify, measure, explain, or prove. Religion by it's very nature is hard to explain and impossible to prove; that's the fundamental difference between it and science.
I'll ask around, maybe somebody has a nifty idea I haven't thought of. For now though, there's not much else I could say. Other than to repeat my earlier thoughts that those who do have experience with the Spirit, and when it isn't in their lives, would know what I mean, much the same as those who have tasted salt know exactly what it is, but would find it hard to explain to a person who has never had anything salty before.
And to mention that this is why attempts to debate religion with science don't work well; apples and oranges. Both real, both good, but they don't come from the same tree.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Theoretically, "spiritually healthy" individuals would be happy, irregardless of their financial or other circumstances. Similarly, "spiritually injured" individuals would be unhappy, again irregardless of their circumstances.
Thanks, that's very clear.
quote:The closest I can think of would be to take past, powerful societies (like Ancient Rome), and observe the state of such a nation over time as their morals relaxed. It's well-known that Romans started out more... conservative, shall we say, than they ended up.
Ah, no, I don't think you can draw any valid conclusions from that sort of historical precedent with regards to what we are discussing. That decadence generally leads to loose sexual morals and to a weakened society in the military sense is fairly obvious. But that neither means that loose sexual morals are always a sign of decadence, nor should one assume that the pure-and-strong romans were, on the whole, happier than the decadent-and-weak ones.
quote:Religion by it's very nature is hard to explain and impossible to prove; that's the fundamental difference between it and science.
Strictly speaking, science is impossible to prove, and most people consider it hard to explain, so that may not be the best way of putting it. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
Just out of sheer curiosity, would you feel the same way about hentai?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uchiha2: I think that on a basic level masturbating while viewing porn is the same as having sex with the person you are viewing.
This is great news. This means I'm much more sexually experienced than I thought I was.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Sex has a much bigger physical and emotion risk for both people.
This thread has made me think "I Love you, Man". Good movie.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:It takes practice and communication and how can you communicate anything if you don't know what you want?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)