|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Whats wrong with porn?
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It seems to me that the near-constant presence of airbrushed and/or digitally manipulated images of surgically enhanced women (who also spend three hours in the gym every day) wearing clothes is a much bigger problem than porn is for everyone's ideas of what women should look like. The images of their male counterparts aren't quite as ubiquitous, but they aren't very helpful either.
I think you are right. I am reminded of a scene reported by a friend who goes to gym in milburn: a mother and teenage or young adult daughter, both on the treadmills, both looking at pictures of women in underwear in FHM magazine. My friend was saying, "what has happened that this woman thinks she needs to look like this? And is teaching this pathology to her daughter?" Maybe a guy who grew up on porn did it to them... but it seems far more likely that this is an internal process with input coming mostly from adverising and it's unrelenting message that we are all desperately inadequate and unworthy and the only salvation from our state of total inadequacy is in the unceasing purchase of the advertised products and services.
How much anorexia is fed by the expectations of the beauty industry, rather than porn?
Is the world of women's footware, (a big deal in New York with a growing number of women having bones shortened or removed from their feet so they can fit into Blahniks or whatever the current thing is...) driven by porn-fueled male expectation? I think not. Straight men, with the exception of certain fetishists, generally could not be less interested in shoes.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
unfaegne eorl
Apprentice
# 11013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
...
“you self-righteous religious leaders who give people a hard time for sinning, you are hypocrites because you also have been consumed by the same desire, even though you may not have acted it out”
If I read through that chapter though, it sure sounds like he's speaking to ordinary people. There are several references in the third person to scribes, pharisees, the sanhedrin, tax collectors, etc.
This might sound sarcastic, but really it's just an honest question - how much weight is scripture generally given around here? I'm new here, and I realize there are all sorts of people on these boards. But, (again, not being sarcastic), I was suprised that I was almost the only poster in 5+ pages to involve the Bible in the discussion. (sorry if this is off topic)
Posts: 9 | From: Chicago USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
The universe of porn contains many, many images of women who are not the silicone enhanced, surgically modified ideals you seem to imagine. There is certainly a great constellation of imagery of that kind of subject, but there is much, much that is not.
I was starting to wonder whether US porn was dramatically different than European. Certainly a good number, maybe even the majority, of the women I've seen in porn films have not lived up to any ideal. A great many are past the first bloom of youth, stretch-marked, plump or uncomfortably skinny, pretty normal in fact (and not airbrushed, well lit, or filmed in positions designed to flatter). Perhaps I've had the misfortune to encounter a low class of porn film, of course, but in my experience they're more characterised by desperation than by idealised beauty. Advertising is a lot more idealised.
One reason why I suspect most of the women in these films haven't reached those heady heights of...um...scraping up a deposit on a house.
For the record I pretty much agree with what RuthW has said.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by unfaegne eorl:
This might sound sarcastic, but really it's just an honest question - how much weight is scripture generally given around here?
Almost wholly depends on the poster and his/her beliefs about Scripture.
I think Jerry Boam is spot on about the notions of what kind of looks, body, clothes, etc. we are all "supposed" to have coming from a wide variety of sources.
Though I'm still inclined to blame Barbie. (Half-kidding. But Kim Possible is still far cooler than Barbie.)
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
a good number, maybe even the majority, of the women I've seen in porn films have not lived up to any ideal.
Then there are the specialty markets in porn starring heavy women, "mature" women, pregnant women... Minority tastes, obviously, but they do argue against any simplistic cause-effect chain. And the "ideal" as found in Vogue is quite different from the ideal in the masculine imagination--one study found that the ideal female body identified by men was about 15 pounds heavier than that identified as ideal by women.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReginaShoe
Shipmate
# 4076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
It would certainly mean that if men were all dullards with problems distinguishing packaged adworld imagery from reality. Must suck to be them, eh? Imagine how disappointed they are when they sit down to dinner and it doesn't live up the expectations that have been written into their psyches by exposure to Gourmet magazine and the Food Channel. "This isn't like it was when Nigella did it!" And think of the sad deflation they feel as they compare their flats and houses with the expectations generated by Architectural Digest and HG...
