Why, exactly, is porn wrong?

[SinikalSaint]

Alright, I'm sure most of you are already to pull throw up your hands, roll your eyes, and spout, "Oh, you gotta be effing kidding me!" whilst also preparing to pull out the big moralistic guns. And if you do that, that's actually fine.

But before you assume that I'm about to argue against any Scriptural or Christian prohibition of pornography, I'll say from the get-go that that is not what I'm doing here. I am, admittedly, asking a somewhat "stupid" question because I am very curious and intrigued at the dialogue that will hopefully ensue. We take it for granted that pornography is, under Scriptural standards, immoral and sinful--by most such standards grossly immoral. It's darn-near a dogma. Well, I'm gonna ask why, to see how people reason out their moral view. In case any of you are wondering--and I'm sure you are--no, I myself do not endorse porn (which is not to say I don't have my inner-wars with it; if that confession was TMI, I do hope you all will forgive me). I also believe it is very immoral and sinful to indulge in. So this isn't me trying to find loopholes or spouting some liberal-Christian rhetoric that claims we're "free" to indulge in it or whatever. I just want an honest dialogue and a few thoughts, elaborations, etc. on the subject. I will be playing devil's advocate from time to time, but rest assured, I do not morally endorse the use of pornography.

While this thread is meant primarily for Christians (including any Christians who might actually wish to argue a view in favor of porn), I encourage folks of all beliefs to feel free to toss in their two cents.

Once again, the question is: Porn--movies, magazines, books, pictures, etc.--is it actually immoral, is it actually a sin, and if so, why? Get as thorough, intellectual, philosophical, and academic as you see fit.

Have fun! :wink:



Profanity, even disguised, is not allowed.

[A-Man]

Have fun!

Ok!

[NJon]

God created sex; we need to remember that. Alas, He set rules to go along with it. It's a method for a married man and woman to "join together." It's a gift from God. Pornography turns it into something filthy.

Not only that, but listen to Jesus' own words:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

Jesus said that to look with lust is to commit adultery, which violates the seventh commandment. Pornography induces lust. Therefore, pornography violates the seventh commandment.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I like this question. I wish more people would ask it.

First off, I do agree. Pornography is sinful. However, I think some other questions must be answered.

What is pornography?
What is sex?
What is a human being?

Pornography refers to pictures of sexual sin. We must be clear that nudity is not sinful. It is no wrong for me as a man to see a lady in the nude. After all, if that was the case, whenever I get married, there will be some sinning on my honeymoon.

I would also say I do not believe one is sinning when one watches a movie like Schindler's List where one can see several women naked as an example of what happened in Nazi concentration camps to Jewish women. I would say the same for the great artists who sculpted statues of nude figures be they male or female or painted such paintings.

However, they CAN be cause of sin.

An action generally has three aspects. They are the motive behind it, the action itself, and the goal desired. The great artists wanted us to be in awe and wonder of the human body. Spielberg wanted us to see just how awful the holocaust was. Again, there is no evil in seeing a naked body. What are we to say? A lady could have come up to Christ, took off her clothes, and the plan of salvation ends?

No. With pornography though, the purpose is stimulation. That in itself is not always a bad thing. There is no wrong in a lady wanting to make herself attractive for a guy. However, the question is, why? In pornography, the purpose is the stimulation itself. In a case like a date, the purpose is to build an attraction.

Thus, this gets me to, what is sex?

We often think of sex as the reproductive act between a man and a woman. (Though I am not leaving out pleasure and intimacy as reasons.) However, this is what I would prefer to call intercourse. Sex is something that you possess inherently. You are either male or female. While I am a virgin, I am 100% male still. In fact, it would be my hopes that my wife would be 100% female before the honeymoon as I hope she'll be wanting me to be 100% male.

Sex is also those attributes I believe that make us masculine and feminine and these don't just refer to physical attributes. The Scriptures tell us that we are created male and female in the image of God, yet we know these are not pointing to physical attributes primarily as God is not physical. God describes himself in feminine terms at times and masculine terms at times, each emphasizing a different aspect of his character.

What is a human being then? A human being is a sexual being by definition. However, is a human being primarily sexual? Is a human being merely physical or is a human being something more? Is intercourse only a physical act or is it a binding of the souls as well as the bodies? I would say that it is the latter in both cases.

C.S. Lewis once wrote on first things. His point was that if you put second things first, you will lose both second and first things. If you put a woman's sexual function first and who she is second, you will truly never get both. You might get intercourse, but it won't be the way God intended in a loving and fully trusting relationship between husband and wife.

Thus, I get to the shame of pornography. The shame is that a lady (Or a man) reduces herself to an object. She puts her value as a person solely in her body. All who know me know that I do not deny the great beauty of the human female form. I can easily look at many a lady and just say "Wow." Take all the wonders of the universe and all the works of art and any such thing you want, and I will still say the human female form blows them all away in beauty for I believe she mirrors best the beauty of her creator as the jewel of creation.

When a lady though thinks her primary purpose is sexuality though instead of glorifying God, then she will indeed lose herself. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Nothing. It is the kind of life that I believe eventually leads to cheap thrills trying to fill a void that only God can fill. When sexuality is used where it is not meant to be used, it will lead to chaos. If you break the physical laws God has set in the universe, there are physical consequences. Likewise if you break spiritual and moral laws.

So why do I not watch porn? Is it because I have no desire? Not at all. I do desire the beauty of the female. I just realize that at this point, I am not worthy. I wait for the right one to come along who will fully give me her trust and then when I have her trust of the soul, then I will be allowed to have the trust of the body as well. Until then, such beauty is what I am not worthy of and I dare not try to take a treasure that I have no right to.

[Ryokan]

Basically, the issue is three fold. The weaker issues arethat you are not supposed to covet, which porn involves, and that it objectifies women and perverts our idea of sex.. Of course, coveting is a complicated issue and you can watch porn and not objectify women or have an unhealthy view of sex. Most porn viewers don't have either problem, in fact. The more troubling aspect is that we are paying people to engage in a sin so we can watch. That is bad, and their is no wiggle room there.

[Shadow Phoenix]

God created sex; we need to remember that. Alas, He set rules to go along with it. It's a method for a married man and woman to "join together." It's a gift from God. Pornography turns it into something filthy.

Not only that, but listen to Jesus' own words:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

Jesus said that to look with lust is to commit adultery, which violates the seventh commandment. Pornography induces lust. Therefore, pornography violates the seventh commandment.

I agree with most of this to a point, though I would say that sex is more an outworking of God's own nature vis a vis my own theology of sex which can be found here on TWeb.

However, to say something is wrong because it induces lust is a statement I need clarified. We need to ask first off what lust is? Is lust desire? If that is the case, then Naomi told Ruth to sin when she told her to approach Boaz with her best outfit on. I'd also point out that one of the rewards of Job mentioned was that he had three strikingly beautiful daughters.

Now I refer to lust as desire out of proportion where one simply desires the intercourse more than the person. After all, a lady can induce a guy to think about sex simply as she is. That is not necessarily the fault of the lady. A girl can be dressed modestly and still be extremely attractive. (I'd even say the most attractive girls are the modest girls.) The problem is again in the heart of man. It is sinful.

I would just like some clarification on these points.

[SinikalSaint]

Alright, I'll offer my first play as the devil's advocate:

What about Song of Solomon? I'm sure some of you have heard something like this before, but I still see fit to address it, here. Is Song of Solomon gratuitous, licentious, sticky, icky hardcore porn? Nah, not really... But it is most certainly erotica, that is, art (in this case literary art, poetry) that is sexual in nature, expressing sexual thoughts and feelings, desires, etc. However you interpret Song of Solomon--as an elaborate metaphor expressing God's loving relationship with Israel, or Christ's marriage to His Church, or an idealistic poem depicting the deep, passionate expression of physical love in marriage (and I'm willing to say that all of these interpretations of Scripture's steamiest book work, and are probably all, in some sense, "correct" understandings of the book)--fact remains, this is still a piece about getting it on, period; complete with explicit, if tastefully and, more importantly, beautifully written details (details most clean-minded Christians might not be inclined to catch in your garden-variety English translations, but a horny 14-year-old boy with a good enough eye for language might pick up on).

I think it's worth asking in this discussion, what makes Song of Solomon so special? Why is this bit of erotica okay? Just because it's in the Bible? Well, why is it in the Bible? You know, there's an argument amongst scholars, if I'm not mistaken (if I am mistaken, feel free to correct me), whether the lovers in the poem are actually married, or whether they're just two passionate lovers. Bringing that up could make this discussion spill over into the territory of the "Is Premarital Sex Okay?" thread, but I still think it's worth bringing up.

Also, this sort of begs the question (if that's the right phrase), is pornographic literature in some way morally superior--if only slightly so--to pornographic pictures and movies? What are your thoughts?

[djdavo]

Alright, I'll offer my first play as the devil's advocate:

What about Song of Solomon? I'm sure some of you have heard something like this before, but I still see fit to address it, here. Is Song of Solomon gratuitous, licentious, sticky, icky hardcore porn? Nah, not really... But it is most certainly erotica, that is, art (in this case literary art, poetry) that is sexual in nature, expressing sexual thoughts and feelings, desires, etc. However you interpret Song of Solomon--as an elaborate metaphor expressing God's loving relationship with Israel, or Christ's marriage to His Church, or an idealistic poem depicting the deep, passionate expression of physical love in marriage (and I'm willing to say that all of these interpretations of Scripture's steamiest book work, and are probably all, in some sense, "correct" understandings of the book)--fact remains, this is still a piece about getting it on, period; complete with explicit, if tastefully and, more importantly, beautifully written details (details most clean-minded Christians might not be inclined to catch in your garden-variety English translations, but a horny 14-year-old boy with a good enough eye for language might pick up on).

I think it's worth asking in this discussion, what makes Song of Solomon so special? Why is this bit of erotica okay? Just because it's in the Bible? Well, why is it in the Bible? You know, there's an argument amongst scholars, if I'm not mistaken (if I am mistaken, feel free to correct me), whether the lovers in the poem are actually married, or whether they're just two passionate lovers. Bringing that up could make this discussion spill over into the territory of the "Is Premarital Sex Okay?" thread, but I still think it's worth bringing up.

Also, this sort of begs the question (if that's the right phrase), is pornographic literature in some way morally superior--if only slightly so--to pornographic pictures and movies? What are your thoughts?

i'd look at this issue a little differently: this goes to show how pornography is a bad imitation of the genuine love depicted in the song of solomon. it's OK to tell your wife or husband how they turn you on & how their body is a wonderous thing. it's not OK to lust after every womans' body as a plaything,however.

thank God song of solomon is in the bible! ;-)

[James Peter]

Well to dwell on Song of Solomon a little I've seen it well argued that in it the King is actually attempting to seduce the lover (I guess we'd read that as 'wife') of another man. Not to become his wife but to become a member of his harem, to effectively become a concubine...

Now... that could seriously derail the thread but I think it is worth noting that plenty of the OT is alien to the 'one man, one wife...in love' type approach. In fact that doesn't even really emerge in the NT itself, it just emerges in modern readings of the NT which is a quite different thing.

To get back on topic I think a line must be drawn between hard and soft porn. Obviously paying somebody to commit adultery is wrong. But is paying somebody to simply sit naked and be photographed? Or to touch herself? Those issues are, I think, much more grey.

[SinikalSaint]

Well to dwell on Song of Solomon a little I've seen it well argued that in it the King is actually attempting to seduce the lover (I guess we'd read that as 'wife') of another man. Not to become his wife but to become a member of his harem, to effectively become a concubine...

Now... that could seriously derail the thread but I think it is worth noting that plenty of the OT is alien to the 'one man, one wife...in love' type approach. In fact that doesn't even really emerge in the NT itself, it just emerges in modern readings of the NT which is a quite different thing.

To get back on topic I think a line must be drawn between hard and soft porn. Obviously paying somebody to commit adultery is wrong. But is paying somebody to simply sit naked and be photographed? Or to touch herself? Those issues are, I think, much more grey.

Very interesting... I've never heard that before about the Canticle, but I find it certainly worth exploring. I'm glad you point out how the Bible in general, OT and even NT, does not necessarily paint the ideal picture of romantic monogamy, at least not in clear and plain colors. I think that's an aspect of Scripture that is very important in considering this whole question of pornography, which ultimately concerns itself with Scripture's overall take on sexuality. We'll be getting back to all this, I'm sure...

Now, you address how grey the issue gets. Yes, life is grey, but I believe that one of that main points of life is the struggle to sift through the grey in order to find the black and white so we can make a genuine, insightful choice. You seem to be addressing what actually constitutes pornography. I would say a lot of it has to do with the intentions behind the piece.