Actually, interesting that you bring that up. There was an article in Scientific American a few months ago about the health effects of poverty. To sum it up simplistically, the point was that there was an effect of chronic stress over and above effects of things like bad diet and little access to health care. And this stress was the worst not for the poorest globally, but the poor in societies where the difference between rich and poor was the greatest. A big source of stress was not just the privation itself but the fact that their situation fell so far short of what it seemed it was "supposed to be", based on what they saw in the media and around them. While that's not JUST a reaction to "packaged adworld imagery", all that imagery can't be helping matters any either.
As I have said before, I don't believe that some exposure to porn is by itself going to turn a healthy sensitive guy into a drooling rapist. There are many, many factors that affect behavior, and prior exposure to media of whatever type usually seems to be a fairly minor one. But there can be an influence, which is not to reduce the person to a robot or say that it is anywhere near the most important influence. Again, if I hear a McDonald's commercial, it does not compel me to drop everything and go buy a burger. Yet, if I hear 20 McDonald's commercials a day, I might be more likely to decide to go there when I'm hungry than if I never had heard any (or had heard 20 Burger King commercials instead). That doesn't make me a slave to advertising, it just means that the media is one among many factors that can affect my behavior.
In the case of pornography, based on the excellent material that Timothy linked to, it appears that the link between pornography use and negative sexual attitudes/behavior is mostly limited to those already predisposed to problems because of other factors - but, for those individuals, there is some small tendency for pornography to exacerbate the problems.
Regarding the view of women portrayed in pornography - I am far less concerned about ideal body type presented (if that is indeed what is presented), than I am about the behaviors presented. I am far less worried about being compared to the woman with the boob job than about being compared to the woman who desperately wants to have sex four times a day. (And I probably just painted a huge target on myself, but there you go.)
--------------------
"If you have any poo, fling it now." - Mason the chimp
Posts: 598 | From: Colorado | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
showaddy
Shipmate
# 9282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by unfaegne eorl:
If I read through that chapter though, it sure sounds like he's speaking to ordinary people. There are several references in the third person to scribes, pharisees, the sanhedrin, tax collectors, etc.
This might sound sarcastic, but really it's just an honest question - how much weight is scripture generally given around here? I'm new here, and I realize there are all sorts of people on these boards. But, (again, not being sarcastic), I was suprised that I was almost the only poster in 5+ pages to involve the Bible in the discussion. (sorry if this is off topic)
Eorl - all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, much - perhaps most - of the discussion round here is about the love of discussion, not about the love of God. It's like a sort of freelance theological college.
Posts: 61 | From: Macclesfield | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
My view is that I don't think anybody has a right to complain about bible quotations per se. The bible is often relevant to the discussion - and can be quoted.
However, not everyone accepts the Bible is inerrant (see dead horses discussion) - not everyone accepts the Bible should be interpreted in a particular way - and some don't believe the bible at all.
So the way bible verses should be used here (IMHO) are the same way as in any polite discussion between friends of different viewpoints. As informative of the conversation - but not necessarily authoritative - and not necessarily binding on all participants.
Having said all that, personally, I agree with you that those verses would make me conclude that pornography isn't in line with what Jesus said.
(PS All this is just my opinion - not policy of the board(s))
I'd not characterise myself as simply a lover of discussion - what is more important to me is learning - sometimes just about what other people think - sometimes about what I think - and sometimes changing my mind on something.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by unfaegne eorl:
This might sound sarcastic, but really it's just an honest question - how much weight is scripture generally given around here? I'm new here, and I realize there are all sorts of people on these boards. But, (again, not being sarcastic), I was suprised that I was almost the only poster in 5+ pages to involve the Bible in the discussion.
I suppose this is because most people who take part in these dicussions, even those who support the inerrancy of scripture, realize that scripture has to be interpreted carefully, in context, and in light of whatever other sources of authority one accepts. Given that pornography (in the myriad forms we know it) was more-or-less non-existent in the 1st-century Near East, even more caution than usual is required. If the passage quoted is applicable to pornography at all, presumably it is applicable only by analogy.
Consequently, great as my respect for the Bible is, I can't help thinking that this particular topic is better discussed without dragging scripture through the mud.
Just my $0.02, of course.
[ 24. February 2006, 10:27: Message edited by: CrookedCucumber ]
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Given that pornography (in the myriad forms we know it) was more-or-less non-existent in the 1st-century Near East, even more caution than usual is required.
Although presumably looking at a woman in lust covers it. It's hard to imagine Jesus adding the rider "except when it's a photograph, of course... especially a virtual image. Those are safe."