What, might I ask, were the intentions behind the Song of Solomon?

[James Peter]

Oh I wouldn't deny that 'soft' pornography is still worthy of the description 'porn' but there is, at the very least, a spectrum from 'probably wrong to absolutely wrong'. I think few people would argue that paying people to have an orgy for your viewing pleasure is acceptable but, say, filming a married couple or an individual is, at least, more grey. Certainly sift through the grey stuff, I'd never advocate not trying to answer question, but treating all porn as the same is probably not a sensible approach.

As for SoS... I wish I could remember the scholars in question, I only touched on SoS briefly as part of a wider course in hebrew poetry... But if I recall correctly the 'speakers' are never actually identified clearly in the poem and so the version that a standard english translation arrives at is very much a possible reconstruction. And some of the potential reconstructions are very, very different.

[SinikalSaint]

Kick it up a notch in there, folks... Is no one interested in this topic? Or does Biblical Ethics 201 just get a little less traffic than other sections?

In any case, I'll throw this in to stir the pot just a tad more:

The teachings of Christ are summed up in His two commandments, which are, of course, all the Law and the Prophets and a nutshell--come on, we all know them: "Love God; Love your neighbor as yourself."

Alrighty, in what ways, specifically, does making and/or watching pornography (and I mean watching it for its intended purpose--not for "research" or observation or comedic amusement, or any other reason that, to me, often--though not always--smacks of an "I read Playboy for the articles" vibe) violate the latter? We'll get to the former later (though if you wanna go ahead and answer that one, too, feel free). The fact that roughly 70% of women in the porn industry were victims of some kind of sexual abuse in their youth notwithstanding, or that the industry is flooded by genuine psychopaths, let's assume for the sake of argument that the participants are, of course, freely choosing the lifestyle and the association with the industry, enjoy it, and are happy with it. Is it because of fornication? Well, once again, as we can see with the "Is premarital sex wrong?" thread, that's its own issue; Objectification? Does the fact that these people are--at least by and large--freely choosing to perform in these movies in any way alleviate the moral severity of their being objectified?

Ooh, and I still wanna know about erotica. I mean, is writing/reading explicit porn literature sinful?

Come on folks, show me what you got! I can't be the only one who thinks about this. If I am, I wonder what that says about me... :lol: :blush: :eek:

In any case... keep those thoughts and opinions coming.

Oh, by the way, I've read that Jenna Jameson (let's not pretend we don't know who she is, here) is a practicing Roman Catholic. There's no point in even mentioning the irony there (though, I guess I just did anyway), but I do wonder how she rationalizes her faith (assuming it's something more than nominal, which it just might be if she saw fit to refer to and emphasize it in interviews) with her profession.

That's all for now, folks.

[familyof6]

I know this is probably meant for Christians, but I'll throw in my two cents. Obviously, it doesn't particularly matter to me what the bible says about porn. Here is my take on the subject.

I think it's disrespectful to look at porn when you're in a committed relationship. I think that anyone who watches or has even seen any porn will agree with me....in the vast majority of porn, women are depicted as objects and have to be 'perfect'. They are airbrushed, made-up, and sometimes not even of a legal age. On the other hand, the MEN are usually something that resembles one of my dorky overweight uncles. I have to wonder how long a man can look at porn while in a relationship and then someday decide he's not happy with what he has because of the ridiculous standards that porn sets for women.

Porn can sometimes become an addiction and cause serious issues in a relationship. It happens all the time. I think that if there are couples who do engage in watching porn, it should be something they do together, and they should be careful not to replace sex with their spouse with these ever available fake dream people.

On the other hand, I'm not the kind of person to tell anyone else what to do. When I was single and didn't have a sex life, I dabbled in porn a bit. I think it's more of an issue between couples than anything else.

There's one other major issue I have with porn, and it's probably the most important. I've heard lots of horror stories about young women being forced into performing sexual acts on camera. I also know that teen porn is becoming quite a phenomenon on the internet, and I think it's horrible. I don't care if the whole world is watching porn that includes consenting adults engaging in sexual acts, but when I think of guys whacking off to girls not even old enough to vote who could be their daughters or granddaughters, I quickly become sick to my stomach.

So I suppose what it boils down to is respect. Respect for your significant other, respect for yourself, and respect for what type of porn you are watching. I hope that makes some sort of sense....I'm kind of rambling! :lol:


This area is off limits to Non-theists please check the stickys for decorum in a givin area before posting.

[James Peter]

I'm interested in this topic as well but I think for 95% of christians it is indoctrinated from an early age that 'porn is bad' (or rather that being a sexual being is bad, except with your wife when we'll let you off...as long as you don't talk about it) and they really can't even consider for a moment that it might not be.

If fornication is wrong (i.e. it is porneia) then it follows that encouraging people to make porn that involves fornication is obviously wrong too. I've argued extensively that porneia is much more vague a term than people generally accept but we'll try not to rehash that here.

The 'objectification' argument only works if people don't freely choose the lifestyle, and plenty do. They'd rather be a rich pornstar than a poor waitress.

The 'lust/coveting' argument does have some merit in my opinion, but does the person who arouses themselves with porn then proceed to desire the actress? Not always. So if it isn't causing you to covet then that argument is also not sufficient...

It then comes down to is masturbation wrong? Because if the purpose of porn is that then obviously porn in that context is wrong... But thats probably a different thread again.

Erotica would surely only be wrong if being aroused (and potentially 'acting on it') is also wrong. Most of the arguments against porn make no sense against erotica...

Anyway...

Biblical Ethics does get a lot less traffic.

[stabalizer]

To assist you in your quest for understanding and assuming your desire to obey the Lord, consider the following;

Look up the word; concupiscience (to lust after, by inference a forbidden desire)

Next read Col. 3:5

1st word is a command, (Mortify; put to death)

now read Col 3:6

Do you fear God or no?

Not to mention, pornography imo is ultimately self-destructive.

Just a few reasons pornography is wrong.

Not mentioning how destructive it is to a relationship with God or between two people of the opposite sex.

Would God author pornography?

[James Peter]

Translation of the vice list in Col 3 is actually quite tricky because a lot of the words in it can carry quite different nuances depending on their context and all we know from the context in this case is that they are negative.

Epithumia is the one that you have translated as concupiscience but really it should simply be translated as 'desire'. A strong desire, often for something that is forbidden, but not always. 'Craving' is offered by BDAG as a possible translation and its actually quite a good choice.

Anyway, craving chocolate is as much condemned here as craving sex. Porn would only be being forbidden by epithumia if it was already established that porn was bad. Basically it is only desiring the forbidden if porn is forbidden - which is exactly what we're trying to prove. As such Colossians 3 doesn't help at all and neither do any of the other Pauline vice lists.

See, if pornography was always self-destructive then clearly it would be wrong but what if it is only self-destructive when misused? Many good things are self-destructive when misused... So you are once again begging the question with your argument.

[SinikalSaint]

Thank you ver'much, James Peter--I'm glad to see someone else is at least relatively interested in scouring this topic, ^_^

I tend to take the "objectification" angle seriously because I'm usually positing the idea that acting in pornography is inherently objectifying and degrading, regardless of whether the participants are freely engaging in it. Basically saying they're freely choosing to let themselves be objectified and degraded. You can argue whether or not that's the case, but what I'm saying is that that's what I actually mean when I push the whole objectification thing. I mean, even if you're choosing to do it, objectification seems, to me, central to the whole pornographic enterprise. A porn actress knows people are gonna be watching her as an object--that's the point of porn. Once again, this a point you can argue, but this is basically why I personally don't see the free choice element as undermining an objectification-based argument.

I would push the argument that porn is inherently self-destructive, much like, say, heroin or cocaine or even cigarettes. Most people in our society today see these things as poisions, although a lot of people use them in "moderation" (yes, even the hard drugs). A lot of people "use" porn in moderation as well; I mean, not everyone who watches porn is necessarily what we'd call a porn-addict. But does that make it less poisonous?

Of course, really, the whole point of this thread is to ask what makes pornography self-destructive, and what if it isn't?

I'm starting to wonder if I should have opened this up on another section. I forgot non-theists were not allowed here. And where are all the liberal Christians?

Also, James Peter, if you want you go ahead and rehash all that stuff about porneia, though I can understand you not wanting to go in circles or sidetrack the thread. Thanks for helping with the conversation, though, ^_^

Keep it coming, folks!

[James Peter]

Also, James Peter, if you want you go ahead and rehash all that stuff about porneia, though I can understand you not wanting to go in circles or sidetrack the thread. Thanks for helping with the conversation, though, ^_^

Keep it coming, folks!

To be honest I'm just too lazy. Basically though 'porneia' is a term that can cover any form of sexual misdeed and doesn't always include any particular acts... different groups would understand it as forbidding different things. As such to say that any particular act is wrong because it is porneia begs the question - you have to first establish that the act would have been considered porneia by the author in question and no NT author defines what porneia actually means.

[The Plain Jane]

But before you assume that I'm about to argue against any Scriptural or Christian prohibition of pornography, I'll say from the get-go that that is not what I'm doing here. I am, admittedly, asking a somewhat "stupid" question because I am very curious and intrigued at the dialogue that will hopefully ensue. We take it for granted that pornography is, under Scriptural standards, immoral and sinful--by most such standards grossly immoral. It's darn-near a dogma. Well, I'm gonna ask why, to see how people reason out their moral view. In case any of you are wondering--and I'm sure you are--no, I myself do not endorse porn (which is not to say I don't have my inner-wars with it; if that confession was TMI, I do hope you all will forgive me). I also believe it is very immoral and sinful to indulge in. So this isn't me trying to find loopholes or spouting some liberal-Christian rhetoric that claims we're "free" to indulge in it or whatever. I just want an honest dialogue and a few thoughts, elaborations, etc. on the subject. I will be playing devil's advocate from time to time, but rest assured, I do not morally endorse the use of pornography.

I have never actually used porn in the strictist sense of the word. I always thought it was so distastful. However I read erotic stories. I can not point to a spefic text stating that reading erotic stories is wrong but one:
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
If something causes you to sin, cast it from you!!! Erotic stories caused me to feel flushed, to be arosed, to imagine a dark handsome man, and to ultimately, lust. There are two other sinful sexual sins I committed that falls short of fornication, but I wish not to list them. Because I did not cast these things from me, I opened the door to fornication, and fornicate I did do.

Are these things sin? If they cause you to lust, which is usually why people do it, to fantazy, masterbate...if they cause you to lust, cast it from you! Because I know from experience, that if I had died durning these endevors, to Hell I would have went. Better to enter life maimed, than to enter death as a whole...

[stabalizer]

Translation of the vice list in Col 3 is actually quite tricky because a lot of the words in it can carry quite different nuances depending on their context and all we know from the context in this case is that they are negative.

Epithumia is the one that you have translated as concupiscience but really it should simply be translated as 'desire'. A strong desire, often for something that is forbidden, but not always. 'Craving' is offered by BDAG as a possible translation and its actually quite a good choice.

Anyway, craving chocolate is as much condemned here as craving sex. Porn would only be being forbidden by epithumia if it was already established that porn was bad. Basically it is only desiring the forbidden if porn is forbidden - which is exactly what we're trying to prove. As such Colossians 3 doesn't help at all and neither do any of the other Pauline vice lists.

See, if pornography was always self-destructive then clearly it would be wrong but what if it is only self-destructive when misused? Many good things are self-destructive when misused... So you are once again begging the question with your argument.

I have to disagree a bit here;

1) the word, "concupiscience" is accompanied with the word, evil.

2) In context with Col. 3:6, it is clear each of the things summed up in the word, "idolatry" make it clear the things being mortified are a form of rebellion.

So ask yourself, "rebellion against whom?"

God.

Which implies the character of Christ as being the opposite to the things that need to be put to death.

Col 3 does apply.

No matter how you cut the cards, pornography is self-destructive because it sets oneself up for false standards of reality and false expectations.

It's important to understand all pornography isn't photographic ponography.

It must include abberant imaginations and writings as well.

thanks for listening

[James Peter]

I didn't say that in context the word doesn't have an obviously negative nuance, I said it doesn't have (necessarily) a sexual nuance. Just like pathos (which can also be translated lust/desire)... basically we know that pathos and epithumia are bad but they aren't necessarily sexual...

[Shadow Phoenix]

Could it be that the problem with porn is that it takes what is sacred of sex and human beauty and treats it as a mere commodity?