I wonder where the birth of porn was? I understand the name means writings of prostitutes, but is that because such material fulfilled a similar role at some stage in the ancient world?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
showaddy
Shipmate
# 9282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Given that pornography (in the myriad forms we know it) was more-or-less non-existent in the 1st-century Near East, even more caution than usual is required.
Although presumably looking at a woman in lust covers it. It's hard to imagine Jesus adding the rider "except when it's a photograph, of course... especially a virtual image. Those are safe."
I wonder where the birth of porn was? I understand the name means writings of prostitutes, but is that because such material fulfilled a similar role at some stage in the ancient world?
"images of prostitutes" might be closer.
Earliest records of pornography are from the old Greek city of Upashelph and the late egyptian temp of Nyu Zaijints.
Posts: 61 | From: Macclesfield | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Although presumably looking at a woman in lust covers it. It's hard to imagine Jesus adding the rider "except when it's a photograph, of course... especially a virtual image. Those are safe."
Well, despite my previous comments about not dragging the Bible through the mud...
As I understand it, the word epiqumew, rendered `lustfully' in the RSV comes from epi (over), and potheo (to yearn). I believe the same word is used in the NT to express other forms of longing or yearning (e.g., longing to return home, etc). I suggest that, used in the present context, the word means `desire' (presumably for sexual consummtion). The ESV translates the relevant passage to say ``looks at a woman with lustful intent''. This is way different from `lustfully', in that the ESV version implies a hope for consumation, as the original Greek does (in my view).In no sense can the word reasonably be used to express mere sexual arousal.
I just don't see any way that the words attributed to Jesus can have any bearing on pornography at all, in any medium.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My view is that I don't think anybody has a right to complain about bible quotations per se. The bible is often relevant to the discussion - and can be quoted.
However, not everyone accepts the Bible is inerrant (see dead horses discussion) - not everyone accepts the Bible should be interpreted in a particular way - and some don't believe the bible at all.
Oh I accept those bible verses as valid, I break them every day though (I don't come within a mile of justifying myself via the OT law).
Christians shouldn't look at porn. They also shouldn't do a whole host of other things that we do every day as falliable human beings. And I personally feel that looking at porn does minimal harm compared to various other wrong things we do all the time. I feel buying clothing that has been produced in sweatshops to be a much worse issue, and I feel that generally sexual morality is debated to much within Christianity and real issues are ignored.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wonder where the birth of porn was? I understand the name means writings of prostitutes, but is that because such material fulfilled a similar role at some stage in the ancient world?
I've always heard it rendered as 'depiction of whores'. Whores, as I understood it, because the greek term in question was the one referring to slaves used for prostitution rather than the other one referring to higher-class concubines who tended to be educated and relatively self-determining (in so far as any greek women of that time were educated and self-determining).
If that's true, I don't know how meaningful it is since I don't know when the phrase was coined and applied.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
a good number, maybe even the majority, of the women I've seen in porn films have not lived up to any ideal.
Then there are the specialty markets in porn starring heavy women, "mature" women, pregnant women... Minority tastes, obviously, but they do argue against any simplistic cause-effect chain. And the "ideal" as found in Vogue is quite different from the ideal in the masculine imagination--one study found that the ideal female body identified by men was about 15 pounds heavier than that identified as ideal by women.
I second that. I find fashion models to be repulsive, most of them look like boys.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I just don't see any way that the words attributed to Jesus can have any bearing on pornography at all, in any medium.
Unless you have any lustfull intent, that is. Some might be able to look at porn without lustfull intent.... certainly I can't.
Lustfully vs lustfull intent does strike me as splitting sub-hairs.
But I don't think Jesus intended those words to consider specific instances and their different cultural settings... I think the point was that crimes of thought are crimes of thought - be that hate and murder, or lust and adultery....
Obviously all of us hate, and all of us lust. Most of the sermon on the mount is impossible to practically apply - turning cheeks, doing whatever is asked, walking extra miles... so I'll accept it's not straightforward....
...but "inapplicable in any way" on the basis of the distinction between lustfully and lustfull intent sounds like linguistic hair splitting.
Now there's a film title waiting to be made.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And the "ideal" as found in Vogue is quite different from the ideal in the masculine imagination--one study found that the ideal female body identified by men was about 15 pounds heavier than that identified as ideal by women.
Twice as heavy, then.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I just don't see any way that the words attributed to Jesus can have any bearing on pornography at all, in any medium.