[Mr. Christopher]

God created sex; we need to remember that. Alas, He set rules to go along with it. It's a method for a married man and woman to "join together." It's a gift from God. Pornography turns it into something filthy.

Not only that, but listen to Jesus' own words:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

Jesus said that to look with lust is to commit adultery, which violates the seventh commandment. Pornography induces lust. Therefore, pornography violates the seventh commandment.

Good reply, but it can be sumed up this way. The reason Pornography is frowned upon is because it's loveless sex. Nothing but lust, and no love. That's why it's wrong. Both to participate and watch.

[stabalizer]

I didn't say that in context the word doesn't have an obviously negative nuance, I said it doesn't have (necessarily) a sexual nuance. Just like pathos (which can also be translated lust/desire)... basically we know that pathos and epithumia are bad but they aren't necessarily sexual...

I misunderstood you, my mistake... apologies.

[SinikalSaint]

Could it be that the problem with porn is that it takes what is sacred of sex and human beauty and treats it as a mere commodity?

That sounds like a pretty good argument to me. That's pretty much what makes prostitution immoral, I would say. Any arguments from the other side (I don't expect too much, as this is a theist-only section and will probably attract mostly conservative Christians, but still, all views are welcome).

Erotic stories caused me to feel flushed, to be aroused, to imagine a dark handsome man, and to ultimately lust. There are two other sinful sexual sins I committed that falls short of fornication, but I wish not to list them. Because I did not cast these things from me, I opened the door to fornication, and fornicate I did do.

That's a pretty good response, too, Jane. Although, it's still worth asking, what's so different about Song of Solomon? Yeah, you could argue that it's about a married couple, but that's a little ambiguous. Is erotica ever okay? If it is ever morally permissable as literature, is it ever okay as movies/pictures?

[Abelard]

I think sexual motivation is a God-given drive, and to willingly dissapate that is not attuning oneself to the divine will.

[SinikalSaint]

I think sexual motivation is a God-given drive, and to willingly dissipate that is not attuning oneself to the divine will.

I would say I basically agree, though I'll ask (partly to see how you might break it down, and partly just to be annoying by forcing you through nitpicky questioning to deconstruct your whole reasoning :wink:) how would the use of or participation in the making of pornography of any sort necessarily dissipate the God-given sexual motivation? Could it not be seen, rather, as an expression of sexual motivation, or a celebration of it, or a release? Maybe even as a kind of "practice?":ponder:

:b_evil:'s advocate, ^_~

[Abelard]

Could it not be seen, rather, as an expression of sexual motivation, or a celebration of it, or a release? Maybe even as a kind of "practice?"

I like your attitude. I think if it were considered "practice" we might have more "practicing" Christians.:lol:

Seriously, porn really ruins the sex lives of the folks in the industry. It's a predatory, exploitive business. Masturbation is a vice that goes hand in...umm...hand with porn and plenty of people screw up their sexual response system that way.

I'm not the least bit prudish, but porn is a vice. It starts out innocently like the other vices, but eventually puts more and more demands on free will untill free will just dissapates.

[SinikalSaint]

I like your attitude. I think if it were considered "practice" we might have more "practicing" Christians.:lol:

Seriously, porn really ruins the sex lives of the folks in the industry. It's a predatory, exploitive business. Masturbation is a vice that goes hand in...umm...hand with porn and plenty of people screw up their sexual response system that way.

I'm not the least bit prudish, but porn is a vice. It starts out innocently like the other vices, but eventually puts more and more demands on free will untill free will just dissipates.

"Starts out innocently." I like the boldness and the insight of this statement. It has the cajones to point out a flagrant truism about the nature of sin. That the industry is predatory and exploitive... I wholeheartedly agree, but once again, what would you say about those who freely choose to be in it? Most people in it, actually, choose to be in it (though, obviously, some less freely than others, and there are countless varieties of situations in the individual lives of porn actresses and actors). Are they still being exploited despite the fact that they're not necessarily being coerced? Have they still been preyed upon? What if they're genuinely happy in the business?

As for masturbation, well, as to whether or not that is an actual vice is another argument entirely (and, if it's quite alright, I wish not go into a tangent debate about it in this thread), but I'll agree that it at least has the potential to mess up the sexual response, especially when coupled with pornography.

[Shadow Phoenix]

"Starts out innocently." I like the boldness and the insight of this statement. It has the cajones to point out a flagrant truism about the nature of sin. That the industry is predatory and exploitive... I wholeheartedly agree, but once again, what would you say about those who freely choose to be in it? Most people in it, actually, choose to be in it (though, obviously, some less freely than others, and there are countless varieties of situations in the individual lives of porn actresses and actors). Are they still being exploited despite the fact that they're not necessarily being coerced? Have they still been preyed upon? What if they're genuinely happy in the business?

Little saddens me more than to see a beautiful young lady giving herself to a guy who has not made a commitment to her thinking that she'll find happiness in that. Yes. I know that even Christians can make mistakes in this area but we realize it is a mistake. (And in case anyone's wondering, I haven't made such mistake and I pray I never do.)

The lady is being exploited even if she is happy for the moment. It's not short-term that matters but long-term. The lady has suffered a great loss in that she has lost virtue and has allowed herself to be treated like an object.

I like what is said in Heinbach's book "True Sexual Morality." This is the kind of quote that when I read it really energizes me. He's speaking about modest dress, but I think it applies here.

Modesty is the way a woman says "Exclusive intimacy with me worth everything you have. It is worth lifelong commitment because it is worth your life, and to win me a man had better be extraordinary himself."

Yes. This is what a lady needs to do. A lady needs to realize what a beautiful treasure she is and that a guy isn't going to get her body until he's made a heart and soul commitment to her.

[James Peter]

But is it any different to exploit a woman in this way than to, say, expect her to work 14 hour days for less than a dollar? Exploitation is wrong, don't think I'm saying otherwise, but a woman in the US who chooses to be exploited in this way because she thinks that it is worth earning four times as much as she could waiting tables is making a mature decision. A woman in Malaysia or China has no choice except to be exploited.

I think the exploitation argument really falls down because of this. We're, generally, happy to exploit people in other ways that are often more degrading (if a woman enjoys having sex with lots of people (plenty like that around) and likes the thought of lots of people desiring her then is it actually degrading/exploiting anyway?) so the reason the argument is being employed against Porn would seem to be "Porn is wrong because umm....quick somebody think of a reason to justify our position...oh, right...exploitation!" If the exploitation of women (or people in general) was the main reason then other forms of exploitation would be targeted more. Or are non-american women less worthy of protection from exploitation?

[Underfire]

I agree with most of this to a point, though I would say that sex is more an outworking of God's own nature vis a vis my own theology of sex which can be found here on TWeb.

However, to say something is wrong because it induces lust is a statement I need clarified. We need to ask first off what lust is? Is lust desire? If that is the case, then Naomi told Ruth to sin when she told her to approach Boaz with her best outfit on. I'd also point out that one of the rewards of Job mentioned was that he had three strikingly beautiful daughters.

Now I refer to lust as desire out of proportion where one simply desires the intercourse more than the person. After all, a lady can induce a guy to think about sex simply as she is. That is not necessarily the fault of the lady. A girl can be dressed modestly and still be extremely attractive. (I'd even say the most attractive girls are the modest girls.) The problem is again in the heart of man. It is sinful.

I would just like some clarification on these points.

I would define lust as:
Wanting something outside of God's will or provision. For example if you want sex with a woman that you are not married to, then you are desiring sex out side of God's provision of marriage.

[Abelard]

Lust

The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse. Every such criminal indulgence is a mortal sin, provided of course, it be voluntary in itself and fully deliberate. This is the testimony of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galations, v. 19:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, . . . Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God."

Moreover, if it be true the gravity of the offences may be measured by the harm they work to the individual or the community, there can be no doubt that lust has in this respect a gravity all its own. Transgressions against the virtues other than purity frequently admit of a minor degree of malice, and are accounted venial. Impurity has the evil distinction that, whenever there is a direct conscious surrender to any of its phases the guilt incurred is always grievous. This judgment, however, needs modifying when there is question of some impure gratification for which a person is responsible, not immediately, but because he had posited its cause, and to which he has not deliberately consented. The act may then be only venially sinful. For the determination of the amount of its wickedness much will depend upon the apprehended proximate danger of giving way on the part of the agent, as well as upon the known capacity of the thing done to bring about venereal pleasure. This teaching applies to external and internal sins alike: "Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.Matt.5.html#Matt.5.28)). However the case may stand as to the extent of the obligation under which one lies to refrain in certain circumstances from actions whose net result is to excite the passions, moralists are at one as to the counsel they give. They all emphasize the perils of the situation, and point out the practical dangers of a failure to refrain. It matters not that there is not, as we suppose, an initial sinful intent. The sheerest prudence and most rudimentary self-knowledge alike demand abstinence, where possible, from things which, though not grievously bad in themselves, yet easily fan into flame the unholy fire which may be smouldering, but it is not extinct.

Lust is said to be a capital sin. The reason is obvious. The pleasure which this vice has as its object is at once so attractive and connatural to human nature as to whet keenly a man's desire, and so lead him into the commission of many other disorders in the pursuit of it. Theologians ordinarily distinguish various forms of lust in so far as it is a consummated external sin, e.g., fornication, adultery, incest, criminal assault, abduction, and sodomy. Each of these has its own specific malice--a fact to borne in mind for purposes of safeguarding the integrity of sacramental confession.

JOSEPH F. DELANY (from The Catholic Encyclopedia)

[Shadow Phoenix]

But is it any different to exploit a woman in this way than to, say, expect her to work 14 hour days for less than a dollar? Exploitation is wrong, don't think I'm saying otherwise, but a woman in the US who chooses to be exploited in this way because she thinks that it is worth earning four times as much as she could waiting tables is making a mature decision. A woman in Malaysia or China has no choice except to be exploited.

I think the exploitation argument really falls down because of this. We're, generally, happy to exploit people in other ways that are often more degrading (if a woman enjoys having sex with lots of people (plenty like that around) and likes the thought of lots of people desiring her then is it actually degrading/exploiting anyway?) so the reason the argument is being employed against Porn would seem to be "Porn is wrong because umm....quick somebody think of a reason to justify our position...oh, right...exploitation!" If the exploitation of women (or people in general) was the main reason then other forms of exploitation would be targeted more. Or are non-american women less worthy of protection from exploitation?

With all due respect, I see this as a huge difference. A job as a waitress for instance points more at a lady's function. (I would think it would be exploitation though if she was forced to wear clothing that was designed to accentuate her cleavage or something of that sort.) Your work is what you do but it is not who you are.

Sex is who you are. Whatever a woman does be she a construction worker, a waitress, a politician, or a nun, she is still a woman. Thus, pornography exploits a woman for who she is and not based on what she does.

As for lust being something outside of God's provision to Underfire, I have a problem with that. If I am dating a girl for instance, I will have desires. Are such desires sinful? I do not think so. It is what I do with those desires. Am I to believe that I am not to have any desire at all for a girl until I slip a ring on her finger and then say "I do" and then that desire can come out?

I would say that desire is natural and important and healthy. If I do not feel any desire when I see a beautiful lady, I think I have a lot more to be concerned about. We all do this in practice as when we are about to meet the opposite sex and try to win their hearts in some way, we try to make ourselves as attractive as possible.

[SinikalSaint]

With all due respect, I see this as a huge difference. A job as a waitress for instance points more at a lady's function. (I would think it would be exploitation though if she was forced to wear clothing that was designed to accentuate her cleavage or something of that sort.) Your work is what you do but it is not who you are.

Sex is who you are. Whatever a woman does be she a construction worker, a waitress, a politician, or a nun, she is still a woman. Thus, pornography exploits a woman for who she is and not based on what she does.

As for lust being something outside of God's provision to Underfire, I have a problem with that. If I am dating a girl for instance, I will have desires. Are such desires sinful? I do not think so. It is what I do with those desires. Am I to believe that I am not to have any desire at all for a girl until I slip a ring on her finger and then say "I do" and then that desire can come out?

I would say that desire is natural and important and healthy. If I do not feel any desire when I see a beautiful lady, I think I have a lot more to be concerned about. We all do this in practice as when we are about to meet the opposite sex and try to win their hearts in some way, we try to make ourselves as attractive as possible.


Not a bad comeback, Phoenix. I take it your use of the exploitation argument would apply to the men who participate in porn as well? It's known in the movie industry (mainstream and porn both) that in porn--at least porn geared generally toward straight men--men are basically props. The focus is on the women. This is why men in porn are often notoriously unattractive and are paid less than women.