Unless you have any lustfull intent, that is. Some might be able to look at porn without lustfull intent.... certainly I can't.
Well, I don't think you can have `intent' in a vacuum. Surely you have to intend some outcome? The ESV interpretation suggests to me that the `intent' in question is the intent to consumate sexual intercourse. But that's just my interpretation, of course.
But the Greek rendered `lustfully' or `with lustfull intent' can also be translated perfectly well as `longingly', or `yearningly' (as in the prodigal son's longing for home). I appreciate that `longing' or `yearning' can be used in a way that doesn't look to a specific outcome (``I long for my lost youth''). But if you use the phrase ``look at a woman with longing'', that suggests more to me than mere sexual arousal.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that Jesus would have approved of pornography, had he been asked. My point is simply that the Gospel writers don't seem, on the whole, to have been particularly squeemish about the words they used, and Greek has a perfectly sufficient vocabulary to express the injuction ``Do not look at a woman in such a way that it gives you a woody''.
quote:
Lustfully vs lustfull intent does strike me as splitting sub-hairs.
Maybe; but I don't think the difference between `lustfully' and `longingly' is hair-splitting. I had lustful thoughts about the woman who just walked past my window, but I don't long for her.
But I agree with you in a sense -- picking apart the fine shades of meaning in individual scriptural sentences is not an activity which I think gets us very far.
quote:
But I don't think Jesus intended those words to consider specific instances and their different cultural settings... I think the point was that crimes of thought are crimes of thought - be that hate and murder, or lust and adultery....
I agree entirely; but I believe the `thought' at issue here is the thought of adultery -- that is, giving serious consideration to taking part in an adulterous act.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But if you use the phrase ``look at a woman with longing'', that suggests more to me than mere sexual arousal.
If I read this phrase in a novel or essay, the context would tell me whether lust or love or something else -- one could look at a woman with longing because she seems to represent something one wants. Without any context, I would assume it referred to erotic love.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'd have thought that the intent - or ability to get - wasn't an important issue.
When hatred is linked to murder, it's not necessary that the hate involve a serious intent to murder - at least that's not how I read the Sermon on the Mount.
Similarly, with adultuery it seems unnecessary that the thoughts associated with lust/longing/yearning whatever it is are associated with a serious intent or possibility.
So that's how I come to apply the sermon to pornography.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Except that for me, subjectively, Asia Carrera is as fictional as Lady Chatterly (or Elizabeth Bennet, who I'd be much more inclined to long for). It's very different from looking with lustful longing on my next-door neighbor, with whom I might actually contemplate consummating adultery.
I can't see that passage as a prohibition on fantasy as such.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"With the intent to masturbate" certainly seems like it falls under the "with lustful intent" rubric from my POV.
(pelling)
[ 24. February 2006, 14:42: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I agree, MT.
I doubt that attainability is the issue.
Were one to gaze lustfully at a woman who one could never contemplate speaking to because of societal boundries, would the verse not be relevant? Or to harbour hatred against a brother much stronger than oneself?
In Jesus' day, the Law said that what you did was what mattered. Jesus challenged them that what they thought might also be a problem.
To say that what you think is only a problem if it might translate into what you do, but not if it couldn't, seems to miss the point.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
With you 100% mdijon.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
To say that what you think is only a problem if it might translate into what you do, but not if it couldn't, seems to miss the point.
Especially when you consider how this works with other things. If I harbor anger, cherish it, consciously stoke it, even if I never act on it, even if I somehow manage to keep it from affecting how I treat someone, it has a terrible effect on me.
But I have a problem with promulgating a rule that says "no porn for Christians" for the same reasons that I have a problem with other rules that focus on the thing or the behavior -- alcohol, drugs, sex before marriage, etc. -- instead of the principle at stake.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
And what is the principle, here?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Perhaps one of the principles at play here is the idea that people are complex and mysterious beings who are more than merely the sum of their urges.
Our intellectual selves merely surf on the waves of physical and emotional selves, and that to assert control can only realistically be done as an end filter - you can intellectual control your deeds, but there is no reliable means to intellectually determine your primitive drives. Denying our physical or emotional selves may serve some intellectual purpose, but it does so at some risk of poisoning mechanisms unfathomed by our intellects. So many learn coping techniques - venting some urges and drives in a minimally unacceptable manner, or sublimating them into something more acceptable.
But you should ask yourself, what really is the harm of letting your physical or emotional self have free reign on occasion? If you know that you risk an addictive reaction that will erode you, then restraint is in order. If you will hurt no one and nothing, except perhaps your foolish pride, then I for one suggest being the animal you are sometimes instead of always just the socially-acceptable intellectual construct.
Clearly, this isn't what RuthW meant, but I liked the segue.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Is there a difference between me inventing a wholly imaginary woman to fantasize about and becoming aroused thinking of her; plagiarizing someone else's fantasy by looking at, say, a Japanese erotic painting; looking at a photograph of a woman I have never met and never will; and becoming aroused at the thought of getting off with someone I am actually acquainted with?
It seems to me there is a clear distinction between fantasy that is acknowledged as such and the cultivation of the will to act in unloving ways. Sane people know the difference.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It might be worth asking in some cases qwhether porn becomes a way of escaping from having to cope with a real person. Imaginary lovers, and all that.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
And what is the principle, here?
What RooK said.
OK, not really. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
IMO, the principle here is "love your neighbor as yourself."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Perhaps one of the principles at play here is the idea that people are complex and mysterious beings who are more than merely the sum of their urges.
I'm not sure that this is a principle so much as an accessment of a condition. quote:
Our intellectual selves merely surf on the waves of physical and emotional selves, and that to assert control can only realistically be done as an end filter - you can intellectual control your deeds, but there is no reliable means to intellectually determine your primitive drives.
I disagree. The intellect is [or should be] the master of all it surveys. The intellect knows what base physical drives are about. We know what initiates hunger on all its levels of expression [survival and reproduction] and knowing that implies control of the expression. It's not about an "end filter" but about recognizing who initiates expression of basic desires. quote:
Denying our physical or emotional selves may serve some intellectual purpose, but it does so at some risk of poisoning mechanisms unfathomed by our intellects. So many learn coping techniques - venting some urges and drives in a minimally unacceptable manner, or sublimating them into something more acceptable.
I submit that it's not necessary to deny our physical and emotional selves to control them and [for me at least] there is no unfathomed mechanism to be poisoned. Our emotional force is a potent requirement for acting upon any intellectual construct we wish to bring to fruition. If one wishes to discharge their emotional energy into a lifeless image of something real they are simply wasting their effort. There is nothing to be poisoned [or denied] by directing the process of creative acts quote:
But you should ask yourself, what really is the harm of letting your physical or emotional self have free reign on occasion? If you know that you risk an addictive reaction that will erode you, then restraint is in order. If you will hurt no one and nothing, except perhaps your foolish pride, then I for one suggest being the animal you are sometimes instead of always just the socially-acceptable intellectual construct.
My intellectual construct has yet to be recognized as socially acceptable but that is at the bottom of my list of concerns and since I haven't an addictive personality [I chose my poisons] I really have nothing to lose by giving my animal nature free reign short of wasted energy and time. There's nothing wrong with getting down and dirty so long as it's a clear decision you're making with eyes wide open.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It might be worth asking in some cases whether porn becomes a way of escaping from having to cope with a real person. Imaginary lovers, and all that.
Absolutely can. It can be an escape from coping with any of the things addicts use their addictive substance of choice to escape from - frustration, anger - even joy.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Perhaps one of the principles at play here is the idea that people are complex and mysterious beings who are more than merely the sum of their urges.
[...]
Denying our physical or emotional selves may serve some intellectual purpose, but it does so at some risk of poisoning mechanisms unfathomed by our intellects. So many learn coping techniques - venting some urges and drives in a minimally unacceptable manner, or sublimating them into something more acceptable.
[...]
If you will hurt no one and nothing, except perhaps your foolish pride, then I for one suggest being the animal you are sometimes instead of always just the socially-acceptable intellectual construct.
I'm not at all sure that porn qualifies as a expression of our animal drives. Porn is a absolute commercial and social construct, one that pushes sexual expression into a narrowly defined series of supremely formulaic and predictable moves. That formula is certainly socially constructed, and may in its turn construct our perception of our own sexuality. There is no room in it for the complex and mysterious nature of our own selves, never mind the compounded complexities that come from interacting with another person who isn't paid to dance to our tune.
IMO. I really need to find something to do on Saturdays.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The intellect knows what base physical drives are about. We know what initiates hunger on all its levels of expression [survival and reproduction] and knowing that implies control of the expression.