(Hmmm... I do know a telling amount about this industry, don't I? :blush:)

Anyways, I can't help but notice that a lot of the arguments here seem to be based on the belief that all premarital sex is inherently sinful. I don't want to get into that argument here, but I do think that an anti-fornication foundation, here clouds the argument. So for the sake of keeping focused, I'll toss in the possibility of porn made by married couples (which, of course, does exist). I'm sure once I do that I'll get a few "the privacy of the marriage bed is sacred" type arguments, and I'm ready for that. I just want to make sure that sex outside of marriage is kind of beside our point, here.

I like how you point out the difference in exploitation, here, being based one what one is rather what one does. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that a woman is being exploited in porn because she's in porn because she's a woman--she is, if you'll forgive the crudeness, a willing hole (or set of holes), which would follow that men who are in porn are there because they're a willing penis. This, I think you're saying, is different from an overworked waitress because a waitress is there because she can wait tables well, because she has or has developed a set of skills that benefit her employer and her employer's customers. Granted, her skills are being exploited, but that's more or less what skills are there for. A person can't really be exploited, I think you're arguing, unless what they're being used for is somehow connected with their very being. (for example, a lot of people criticized blaxploitation films in the 70's because, as the name implies, they seemed to be exploiting African-Americans because they were using their blackness; I don't believe this was the case with blaxploitation films, and that's a whole other discussion, but I think I see what you mean).

So I would take it, then, that you would answer to James Peter that overworked waitressed aren't being "exploited" the same way porn actors and actresses are being exploited; they're being unfairly overworked, which is also bad, but bad for different reasons.

Am I about right?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Not a bad comeback, Phoenix. I take it your use of the exploitation argument would apply to the men who participate in porn as well? It's known in the movie industry (mainstream and porn both) that in porn--at least porn geared generally toward straight men--men are basically props. The focus is on the women. This is why men in porn are often notoriously unattractive and are paid less than women.

Absolutely.

(Hmmm... I do know a telling amount about this industry, don't I? :blush:)

And I'm wondering how that is honestly.

Anyways, I can't help but notice that a lot of the arguments here seem to be based on the belief that all premarital sex is inherently sinful. I don't want to get into that argument here, but I do think that an anti-fornication foundation, here clouds the argument. So for the sake of keeping focused, I'll toss in the possibility of porn made by married couples (which, of course, does exist). I'm sure once I do that I'll get a few "the privacy of the marriage bed is sacred" type arguments, and I'm ready for that. I just want to make sure that sex outside of marriage is kind of beside our point, here.

I will say this. Sexual intercourse is the ultimate form of trust between a man and a woman. A woman has to make herself extremely vulnerable. She is opening up to a man who she is. The only way this should be done is if the man has made the commitment of trust. How does this sound? "Baby. I want you to take all your clothes off and make yourself completely vulnerable to me just to be sure we're compatible."? I think that question is quite simple. Does he have all the male parts? Does she have all the female parts? Then the system works. (Or the plumbing as my friend RumTumPotter would say.)

I like how you point out the difference in exploitation, here, being based one what one is rather what one does. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that a woman is being exploited in porn because she's in porn because she's a woman--she is, if you'll forgive the crudeness, a willing hole (or set of holes), which would follow that men who are in porn are there because they're a willing penis. This, I think you're saying, is different from an overworked waitress because a waitress is there because she can wait tables well, because she has or has developed a set of skills that benefit her employer and her employer's customers. Granted, her skills are being exploited, but that's more or less what skills are there for. A person can't really be exploited, I think you're arguing, unless what they're being used for is somehow connected with their very being. (for example, a lot of people criticized blaxploitation films in the 70's because, as the name implies, they seemed to be exploiting African-Americans because they were using their blackness; I don't believe this was the case with blaxploitation films, and that's a whole other discussion, but I think I see what you mean).

Exactly. For instance, I have a good skill of mathematics. When I'm at work, sometimes someone will come and they'll want to know the price of a couple of items or something like that. No problem. I can do it. What's the tax on this? Harder, but I can usually do it.

Now, let's suppose that I was in a horrible accident and my brain got damaged and I could no longer do math like that. Would I cease to be me? No. I wouldn't be. However, I would still be a male and I would still have my sexuality in the image of God. That is me. My skills are there to be used and they do not define me. My sexuality does.

I should point this out as a single virgin male. When it comes to marriage, when I am on my honeymoon one day, I will be fully male approaching my wife who will still be fully female. Intercouse does not make you male or female. Intercourse is done because you are already male or female.

This is the tragedy of our times. I fear many women are in porn and having sex outside of marriage because they believe that they will be loved for this and that they are using their womanhood. Not at all. A lady's womanhood is to be treasured and savored and she'd better do her best to save it for the guy who will treasure it.

As for my fellow men, I believe too often we have made it a rite of passage to have intercourse. No doubt, it's a big event in anyone's life, but it does not make a man a man. After all, Jesus Christ, the greatest man who ever lived (And still lives), was and is celibate. You can be 100% male and never have intercourse.

However, for us, too many men are looking to intercourse as a way of making themselves a man. It will never work. Your identity will always be in the hands of the female then when it should be in the hands of God. Your masculinity is a great gift to be shared to the one who has already decided by saying "I do" that you're man enough for her.

So I would take it, then, that you would answer to James Peter that overworked waitressed aren't being "exploited" the same way porn actors and actresses are being exploited; they're being unfairly overworked, which is also bad, but bad for different reasons.

Am I about right?

Oh yes. It's a moral issue, but not the same moral issue. Of course, it could become that issue if for instance, a boss forced her to wear skimpy outfits and display herself for male customers, but other than that, I just don't see it.

[Underfire]

Lust

The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse. Every such criminal indulgence is a mortal sin, provided of course, it be voluntary in itself and fully deliberate. This is the testimony of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galations, v. 19:

Lust can manifest itself in many different ways. It is not strictly a sexual thing (Ie: You a lust after a car). This is important to understand because lust is an issue of the heart- in respect to your gratefulness for what God has given you and your faith in Him that he will provide for your true needs. Acting on lust is telling God - A) I am not satisfied with your provision. B) I don't trust that you will meet my needs. See the scriptures below:

James 4:2
You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask.


Titus 3:3
For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.

[James Peter]

But can't it be argued that sexual prowress, the ability to make a man desire you is as much a skill as simply being part of who you are. How a woman dresses and acts, how she carries herself and so forth all have as much of a role in how 'sexy' a woman is as just her unadorned looks. The same woman, acting differently, can become much more attractive... Its a skill, and a skill that (for better or worse) a lot of women choose to exploit. A waitress who flirts subtly with her clients to make better tips is, surely, doing the same as the porn star - just to a lesser degree. The seperation of 'what you are' from 'what you do' is, I think, an artificial construction. Sexuality is one realm of skills amongst many but it is still a set of skills as much of inate talents (and can't many other skills also be inate talents for many people?)

I'll end with this: "All work is prostitution."

We choose what to give from ourselves in order to receive from others. It is the very essence of a free country and a free market that somebody has the right to choose to either do something or not do something depending on whether the reward is sufficient for them. Many people choose to degrade themselves for money and many things that you or I find degrading others find liberating. Objectively I find it hard to say that all porn is wrong. Something made freely by a married couple for the benefit of other married couples (etc.) negates many of the reasons that most porn is wrong. In many circumstances porn is wrong, but I don't think that is because it is porn but rather because of either the circumstances of its creation or of its use.

[Underfire]

As for lust being something outside of God's provision to Underfire, I have a problem with that. If I am dating a girl for instance, I will have desires. Are such desires sinful? I do not think so. It is what I do with those desires. Am I to believe that I am not to have any desire at all for a girl until I slip a ring on her finger and then say "I do" and then that desire can come out?

I would say that desire is natural and important and healthy. If I do not feel any desire when I see a beautiful lady, I think I have a lot more to be concerned about. We all do this in practice as when we are about to meet the opposite sex and try to win their hearts in some way, we try to make ourselves as attractive as possible.
This is a good point. Indeed, sexual desire is natural and healthy. But where does desire turn into lust? I agree that the desire alone is not necessarily a sin but then on the other hand is Lust itself a sin?

You have to consider:

James 1:15
Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

If lust gives birth to sin then can lust actually be sin? If lust is not sin then can we safely say that the wrong desires can be lust?

[Shadow Phoenix]

But can't it be argued that sexual prowress, the ability to make a man desire you is as much a skill as simply being part of who you are. How a woman dresses and acts, how she carries herself and so forth all have as much of a role in how 'sexy' a woman is as just her unadorned looks. The same woman, acting differently, can become much more attractive... Its a skill, and a skill that (for better or worse) a lot of women choose to exploit. A waitress who flirts subtly with her clients to make better tips is, surely, doing the same as the porn star - just to a lesser degree. The seperation of 'what you are' from 'what you do' is, I think, an artificial construction. Sexuality is one realm of skills amongst many but it is still a set of skills as much of inate talents (and can't many other skills also be inate talents for many people?)

I'll end with this: "All work is prostitution."

We choose what to give from ourselves in order to receive from others. It is the very essence of a free country and a free market that somebody has the right to choose to either do something or not do something depending on whether the reward is sufficient for them. Many people choose to degrade themselves for money and many things that you or I find degrading others find liberating. Objectively I find it hard to say that all porn is wrong. Something made freely by a married couple for the benefit of other married couples (etc.) negates many of the reasons that most porn is wrong. In many circumstances porn is wrong, but I don't think that is because it is porn but rather because of either the circumstances of its creation or of its use.

It can be, but other skills are more skills acquired throughout one's lifetime. Sexuality is what one is born with. I will say not all forms are exploitation. However, if a lady reduces herself to just a body (I do believe a human being is a soul) then I would say she has gone too far.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong I don't think either with going out on a date and doing your best to look good and where clothes to attract your date.

This is a good point. Indeed, sexual desire is natural and healthy. But where does desire turn into lust? I agree that the desire alone is not necessarily a sin but then on the other hand is Lust itself a sin?

You have to consider:

James 1:15
Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

If lust gives birth to sin then can lust actually be sin? If lust is not sin then can we safely say that the wrong desires can be lust?

Thank you. I would say that if sex is a good thing and intercourse is a good thing, (I do make a distinction) then the desire for intercourse based on one's sexuality is not a bad thing. Food is a good thing from God and desiring it is good and healthy, but to desire too much or even too little is not healthy. God provides us with all things richly for our enjoyment including intercourse. (1 Tim. 6:17) I think passages like Proverbs 5:18-19 would point to that as would the whole book of the Song of Songs, and I don't buy people who try to deny its explicitly romantic nature and say it's merely an allegory. You could read it that way, but why not admit that this is also a poem celebrating a great aspect of God's creation?

When does it become wrong? I think it's when you want the woman's sex apart from her person. When you want her only to use her.

[SinikalSaint]

James Peter kind of has a point, with "all work" being "prostitution." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but I get his point. I'm a writer--or aim to be a professional writer: someday I hope to make a living writing and publishing fiction works, stage plays and screenplays for a living (as well as direct the productions myself), along with essays, scholarly works, etc. Now, if early on I try to get my foot in the door by writing tawdry B-movie scripts, or shelling out scripts that don't get made or will get mutilated and rehashed by greedy studios, or just doctoring already-made projects, up until I have the clout and resources to make my own projects, am I whoring myself out? Am I "prostituting" my skills by using them in a manner that's, arguably, beneath me? I mean, I have rather lofty dreams, and while I'm working to reach them, I gotta eat, right? If I do what I gotta do to survive in the meantime, am I compromising or sacrificing my artistic integrity somehow?

I know there's a little bit of a difference between using our artistic skills and using our bodies, but the situation is at least comparable.

Indeed, a certain sort of skill must be involved in sex work--from prostitution to stripping to pornographic movies: looking and acting alluring and seductive, etc. Just as well, beauty is not necessarily a "skill," but it certainaly a trait that can be commodified. Would you say models are degrading and exploiting themselves?--and I don't mean Playboy and Penthouse, just fashion models, catalogue models. Are the women in Victoria's Secret degrading themselves? I mean, they're just selling underwear...

Maybe we should start using more specific examples... I do believe that pornography is immoral, and objectively (I'm always rather cagey about using that word) degrading and exploitative, but I think demonstrating that is gonna take a deeper analysis into what pornography is. I also think it's gonna take a deeper analysis of sexuality. The analysis of both would probably be outside the scope of this thread, but we can try and see what we all can come up with.