I disagree. I believe we know at least part of the physical mechanisms which are some of what those hungers/desires are made of, but that is not the same thing as those desires being wholly physical and/or survival/reproduction-driven with no other things (on physical or non-physical levels) initiating them.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Coming rather late to this thread (there has to be a better way of saying that...)
Prison is a place which has disturbed my thinking on this. When I first started visiting, I was surprised that all the walls of every cell weren't plastered with pinups. In fact, there is the complete range from nil via straightforward photos of fully dressed women and catalogue underwear photos to hard porn - often conveniently placed over the wash basin or toilet.
I think for a lot of these guys there might be some idea of reminding themselves they are heterosexual (or simply sexual beings) in an environment where the fear of enforced homosexual acts is real. I've wondered from time to time whether such behaviour isn't less harmful than some of the other ways they might deal with sexual deprivation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... I have a problem with promulgating a rule that says "no porn for Christians" for the same reasons that I have a problem with other rules that focus on the thing or the behavior -- alcohol, drugs, sex before marriage, etc. -- instead of the principle at stake.
You reminded me here of Josh McDowell's 'Precept, Principle, Person' idea, which he touches upon in this article.
Like, to lie is not bad because Mommy or the Church say so -- just because of the precept, "Don't lie" --
And not even simply/only because that which is false is not true, as a principle --
But because of the person -- the Person -- from whom we draw all such concepts --
So to lie is bad because in God there is nothing false, and a lie is a tainted less-than-Light thing.
So -- just about any aspect you want to single out from commercial porn, the making of it, the use of it --
Is not necessarily wrong because Polite Society says so, at the "precept" level --
And not simply or only wrong because of various wrong things that might happen and do happen in connection with porn, at the "principle" level --
But the wrong aspects of porn get that way because they have no part, no place, in the Perfect Light or Perfect Love or Perfect Good than is God the Person.
Geesh, I think I strained a brain cell trying to be coherent. I hope that was understandable.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
Hi
I agree with what's been said about porn not being in principle any worse than another exploitative job - that is, although in practice it often is exploitative, it is not inherently so, and some people doubtless enjoy it. I wonder whether the prevalent attitudes towards it actually make it worse? Is the feeling that sex is 'different' - more private, or more shameful - something natural, or is it actually that we make people feel they ought to be ashamed about it? On a slight tangent, I read an interview once with a man who had had sex with an adult when he was a child. He said he 'now realised he had been abused' and felt bad about it, although at the time this didn't occur to him. I worry that people are told by others that they ought to feel exploited - and thus humiliated.
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Another thought.
Particularly now with the advent of the internet, there is plenty of amature porn, of all types, written, photographic, drawn, and filmed, floating around, produced by people who are not in any way making money off it. Where does that fit in?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
Janine, I really liked what you re: principles and Light.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Janine, I really liked what you re: principles and Light.
As did I.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Hah... I have the explanation of it down... let's see me get on better with the practice of living past precepts and principles, right there at the feet of the Person...
I have to admit I'm ** not interested in the fruitless exercise of pegging down a line in the sand and saying "That's it, anything beyond that is Purely Evil, Rotten Porn, Exploitative Of All Who Made, Sold, Bought Or Viewed It!"
I mean, doesn't it ultimately come down to personal comfort level, as one stews in the juices of one's culture and times, when decisions are made about what to ban?
I'm much more interested in getting past the use & abuse of erotic materials and wondering about what drives us off cliffs in that realm of our lives. What it is in us, and what we can do to make sure our appetites are fed and drives channeled.
One way to deal with all that is to squelch the drives. Shove "self" under. Another is to try to dig up the reason, the goal, the thing we're really striving for when we use porn or eat that second pound of chocolates or submit to yet another abusive episode with battering spouse.
There are other ways I'm sure. Like to have a subscription to Hustler and Playboy and National Geographic. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
.
.
.
** (unless I get to set the standard...)
[ 26. February 2006, 02:15: Message edited by: Janine ]
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I'm much more interested in getting past the use & abuse of erotic materials and wondering about what drives us off cliffs in that realm of our lives.
Hormones?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
the thing we're really striving for when we use porn or eat that second pound of chocolates or submit to yet another abusive episode with battering spouse.
I'm interested in why you equate the "use" of porn with overeating or allowing oneself to be battered.