Part of the reason I personally morally object to pornographic films as degrading and exploitative is because I do subscribe to the view that there's something of a mystical union--for lack of a better phrase--for better or worse, for good or evil, inherent in any degree of sexual intimacy. I take quite seriously Scripture's use of the phrase "one flesh" to describe the state two people are in during intercouse. (I'm aware, James Peter, as you have mentioned in another thread, that that phrase is more than likely a euphemism for sexual intercourse common to the culture rather than an implicit reference to an understanding of sex as some transcendent bond. However, language is funny that way, and how we choose our euphemisms still has a lot to say about our underlying--and perhaps unconscious, or even collectively unconscious--understandings and insights. Today we often use the phrase "sleep with," regardless of the context of the sex, if there was actually sleeping, or even if it took place in a bed. And also, I would argue that Paul thought similarly in Ephesians 5:31-32 when he referred to the Genesis description of sex and marriage as "becoming one flesh" when he compared it to the Church's union with Christ, describing it as a great mystery; and in 1 Corinthians 6:15-19, when he forbade the Church to commit sexual immorality, citing Genesis again to describe sex as an intimate, and I would argue transcendent, union between persons, a union so profound that he considered a dire offense to have it occur between a Christian and a prostitute). Now if we consider this, what does it mean if a woman is using her body, applying all manner of alluring and sensuous skills, to arouse men and get them to desire and fantasize about her? What does it mean if she has sex--read: becomes of one flesh--with several men (and women) in the process? Is there not something unhealthy about this? At this point I'm thinking a strictly reason-and-logic approach isn't gonna do the job on showing the pernicious nature of the sex industry. I'm curious, still, as to what people will have to say.
:ponder:

And Phoenix, as to why I know so much about the industry, don't wonder too much. All I have to say is "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

[James Peter]

Now, if early on I try to get my foot in the door by writing tawdry B-movie scripts, or shelling out scripts that don't get made or will get mutilated and rehashed by greedy studios, or just doctoring already-made projects, up until I have the clout and resources to make my own projects, am I whoring myself out? Am I "prostituting" my skills by using them in a manner that's, arguably, beneath me? I mean, I have rather lofty dreams, and while I'm working to reach them, I gotta eat, right? If I do what I gotta do to survive in the meantime, am I compromising or sacrificing my artistic integrity somehow?

And Phoenix, as to why I know so much about the industry, don't wonder too much. All I have to say is "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Is there a connection here? :wink:

Anyway, for the record I would agree that sex is 'sacred' but I don't think I could even begin to (objectively) demonstrate that. It remains my opinion, but everything based upon it must then also be recognised as just that: my opinion. I don't have the right to claim that my opinion is actually right unless I can objectively support it.

I shall continue to play Devil's Advocate (like in the pornia thread) in order to facilitate discussion though... and because although I might agree with the conclusions that people are reaching I find their arguments to be somewhat lacking.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Sinikal. I enjoyed reading your post.

I have an article here called "A Theology of Sex." That article can be found here. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68777

I think you've hit on something. My idea is that we are to be corresponding to reality. True masculinity resides in the heart of God as does true femininity. I do think men have an advantage in that if we want to really be a man, we need to look at Jesus Christ, the greatest example of masculinity that there is.

So what is a man? It's not in having intercourse. It's not in how much you can bench press. It's not in how many philosophical treatises you can write either. It's not in how much football knowledge you possess. It's not in how much work you can do on your car. None of these things go against being a man and certain aspects could reflect some nature of masculinity, but I think it's more about what kind of person you are on the life of virtue.

Are you living a life of love? Are you living a life of caring for your fellow man? If you have a lady, are you willing to follow the biblical command to die for her if need be? It's not about having intercourse. Yes. If a man really loves his lady, he will try to please her in this area of course and she in turn him, but I think if both truly love each other, they will be pleased regardless.

This resides in the nature of God. My stance is that God is sexual. No. This isn't physical. This is in the sense of having creative love. It is a love that gives life beyond the one who has it.

How damaging is it to break this? Well, when we broke the bonds of the atom, we saw what happened. Take a look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When we break spiritual bonds, including the bond of sex, there are greater consequences.

I like to compare it to the temple in the OT. If you are to enter the temple, you must be in the covenant. If you are to enter the temple of the lady, you must be in covenant with her. Remember what happened when Hezekiah showed the glory of the temple to the Babylonians? They ravaged it. Glory is not to be taken lightly. Remember what happened when Belshazzar celebrated his "conquest" of the temple? He got conquered himself.

Don't take the temple glory lightly. Remember, in so many ways, she is a treasure you are not worthy of.

[SinikalSaint]

Good article, Phoenix. I'm rather partial to Kreeft's writings, myself. He's one of the few people that I've read who makes an effort to separate sex and sexuality from sexual intercourse and intimacy. That's especially difficult these days with the ravaging of language via confused, bandied terms like "gender."

Sex is sacred, by virtue of being a symbol, even a manifestation, reflecting the absolute unity of God (I know I'm butchering it, but this is basically what you're saying, right?). I would agree. You know, a lot of libertines would hide behind the "God created sex" maxim as a way to try to explain why at least a degree of sexual hedonism is morally permissable and even healthy. Are you familiar with organizations like Liberated Christians (http://www.libchrist.com)? You'll find them using Scripture and even orthodox Christian doctrine to excuse all sorts of stuff. I'm curious how you would rebut them? (by the way, I'm not using the link as an argument, even to play devil's advocate; I'm honestly wondering what you'd have to say about them; perhaps you can articulate my own less-than-flattering opinions better than I can; in any case, read and respond to the link only at your discretion and convenience).

I'll also say this about the sacredness of sex and the sinfulness of pornography: I think it's important not to kid ourselves about how sexual intercoure affects people. Yes, there is a deep emotional and spiritual connection that happens during it and as a result of it, and the participants can feel it. But fact of the matter is, quite often this is very much not the case. People have unemotional or no-strings sex all the time, and they don't always feel bad about it afterwards. No stings in the heart, no pangs of conscience, no overt bitterness or heartbreak or spiritual misery. Just good (or bad) sex, with maybe an emotional rush or two. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the concept of a "friend with benefits" or an "fb" (I'm not gonna spell out what they stand for, even in a censored version, as I've already been flagged by a moderator for using "disguised profanity" on this thread). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you are fairly convinced that such an arrangement or "relationship" wouldn't work, because of the deep bond that happens because of sex. But fact of the matter is, such relationships often work all the time, just as the participants want them to. Lots of fun, often spontaneous, hot, no-strings sex, no commitments, and sometimes even the original friendships come out unscathed. A casual sexual relationship can work, and often does. But here's the kicker: in order for it to work, there absolutely has to be a degree of coldness, callousness, heartlessness, on the part of the people involved. You basically have to deliberately paralyze a tiny portion of your heart in order to maintain a certain detachment. Deaden the heart when and where it needs to be deadened, and you can have all the emotionally painless, guilt-free no-strings sex you'd like (provided you and your partner are both 100% honest with each other). This is why I am personally against casual and promiscuous sex: not only because I believe sex is sacred (though the next reason is in conjunction to this), but because sex is sacred there is supposed to be that transcendent, psychic, emotional, and spiritual as well as physical bond there, and when you engineer things in such a way so that retards or altogether prevents the deeper bond, it's doing something very dangerous to the heart and the soul. It's making the heart callous, less feeling (not to mention the heart more confused). And ironically enough, that comes with its own pain.

Now, back to porn (rather odd sentence to use in a "Biblical Ethics" forum). The degree of spiritual coldness pervading those in that industry must be insane. I've even read that a significant number of people in the porn industry are veritable psychopaths. How much of these people's hearts are already dead inside?

Questions, comments, good thoughts?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Good article, Phoenix. I'm rather partial to Kreeft's writings, myself. He's one of the few people that I've read who makes an effort to separate sex and sexuality from sexual intercourse and intimacy. That's especially difficult these days with the ravaging of language via confused, bandied terms like "gender."

I've got a couple of pictures of myself with Kreeft at the Apologetics Conference. He's someone great and I recommend his writings.

Sex is sacred, by virtue of being a symbol, even a manifestation, reflecting the absolute unity of God (I know I'm butchering it, but this is basically what you're saying, right?). I would agree. You know, a lot of libertines would hide behind the "God created sex" maxim as a way to try to explain why at least a degree of sexual hedonism is morally permissable and even healthy. Are you familiar with organizations like Liberated Christians (http://www.libchrist.com)? You'll find them using Scripture and even orthodox Christian doctrine to excuse all sorts of stuff. I'm curious how you would rebut them? (by the way, I'm not using the link as an argument, even to play devil's advocate; I'm honestly wondering what you'd have to say about them; perhaps you can articulate my own less-than-flattering opinions better than I can; in any case, read and respond to the link only at your discretion and convenience).

That's simple. The Bible condemns adultery. Everyone knows what adultery is also. When Aristotle and Plato wrote, they spoke of adultery. They knew what it was. I am also reminded of what G.K. Chesterton said, "The person who thinks that there should be more than one way to God might as well ask why you can't have more than one wife."

The view seems to indicate that sex is primarily for pleasure. While I am sure it is quite pleasurable (Keep in mind I am still a young male virgin), I do not think that is the main role. It is to build intimacy and to give children as well. I would also use my covenant symbolism. Sexual intercourse as you've indicated is not the same thing as sharing a meal with someone. You can do that with your spouse of course, but you could also have a friendly meal with a co-worker. Intercourse is built on total trust and commitment and oneness. That's something that isn't to be shared. Drink water from your own cistern!

I'll also say this about the sacredness of sex and the sinfulness of pornography: I think it's important not to kid ourselves about how sexual intercoure affects people. Yes, there is a deep emotional and spiritual connection that happens during it and as a result of it, and the participants can feel it. But fact of the matter is, quite often this is very much not the case. People have unemotional or no-strings sex all the time, and they don't always feel bad about it afterwards.

That's true. We shouldn't be using the scare tactic of "You will feel miserable if you have sex outside of marriage." You might. I probably would due to my personality type. (I'd pain myself to no end if I thought I made one dishonest penny for instance.) However, if how we felt after an action determined it's sinfulness, none of us would have problems with any sin. We'd all have great relationships with parents or none of us would have problems with gluttony or credit card debt, etc.

No stings in the heart, no pangs of conscience, no overt bitterness or heartbreak or spiritual misery. Just good (or bad) sex, with maybe an emotional rush or two. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the concept of a "friend with benefits" or an "fb" (I'm not gonna spell out what they stand for, even in a censored version, as I've already been flagged by a moderator for using "disguised profanity" on this thread). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you are fairly convinced that such an arrangement or "relationship" wouldn't work, because of the deep bond that happens because of sex. But fact of the matter is, such relationships often work all the time, just as the participants want them to. Lots of fun, often spontaneous, hot, no-strings sex, no commitments, and sometimes even the original friendships come out unscathed. A casual sexual relationship can work, and often does.

This depends on what it means to "work." If you mean it will bring some pleasure, yeah. I'm sure it does. However, our age equates happiness with "Having a good time." The ancients saw happiness in developing a life of virtue. Let's look at how we treat sexuality and see if it is making us be virtuous. You can be fully virtuous and enjoy intercourse. However, if you're single like I am, are you being a virtuous male in your sexuality? Are you treating women with virtue?

But here's the kicker: in order for it to work, there absolutely has to be a degree of coldness, callousness, heartlessness, on the part of the people involved. You basically have to deliberately paralyze a tiny portion of your heart in order to maintain a certain detachment. Deaden the heart when and where it needs to be deadened, and you can have all the emotionally painless, guilt-free no-strings sex you'd like (provided you and your partner are both 100% honest with each other). This is why I am personally against casual and promiscuous sex: not only because I believe sex is sacred (though the next reason is in conjunction to this), but because sex is sacred there is supposed to be that transcendent, psychic, emotional, and spiritual as well as physical bond there, and when you engineer things in such a way so that retards or altogether prevents the deeper bond, it's doing something very dangerous to the heart and the soul. It's making the heart callous, less feeling (not to mention the heart more confused). And ironically enough, that comes with its own pain.

Wonderfully said. The more one lives in sin, the more one deadens their heart to the true love of God and spend less time living life as he intended it to live. God intended the monogamous lifestyle to be enjoyable for those who participate in it.

Now, back to porn (rather odd sentence to use in a "Biblical Ethics" forum). The degree of spiritual coldness pervading those in that industry must be insane. I've even read that a significant number of people in the porn industry are veritable psychopaths. How much of these people's hearts are already dead inside?

Questions, comments, good thoughts?

You should read a book called "True Sexual Morality" and see what it says about the playboy approach to sexuality. I think you'd be pleased.