I could possibly see equating the "abuse" of porn with overeating, but surely the occasional enjoyment of a dirty picture or story is no different than, say, an occasional chocolate bar.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And while there are levels of chocolate use that are okay and levels that aren't, and while there may be levels of porn use that are okay and others that aren't (one of the debatable points on this thread), there aren't levels of spousal abuse that are okay. One extra piece of See's chocolate every now and then: okay. A "dirty" picture or story on occasion: maybe okay. Just one good right hook to the jaw: not okay.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I'm much more interested in getting past the use & abuse of erotic materials and wondering about what drives us off cliffs in that realm of our lives.
Hormones?
The interaction between hormones and brains puzzles me. At one level, the use of erotic material - particularly addictively - can be understood in terms of dopamine, reward, escape - all the usual addict themes. Just like alcoholism, gambling etc., which don't need hormones.
On the other hand, we know that testosterone is required to have a sex drive. Certainly in men, probably in women.
I find it depressing that such detailed cognitive processes with local synapses and adaptive logic circuits are at the mercy of some tiny steroid molecule that floats around systemically at a given concentration.
Maybe RooK was right.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
Blackbeard has found this thread to be of absorbing interest and thanks everyone who has contributed ... however he can't refrain from one observation which he hopes isn't too much off topic.
Switch on the telly to any channel and watch it for an hour or two (not that I would but hey ...) or go to the local cinema ... chances are quite high that you will see a depiction of violence, ending in serious injury or death, and depicted in loving detail, every aspect fully savoured.
Now it seems to me that every objection which can be raised against pornography can also be raised against depictions of violence, and in my view apply more strongly. But most of the population appears to be hooked.
Are we straining out gnats and swallowing camels?
If depictions of violence are OK, why is pornography not (if indeed it isn't)?
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Now it seems to me that every objection which can be raised against pornography can also be raised against depictions of violence, and in my view apply more strongly. But most of the population appears to be hooked.
Are we straining out gnats and swallowing camels?
If depictions of violence are OK, why is pornography not (if indeed it isn't)?
I'm not hooked. I find depictions of violence hugely more troubling than depictions of sexuality.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
If depictions of violence are more troubling than depictions of sexuality --
How about depictions of violently-enacted-sexuality? Or some sort of sexuality expressed through the use of violence?
Like, porn may be OK on someone's list -- it may be argued that an image or a film that crosses into porn territory for some won't for others, even if all concerned agree that some things somewhere are porn and Not Good --
But you take the same image and flavor it with violence and it crosses over to the unacceptable side much sooner and for many more observers, don't you think?
Even if every shot is still all acting and posing, not real at all, just as it was before the violent elements were worked in.
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReginaShoe
Shipmate
# 4076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Now it seems to me that every objection which can be raised against pornography can also be raised against depictions of violence, and in my view apply more strongly. But most of the population appears to be hooked.
Are we straining out gnats and swallowing camels?
If depictions of violence are OK, why is pornography not (if indeed it isn't)?
I certainly don't believe that depictions of violence are all OK (particularly for children). When it comes to what my own children see, I would be much more disturbed by them seeing something at a PG-13 level of violence than, say, a topless woman or a very passionate kiss. (They are still pretty small at the moment, FYI.) That thought has occurred to me on this thread, but I haven't mentioned it because it is a bit off-topic. Also, the last time on these boards I started on a treatise on the scientific evidence linking violent media with aggressive behavior, it killed the thread ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Part of the issue in comparing them is the question of degree. I would see pornography as a far extreme of a continuum of portrayals of sexual behavior in the media, hence the difficulty in pinpointing exactly where the line between pornography and non-pornography is. So I would think that an analogous level of violence would be at the extreme end of that continuum as well, but we don't have a special name for that.
Also, at least with children and teens, the data I've seen indicate that with media violence quantity matters as well as degree, and that may not be the case for mildly sexually themed material. In other words, a kid who watches five hours of mildly violent TV every day is likely to be more aggressive than a kid in a TV-free household, whereas I've never heard any reports of negative effects of watching lots of smooches and flirting. (Other than boredom, anyway.) But then, this is not an area of expertise for me, so there may be some information there I've totally missed.
All that to say - yeah, we're happy to strain at the camel too, but perhaps in another thread.
--------------------
"If you have any poo, fling it now." - Mason the chimp
Posts: 598 | From: Colorado | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