I'd also recommend Lauren Winner. The Maclaurin Institue has an MP3 you can download of her speaking. She wrote a book on sexuality I definitely plan to get someday and she makes a lot of these same points.

[SinikalSaint]

Our good friend James Peter seems to be a tad scarce... where are ya, buddy?

[Thankful1]

One reason I think pornoghraphy is wrong is because it causes one to act on lustful desires. Lets face it, we all know what one is in for when one views pornography. A visual and auditory depiction of a sexual act of some sort that is specifically designed for sexual arousal. Since it is against Gods law to commit adultery or fornication it seems to lead to no allowable end. If one is married and watches pornography of married people having sex, one is still lusting after someone else's spouse no? If one is not married and watching pornography, one is still lusting after them and had sex with them in their heart. It seems clear at least Biblically that pornography is wrong..

Personally I hate pornography is because it has trained me in the past and by my choice to view women as mere sexual objects with certain pleasing features.

It has trained me by my choice to focus my eyes on certain parts of any woman rather than focusing on her as an eternal precious soul.

It has through my influence put my wifes purity in jeapordy by exposing her to images detestable to God. Which at the time and to this day has caused an identity crisis of sorts in her.

I am still trying to retrain my mind after years of viewing of pornography/certain movies as to what a normal God honoring view of sex is.

Pornography is bad for those involved in making it even i they don't realize it. Maybe they don't think there is any harm in it. What they may not realize and what I realize all to well is that they as well as I are responsible to God for causing others to sin.

[James Peter]

Our good friend James Peter seems to be a tad scarce... where are ya, buddy?

Start of term, very hectic... Have to sort out all the Freshers...blah, blah, blah...

Give me a week or two and then normal service may be resumed, depending on how much attention i decide my essays deserve.

[SinikalSaint]

Where are the Liberal Christians at? Surely this subject hasn't been spent in that short a time, has it? Where are the champions of holy hedonism? Or are we just gonna have to settle for James Peter playing devil's advocate with us? (no offense, buddy :wink:)

Any more thoughts, folks, on the place or lack thereof for adult entertainment in the Christian life?

[Narnian]

I have no idea why a man would want to increase his sexual frustrations by looking at porn! Why torture yourself?! Gosh, find something better to do with this energy, ie put it into something creative; build something, help out a neighbour, read someone a story! :ahem:

I think society has brainwashed us to think about sex in ways that are mythical and also damaging. One myth is that you need an orgasm every time you are aroused, or you'll go nuts. This is not true, in fact, the less orgasms you have, the less you feel the need. Secondly, "sex is healthy" as in "you need to be having an orgasm each day to be 'healthy'", which is a huge myth! I've even see a sign that says; "Health Shop" and you go in and find it's a porn shop. There are millions of healthy people who never have sex! Then there is the big masculinity thing that a man must be having sex all the time to be a man.

Our culture needs complete rethink on sex.

[Minnesota]

I have no idea why a man would want to increase his sexual frustrations by looking at porn! Why torture yourself?!

:no: They don't increase their sexual frustration by looking at porn, they satisfy their sexual frustration by looking at it. If you don't get it ask the guy next to you to explain.

Theist only forum

[Minnesota]

I just noticed I posted in an off limits forum and it's too late to delete. Do what you will.

Ditto.

[Narnian]

I'm not naive; I know what it's about! But the big myth around sexual arousal is that it's like natural thirst for water, or hunger for food; if you don't get water or food you will get ill and die, but if you don't 'feed' your arousal by indulging in it, you will not die or get ill!

Society feeds you a big myth that you take on when you're a teen. It's not until you get to middle age when you realise you've been conned.

[Ryokan]

I'm not naive; I know what it's about! But the big myth around sexual arousal is that it's like natural thirst for water, or hunger for food; if you don't get water or food you will get ill and die, but if you don't 'feed' your arousal by indulging in it, you will not die or get ill!

Well, if you never get it you may get prostate cancer, but people mean its a natural biological function like hunger or thirst. Getting aroused is normal.

[Narnian]

Of course it's normal, and don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against sex, but you don't need to act on it, like you do, say, thirst.

It was something I used to believe; that I had to act on every little hormonal impulse, which lead me down the wrong track many times. I don't want to go into the details, but, in hindsight, I can see that listening to hormones did not relieve the problem, but instead led to even greater hormonal demands, and got me into very bad situations, took away all my creative energies, and stunted my personal and spiritual growth.

That's why I would advise people not to indulge their hormones in porn or pre marital sex etc - because it doesn't solve the problem, only temporarily relieves it, like an addiction, and it returns with even greater power each time. This is not a guilt or "sin" issue, but a plain old rational one. If you want to be good at your studies etc, accept that your hormonal impulses are there, and don't feel bad or guilty, but avoid indulging them. That is the advice I wish I"d had when I was 18.

Good luck.

[James Peter]

Actually recent scientific research has shown that men do, physiologically, need to have a certain amount of sex. Certainly they need more water but in order to retain normal hormonal levels and so on the occassional orgasm is, apparently, necessary. 'Ignoring your impulses' might work for women (to an extent) but it actually doesn't for men. Or at least not men between the ages of, say, 16 and 25.

[FOR CHRIST]

As everyone know that porn is sin and Our Body is the temple of God, we should keep it holy as much as possible. :smile:

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[Geoster]

Jesus said to do to others as you would have them do to you. Looking at porn is disrespectful to my wife. My wife should be the only sexual object in my life. I promised to forsake others and that mean OTHERS! I wouldn’t want be wife to do that to me. Looking at porn I may be potentially disrespectful to another man’s wife. I would not want that to happen to wife or me. A long the same line, that is someone’s daughter in that video. I have two daughters and I wouldn’t want that to be me. Porn affects others. It just not just a thing that affects just me, but it affects others. People who have done nothing wrong and don’t desired it. No good has ever come out of porn. I know this from personal experience.

To those that are single, porn will cause you to view women (me speaking as a man) in the wrong way. You won’t see them as people, but as something that you saw in a movie. When the intimate moments come around, it easy for the “rolodex” to popup and fill you head with the wrong images. Again, not being respectful to the other.

[Storico]

There are very, very few social issues I'm so passionate about that I'd scream from the rooftops if I had to, regarding them. I don't even dislike or hate pornography. I loathe it. As a woman, as a human, as someone who firmly believes in each of us being worthwhile human beings, as someone who now believes that God created us to be His own through Christ, I'll say this: porn has NO place in society. If I could give all I had to ensure it was gone this very moment, I would if I could without hesitation. Not only does porn have no place in society, we need to actively oppose it and research it and speak for those who either cannot, will not, or are too afraid to speak for themselves.

Porn is wrong because it objectifies men and women equally. Yes, I said equally. It reduces them to objects who are seen as little more than slaves to their passions at best, and as pieces of meat at worst. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry, and when you look deeply at the whole industry, so much of it advocates violence, control, the threat of rape -- and the worst thing is that more often than not, women and men alike are portrayed in pornography as liking and wanting these things.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132367/ This documentary is called "Not A Love Story". It came out in 1981, and even though it's over 25 years old, it's no less real today. It describes the sort of pornography popular back then, and even now in some circles -- women tied up, or helpless, or unable to control the situation. The way it talks about how women are treated with violence in pornography is chilling. Really chilling. To see a woman this way is to see her as less than human. As something that can be used and abused, and then disposed of, abandoned and ignored. Is the threat of violence real? Yes.

Dr. Diana Russell has devoted her life to making the world a safer place for women. She's well known in many feminist circles, medical circles, and among those who speak out against violence. She says this on her site: http://www.dianarussell.com/pornasviolence.html -- take a look.

Catherine MacKinnon is a well-known outspoken feminist and activist. She's written widely on pornography (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon for more info about her) and what she says is precisely that the porn industry is degrading, demeaning, and a vehicle for violence against women.

Several documentaries, including 'Not a Love Story' in particular, talk about the lifestyle young women get themselves into. Many who are in the sex or porn industry were coerced into it at a young age, sometimes for drug money, or food money, or a place to stay. Woman after woman has spoke out, talking about how she felt degraded, disgusted, humiliated -- and completely, utterly trapped in an industry like that. What women have to do on set is often horrendous. Once you've had a job there, you don't find work elsewhere. You often owe your "managers" more money than your life's worth to them, and many women have stayed in the industry because it's all they know, and they fear what would happen should they leave. Producers make billions off this fear and humiliation. Movies and videos portraying obscenity sell well. Even if a woman were hypothetically NOT coerced into it or into staying in the industry, would there be something "wrong" with it?

Women sometimes say "I really like this work. It's good money, I like sex, so there's nothing wrong with it" -- oh yes, there's something wrong with it. Women deserve more than that. Women deserve to know that their mind is gorgeous and worthy of respect, right along with their heart. Men also deserve more than that. They deserve the right to control their impulses, and they deserve the right to research an industry fully before they decide it's totally harmless.

I talk to guys who say "I have a problem with porn but I'm trying to control it." I can't help but wonder.... do these guys know what I know about the industry? Do they admit that abuse and violence occurs? Do they care, when they go to the video store or log onto the internet or grab a catalogue or walk into an 'adult entertainment movie house', that their actions are helping an industry like this thrive and prosper? Do they ever think "that's someone's granddaughter, neice, daughter, sister, mother, best friend"? Do they think that their own natural urges mean they HAVE to look at porn?

I wonder.

[Geoster]

There are very, very few social issues I'm so passionate about that I'd scream from the rooftops if I had to, regarding them. I don't even dislike or hate pornography. I loathe it. As a woman, as a human, as someone who firmly believes in each of us being worthwhile human beings, as someone who now believes that God created us to be His own through Christ, I'll say this: porn has NO place in society. If I could give all I had to ensure it was gone this very moment, I would if I could without hesitation. Not only does porn have no place in society, we need to actively oppose it and research it and speak for those who either cannot, will not, or are too afraid to speak for themselves.

Porn is wrong because it objectifies men and women equally. Yes, I said equally. It reduces them to objects who are seen as little more than slaves to their passions at best, and as pieces of meat at worst. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry, and when you look deeply at the whole industry, so much of it advocates violence, control, the threat of rape -- and the worst thing is that more often than not, women and men alike are portrayed in pornography as liking and wanting these things.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132367/ This documentary is called "Not A Love Story". It came out in 1981, and even though it's over 25 years old, it's no less real today. It describes the sort of pornography popular back then, and even now in some circles -- women tied up, or helpless, or unable to control the situation. The way it talks about how women are treated with violence in pornography is chilling. Really chilling. To see a woman this way is to see her as less than human. As something that can be used and abused, and then disposed of, abandoned and ignored. Is the threat of violence real? Yes.

Dr. Diana Russell has devoted her life to making the world a safer place for women. She's well known in many feminist circles, medical circles, and among those who speak out against violence. She says this on her site: http://www.dianarussell.com/pornasviolence.html -- take a look.

Catherine MacKinnon is a well-known outspoken feminist and activist. She's written widely on pornography (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon for more info about her) and what she says is precisely that the porn industry is degrading, demeaning, and a vehicle for violence against women.

Several documentaries, including 'Not a Love Story' in particular, talk about the lifestyle young women get themselves into. Many who are in the sex or porn industry were coerced into it at a young age, sometimes for drug money, or food money, or a place to stay. Woman after woman has spoke out, talking about how she felt degraded, disgusted, humiliated -- and completely, utterly trapped in an industry like that. What women have to do on set is often horrendous. Once you've had a job there, you don't find work elsewhere. You often owe your "managers" more money than your life's worth to them, and many women have stayed in the industry because it's all they know, and they fear what would happen should they leave. Producers make billions off this fear and humiliation. Movies and videos portraying obscenity sell well. Even if a woman were hypothetically NOT coerced into it or into staying in the industry, would there be something "wrong" with it?

Women sometimes say "I really like this work. It's good money, I like sex, so there's nothing wrong with it" -- oh yes, there's something wrong with it. Women deserve more than that. Women deserve to know that their mind is gorgeous and worthy of respect, right along with their heart. Men also deserve more than that. They deserve the right to control their impulses, and they deserve the right to research an industry fully before they decide it's totally harmless.

I talk to guys who say "I have a problem with porn but I'm trying to control it." I can't help but wonder.... do these guys know what I know about the industry? Do they admit that abuse and violence occurs? Do they care, when they go to the video store or log onto the internet or grab a catalogue or walk into an 'adult entertainment movie house', that their actions are helping an industry like this thrive and prosper? Do they ever think "that's someone's granddaughter, neice, daughter, sister, mother, best friend"? Do they think that their own natural urges mean they HAVE to look at porn?

I wonder.

There was a study done that showed a large % of Christian men have a problem with porn (this includes pastors). Being a Christian man and struggling with porn it is very hard. We don’t feel very worthy . Even going to church feels awkward at best. Drug abuse or even alcoholism is almost accepted and tolerated. Problems with porn are viewed at a much lower level. Did I think about the others involved? Yes. Di d I wonder if that was someone’s daughter? Yes. A person who is an alcoholic knows that drinking is bad. Same for a drug user. They have a chemical dependency on the stuff. I don’t know if there is or not a chemical dependency when it come to porn. I really don’t care. It is still not an excuse. Some men will argue that “this is the way I am wired”....men are visual. I used the same argument. Then in Phil 2:13 were are told to workout out salvation with fear and trembling. To me that means “being wired” is not excuse me from working it out. Porn is not just limited to “hardcore stuff”. Porn includes some TV shows, commercials, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, etc. Men are bombarded daily with the stuff. Working it out to me means to be accountable to my wife.; having the “bouncing eyes”, which means the eyes never stay longer than a second and never goes back for seconds; not watching certain TV shows; avoid certain commercials,;avoiding certain areas of a book store. I guess the bottom line is that this is an issue that affects everyone and everything. Porn is not new and may never go away (at least until Jesus comes back). As for me I recall James 1:2-5. The fact I have a struggle it tells me that I have God in me. If I did have God then I would not see anything wrong with porn, which is the worst place to be. There is a group www.xxxchurch.org who are working the is problem from within the pron industry ( I am surprised that my internet filter allows me to get to the site), by reaching out the actors/actresses. I have no worries, because God is at work.

[Thespia]

I would like to address the intimacy issues this can create for a current or future relationship.

We all have walls built up surrounding our hearts and bodies (some much more than others). Sexual attraction, I believe, is a wonderful way that God has given us to build trust and closeness between ourselves and our spouse. When we are attracted to someone and we cautiously let that person become closer to us emotionally and physically, it is a beautiful thing that can result in a sexual married relationship.

Porn destroys our natural course of intimacy. It creates a false safe haven for sexuality, where one is alone and being self stimulated. A person viewing porn need have no regard for another's feelings or needs...just their own selfish desires. Real lovemaking should be about the balance and sacrificial love for the desires of both people. Intimacy is something that needs to be built, cherished, and continually worked on. Intimacy goes further than sex. Sex is an outlet for intimacy, but it is not intimacy itself.

When porn comes into the picture, the person indulging skips all the "good parts" of sex...the intimacy. They rush past the way God designed sex to be, which is relational.. I'm not leaving out the pleasure aspect, because I do believe God designed sex to be extremely pleasurable for the couple. But the physical part goes WITH the emotional part. To experience less is to cheat ourselves of the goodness God designed in our sexuality: trust, teamwork, love, bonding, etc. God gave us sexuality as a precious gift that reveals the essence of His nature. Porn robs us of experiencing that gift.

Now for the practical part:
I know from experience that porn can really hurt a relationship. When intimacy is difficult for a man (or a woman...but I'm talking about my personal experience here), porn may seem like an easy option for sexual gratification. When it is painful to be emotionally close for any reason, porn absolutely makes it much harder to have real intimacy with another person. I am not talking about sex outside of marriage...but the building up of trust and intimacy in a dating relationship. If a person you are dating looks at porn but finds it hard to be intimate with you...those problems are not unrelated! I cannot imagine the pain a wife would experience when finding out her husband uses porn! I pray to God this never happens to me.

The bottom line:
God created us to be relational. God did not create sex as a means of selfishness! He created it to build intimacy between a husband and wife and create children. If we are not married, using porn sets us in practice of separating sex from intimacy with another person...which I believe is bad for current or future relationships. And if we are married and using porn...we are abusing both our sexuality and neglecting the person God has given us to love! Porn cheapens God's precious gifts to us and hurts us in the long run.

[spiritmech]

I guess I'll chime in here. I lost my marriage because of porn. I had no idea how destructive it was until it was too late. We had major problems besides this issue, but I believe now that if I hadn't been doing porn we could have worked through them.

I wasn't attentive.
I didn't listen.
I didn't try to communicate.
I agreed multiple times to stop and I didn't.

I was so fearful, resentful and regretful that all I knew how to do was medicate my pain with lust and porn. I had major demons and I tried to keep them at bay with porn, to no avail.

sm

[semmie]

Porn is wrong because it objectifies men and women equally. Yes, I said equally. It reduces them to objects who are seen as little more than slaves to their passions at best, and as pieces of meat at worst.
:yes: absolutely. thanks for saying this, storico.

I talk to guys who say "I have a problem with porn but I'm trying to control it." I can't help but wonder.... do these guys know what I know about the industry? Do they admit that abuse and violence occurs? Do they care, when they go to the video store or log onto the internet or grab a catalogue or walk into an 'adult entertainment movie house', that their actions are helping an industry like this thrive and prosper? Do they ever think "that's someone's granddaughter, neice, daughter, sister, mother, best friend"? Do they think that their own natural urges mean they HAVE to look at porn?
i seem to recall reading some very disturbing statistics on pornography just recently due to a conversation i had with a friend who is at present dealing with the results of pornography in her marriage. here are the things i found most devestating:


91% of men raised in Christian homes were exposed to pornography while growing up (compared to 98% of those not raised in a Christian home).
the average age of a child's first experience with pornography is between the ages of 9-11
1 in 3 visitors to an "adult" site are women
Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex, or affairs.


tell me that doesn't make you want to vomit.

the church (and society) has been treating this as a man's issue for far too long. pornography is the family's problem, and it affects us all--men and women, children and adults. and i'm with storico...there's simply no place for it.

those are the only pennies i've got.

[SinikalSaint]

Wow... it's nice to see some new responses here. Some very passionate ones from Semmie, Storico, Spiritmech, Thespia, and Geonoster... (Spiritmech, your personal testimony is appreciated; our prayers are certainly with you).

I'll say here that thus far, this has been a very interesting discussion. Although, there are some issues that still need to be addressed, I think:

Storico, your response was very passionate, visceral, and, in its own way, quite admirable. Before I say anything else, I'll let you know that I ultimately agree with you. I believe that pornography is inherently objectifying and exploitative of both men and women, and exploitative of its audience, as well. I don't believe that all women (or men) in pornography are necessarily coerced into it--I do believe some freely choose to participate in it and the lifestyle it entails (because they like the money, because they enjoy the sex, because they got screwed up in the head from being abused when they were little, or whatever variety and combination of reasons you wanna name), and probably sincerely enjoy it. They might even be, according their personal standards and feelings, "happy" with their lifestyle in the industry. However, that, to me, does not make it any less objectifying or exploitative. It only means they have willingly submitted to being objectified.

I believe the "use" of pornography constitutes an implicit approval and participation of said exploitation of persons, and I believe it is ultimately corrosive to the soul by way of its serving of lust (by lust, here, I mean inordinate, animalistic, and objectifying/exploitative desire, particularly sexual desire; like all the other Deadly Sins, it's very self-centered, and that's a big reason why it's a sin--just in case another slightly-sidetracked discussion on lust ensues) and its pandering to base, uncontrolled sexuality (sexuality which, in and of itself, is of course God-given). I don't think a lot of people know about what goes on in the industry, but at the same time I wouldn't at all be surprised if a lot of people, including those among its customers, actually did know. However, the medium naturally distances its audience from such things, just as mainstream films distance their audience from the nitty-gritty of the film industry, save for what they sell us through press junkets, promotional behind-the-scenes shows, entertainment news, and often, for sensation (I'm cynically convinced) tabloids. Porn, as said, is inherently exploitative--it exists to make the watcher see the persons onscreen (or in the photos) see and desire the people as there for his express pleasure. Sure, there's "storyline" porn, and tailored porn for all kinds of audiences, not just the rough stuff. There's porn tailored to women that, while still explicit and hardcore, are made to look and feel less exploitative and more sensual and erotic. It's still about money, sex, and catering to base desires (or baser versions of higher desires). Women, if they watch porn, might be more likely to consider the women as persons, so of course pockets of the industry and individual erotica auteurs have taken notice of this and tapped into it, making their porn look less sleazy, IMO sort of easing the women's sensibilities while appealing to their desires (which are, in ways surely, connected to those same conscientious sensibilities). By and large, this isn't as necessary to do in porn tailored almost exclusively to men, which is why porn for men seems rougher around the edges (to put it lightly). Both, however, are about moving past whatever considerations of personhood you have (whether its undermining them, soothing them, or just flat-out ignoring them) in order to cater to, whet, and exacerbate baser lustful desires. Porneia, or whoredom, is the word usually translated in the Bible as "fornication" or "sexual immorality," and "writings/art about harlotry" is generally meant to inflame the passions in a manner that is ultimately, spiritually fruitless, frustrating, and deadening. While I don't believe that porn will necessarily turn men into rapists, I do believe it can and does, in often slight and nuanced ways (that's why I'm not scouring for studies and statistics on all the negative effects of pornography on people; I'm all for scientific studies and all, but sometimes we just have to remember that our concerns are rooted in a deeper reality than what can always be observed by men) throw their desires off-kilter.


Morally and spiritually, I am as repulsed by pornography as Storico and most of our conservatince Christian posters, here, for these very reasons and probably others that I don't feel like trying to remember and articulate, right now. Viscerally and emotionally, however, I cannot say the same thing. I am not personally disgusted by porn in general (though certainly by certain types). I'm not automatically incensed by its existence or its presentation. I tend to have a (rather dark and twisted) sense of humor about it. I don't think it's should be illegal or anything--I know that's not our argument, here, but I was wondering if the thread was edging its way in that direction. Pornography, to me, is not unlike cigarettes. It's basically a habit that's bad for--quite bad for you, in fact, and ought to be discouraged, but because of its furtive nature, somehow tolerable.

Pardon the long-winded post, I just saw fit to 1) make another articulation of my own views, before I slip back into the role of devil's advocate, and 2) temper the discussion towards a more nuanced version of itself. I kept asking where the liberal Christians were so we could get a myriad of views, and arguments here.

If this post seemed a bit impertinent, do pardon. Continue, folks!

[spiritmech]

Thanks Sinikal.

I just want to be clear. For me, I can't do porn. I can't do lust. I just get in too deep. Maybe others can, and can manage well. But my life simply goes to poo if I indulge in that stuff.

I don't think it should be illegal, or anything like that.
sm

[Tlalynet]

Its a good try to stir up debate but it seems that overall everyone is single minded about this issue, as long as athists are blocked anyway, try recreating it somewhere where they arnt and you will probably get a lot more.
Im surprised it went as long as it did

[Ecualegacy]

When I see discussion like this I can't help but think of that Sunday School song, "Be careful little eyes what you see. Be careful little eyes what you see. For the Father up above is looking down in love. Oh be careful little eyes what you see.

Nothing good comes of porn. The rush you get from using is at the expense of someone else's soul as well as your own. It does not help your spousal relationship. It is addictive.

Being a believer in fences making the best neighbors, I immediately got a web filter for myself and left the password with my wife. Too bad Adam didn't put up some blinds around the tree of knowledge.

My prayers are with those who are struggling with this terrible sin.

[Nazaroo]

Once again I am disappointed because everybody is missing the mark.

While you are all hair-splitting, underage girls and boys are being prostituted against their will, or kept under control with drugs, and then either dumped on the street once they're too old (+!6) or murdered if they happen to know which creepy rich men have been abusing them.

99% of the multi-billion dollar Porn Industry is run by the Big White Mafia, and the majority of Porn ringleaders are Jews.

The Jews dominate the Porn industry, and even though they make millions exploiting North American teens and children, they don't even do it for the money.

The Jews who run the Porn industry openly admit they do it for ONE REASON:

They HATE CHRIST:

Click here to read what Jews say about themselves in a Jewish publication in a well researched article written by a Jew on the Jewish domination of the Porn Industry:

Why Jews Dominate the Porn Industry (http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38) <-- Click here.

Here's a quote from the article, from Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw,

‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’

Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic.

Well did Jesus say of these stiff-necked rebellious evil brood of vipers:

"You are of your father the Diabolos (Accuser):
and the desires of your father you will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth,
because there was no truth in him." (John 8:44)


The Jews dominate the Mafia, and the Jews supply the Hells Angels with drugs, and funnel the money out of the country into Israel.

I once met a man who gave me a valuable piece of wisdom that I have found applicable to hundreds of situations, reducing complicated moral issues to simple rule:

"Never give your money to the people who are trying to kill you."

It works for drugs, smoking, alcohol, and just about every other vice that criminal organizations including your government use to steal from you and kill you.

The same people selling you porn, are also enticing your daughters with drugs to make more porn to sell back to you, as they rape your wallet after raping your sister, daughter, son, cousin, niece, and wreck your lives.

Here is a simple analogy:

Suppose SMOKING was harmless. But still, the people selling it to you were criminals, murderers, robbers, swindlers and frauds (like they are now). It would be plainly immoral to be funding their criminal organization by giving them your hard earned cash, even though smoking itself was harmless.

You would be aiding and abetting murderers, making you guilty of murder.

But smoking isn't harmless, which makes it even worse. And neither is porn.

If smoking were harmless, I'd advise you to never ever pay for it, but instead, hijack a truck full of cigarettes, and give them away free. And continue engaging in a no-holds barred geurrilla war against organized crime, by hitting them over and over in the pocket-book.

If porn were harmless, I'd tell you to steal it from them, and put them in jail, or deport them, or execute them. Certainly you should never ever pay for it, even if it were medically beneficial, and harmless to society. Because criminal organizations are NOT harmless to society, even when they engage in legitimate business.

Now if all of this truth can't get you to stop buying porn, you will certainly go to the Lake of Fire along with the other murderers, liars, robbers, sodomites, and other unrepentant creeps.



Racist statements are not tolerated, especially when they are printed in big, blue letters. That just gives us the heebyjeebies. :pat:

[spiritmech]

:lolo:

[RumTumTugger]

:lolo:

Not only that but anti-semitic to boot. :brood:

[spiritmech]

Not only that but anti-semitic to boot. :brood:

:yes: Kooky on multiple levels.
sm

[slinky]

I'll bite.

I've been enjoying pornography for about three-fourths a decade. Hardcore pornography literally makes me sick. The stuff that blatantly focuses on close-ups of genitalia parts, I have no interest in...I always think, hmm, that's very (or not very) biologically interesting, but so what? And any kind of porn that makes the exploitation of a woman the subject of its “entertainment”, not only do I find non-entertaining, but utterly repulsive. However, softcore, erotica, nudity, women playing with themselves or playing with others, stripping, bathing, real women behaving normally—but naked, or just plain old Jane having fun with her man, this stuff I really enjoy. And I AM a Christian. Matter of fact, this sort of thing has actually been a great help to me and eliminated sin—particularly sexual sin--from my life. In fact, it has enabled me to be purer than almost anyone I know. Let me explain a bit...

When I “came of age”, hormones took over my every waking thought and moment of life. I used to have sexual fantasies and day dreams on the bus to school, on the bus home from school, in class, everywhere. I would think about girls I had seen or knew and in those thoughts I came up with long, elaborate sexual events involving me and the other. The kind of things I imagined are the things I won't look at in porn. This was WAY more than a daily occurrence. And the shame of it made me hide myself from girls because I knew that all I had to do was be introduced to them and the thoughts and the desires would well up inside and consume me. I didn't have to try to be this way, I just was. And the more I separated myself from girls from the fear of my impulses, the more I became desirous of actual female contact, which inflamed my lusts even more.

As I began to grow close to one or two females and date, the desires and impulses and fantasies would well up inside me and despite my best efforts, I could not stop from acting in some ways based on them. Fortunately, it was not long after actually becoming involved with women that I became a Christian and it was my desire to serve God and follow Jesus that kept me from actually going anywhere even near sex. But I was continually doing battle with my flesh, a battle I was losing over and over in all sorts of ways.

Despite warnings from other Christians, I decided to try porn as a way to satisfy my natural sexual inclinations in order to not fall into the sin that I had been entangled in for so long. And it worked amazingly! I stopped fantasizing or even wanting to fantasize about women I knew or met. I stopped being controlled by and being consumed by my impulses and desires. Despite the fact that all my other Christian friends were having premarital sex left and right, getting into all sorts of trouble and sin, I remained untouched by it. I no longer took advantage of women either in my mind or in my actions. I did not grow hungry for more or for bizarre or for outright despicable sexual situations—either in real life or in porn. I was satisfied. And remain so to this day. In fact, it is only because of that that not only have I retained my virginity and not defiled a single woman, but that I am able to continue to live the single life that I want to live—and be totally satisfied, without lust or longing or even loneliness, in my singleness.

I continue to value each and every woman I meet as a person. In fact, I fight even harder today for treating women with respect and dignity and honor than ever I did before. I continue to live morally righteous in my day to day life in interaction with other people. I have not become uninterested in other women, nor could lose satisfaction with a sexual partner some day since I know from the little experience I've thus had how much more satisfying real flesh is than simple images. When I have gotten together with women since, I have remained as pure as anyone could ever hope for in my interaction with that woman—something that almost no other man I've known has been able to say. Unlike before when I was consumed day in and day out with impulse and desire to do things and think things and want things that were either not good or not right, now not only is it as far from me as east is from the west, but I find that I only need enjoy myself once a week and every day between is fulfilled and wonderful and free.

So I have to ask where is the sin? Where is the wrong? What horrible things have I NOT DONE that did NOT have sinful and bad results that so many other men HAVE DONE and DID? Look at the fruit, the Apostle says. Look at me and see my fruit. I've had more than one Christian admit that my fruit is good. And I am not ashamed of what I do. I am vocal. I will let anyone know who wants to ask. I have no doubt that there is nothing in what I do that God will judge against me. I become aroused and I pleasure myself. There is nothing wrong in that and nothing wrong has come from it. I do not purchase porn--I refuse to enable any woman to be swept into the filth of the porn industry. Everything I could want is online, free. And my enjoyment does nothing to further their actions. Nor do I reduce a person to an object, I simply work with the natural chemical reactions inherant in myself in reaction to seeing a naked body. So again I ask, where is the sin?

[Nazaroo]

Not only that but anti-semitic to boot. :brood:

not only are you incorrect in your statement, since I am a Jew.

But my statements were not anti-Jewish.

They were documented facts, reported by fellow Jews in a major Jewish newspaper,
in an article written by a fellow Jew.

Here is the link again:
The Jewish Quarterly - Article on Porn Industry (http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38) <-- Click Here.
http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38


How is posting a good link to an excellently written article by a Jew on the very subject of this thread anti-semitic?
Naturally, when one discusses a controversial subject, you should document your claims of fact.
That is precisely what I did by posting the link to the excellent and sober article on this subject.



In fact, when I quoted Jesus, I was also quoting a fellow-Jew.

Let's have a look at the quotation again:

"You are of your father the Diabolos (Accuser);
and the desires of your father you will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning,
and did not abide in the truth,
because there was no truth in him." (John 8:44)

You say you are a Christian, which is why you are allowed to post here.

Are you denying the teaching of Jesus the Christ the Holy One, the Son of God?

Or do you have an alternate interpretation of this Holy Scripture?

If so, please, let us reason together says the Lord.

Be like the Bereans, searching the Scriptures to see if those things are so.




Please retract your prejudiced statement.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Nazaroo]

:yes: Kooky on multiple levels.
sm

Here's basically my argument:

Even if porn was not harmful as a product, it is harmful in its collateral damage to society.
How is that kooky?

Even if you want to use porn, I recommended not giving any of your money to pornographers.
How is that kooky?

I suggested engaging in warfare against criminal organizations rather than being complacent,
and allowing them to corrupt society, government and even Law enforcement.
How is that kooky?

I suggested stealing from crooks, rather than buying their products and making them rich. The government is doing this right now when they confiscate private property that they *suspect* has been acquired by crime, specifically drug dealing. Since Law Enforcement is doing this already, and you are apparently approving of this by not fighting it politically or protesting,
How is that kooky?

I am only suggesting that the campaign to confiscate drug proceeds and other proceeds of crime be extended to pornography.
How is that kooky?

And if so, why aren't you fighting against current Law Enforcement practices?

There are two reasonable and logical arguments for my position.

(1) If Drug dealers are being aggresively pursued using the new confiscation laws, and the result is already racist, since largely poorer and lower-level dealers are being targeted (= mainly blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic minorities), then why should Jews be excluded or protected from this same treatment? THAT is racism. Its not racism to have the same law enforcement procedure, and the same punishment for EVERYBODY, even Jews dealing porn.

(2) If pornography is harmful to society and Christian values, which it plainly is, why can't individual Christians boycott the porn industry, and stop the hemorraging of 'good money' (precious resources) and pouring it into criminals organizations? BOYCOTTING is one of the few powers and rights that all good Christians can exercise, without breaking any laws, and which can have a real, significant and dramatic impact on organize crime.

[James Peter]

Ahh, we have a live one again. This brings back the memories.

I'm pretty sure it was never established that pornography was actually a sin (if you apply certain limits on it) and slinky has provided a rather graphic example of the, umm, merits of pornography.

If we go back to a biblical culture - one where girls are married off around the age of 15 so that every man can have as much sex as he needs - then maybe this isn't going to be an issue. But all the time we continue to put off getting married (without our bodies also maturing later) the issue becomes worse and worse. A 19 year old man is 'supposed' to be having sex. In ancient hebrew and greek culture that would be the case and biologists today will wholeheartedly say that our body is set up for that situation. Men (and women too, but probably to a lesser degree) need some sort of sexual outlet. Repressed sexual desire can be very unhealthy and even dangerous. If people are to be encouraged to shun pre-marital sex then the most effective way to do that is to encourage masturbation as an alternative. Saying 'Oh, just pray, really, really hard' isn't going to work in the majority of cases.

I continue to maintain my position that in light of the cultural adjustments that we have made (which prevent the biblical 'response' to sexual desire) the only pragmatic solution is to encourage healthy masturbation and to remove the stigma attached in some places to it and its aids. Exploitation is wrong but pornography isn't necessarily exploitation - at least not any more than most other jobs.

[Tlalynet]

Slinky,
Thanks, All the agreement was getting a little boaring and this has opened up qutie a few new prespectives.
Nazroo,
I dont think spritimech saw your actual statements before he said that, I coulnt see them anyway and it does look bad with the big red bar across it. Still, you must be pretty steemed about the whole deal, I was surprised when I saw a ban on your post due to racism, It didnt seem to fit the way of thinking youve shown in your posts.

James Peter,
I belive too that pushing marridge further and further to old age is idiotic, It is being pushed to a nessesity both legaly and cultually. Personally I said pooh to culture and said my vows to my wife with witness of our freinds at 15, We had a cerimony at 18 with all the paperwork. It works well for me. I think realistically someone could hold off to 16 to 20 depending on their fortitude but after that its a very tough request. Some are given the ability not to be bothered by it at all, The writings of St.Paul seemed to indicted that he himself had no overwhelming temptation in tis matter. For the normal person it seems that society is actually trying to promote more open sex wih more people (anyone realy disagree?) Your soulution is intreresting.

Content wise I dont really have anything to add, I dont have very strong views on this issue only becuase I know I dont know enough about it (Theologically, not for absence of personal experiance with the content). Anyone have views on storys that have sexual content but are not explisitly for it. I got the RPG Brave Soul (Very good battle system, SNES style but a little smoother, intresting plot even) in which you can build relationships with one of the female characters and end up marrying them when the game is over, It includes full hentai scenes with that one girl as part of their plot branch.

[Chaotic Void]

*Note that this is from a Canadian Standpoint. Laws might be different in other places.

I find that its Rather STUPID that I can legally have sex [with no legal issues] at 16ish, yet I cannot legally get married at the same age without parental consent or reasonable grounds [ie pregnancy].

[Chaotic Void]

I'll bite.

I've been enjoying pornography for about three-fourths a decade. Hardcore pornography literally makes me sick. The stuff that blatantly focuses on close-ups of genitalia parts, I have no interest in...I always think, hmm, that's very (or not very) biologically interesting, but so what? And any kind of porn that makes the exploitation of a woman the subject of its “entertainment”, not only do I find non-entertaining, but utterly repulsive. However, softcore, erotica, nudity, women playing with themselves or playing with others, stripping, bathing, real women behaving normally—but naked, or just plain old Jane having fun with her man, this stuff I really enjoy. And I AM a Christian. Matter of fact, this sort of thing has actually been a great help to me and eliminated sin—particularly sexual sin--from my life. In fact, it has enabled me to be purer than almost anyone I know. Let me explain a bit...

When I “came of age”, hormones took over my every waking thought and moment of life. I used to have sexual fantasies and day dreams on the bus to school, on the bus home from school, in class, everywhere. I would think about girls I had seen or knew and in those thoughts I came up with long, elaborate sexual events involving me and the other. The kind of things I imagined are the things I won't look at in porn. This was WAY more than a daily occurrence. And the shame of it made me hide myself from girls because I knew that all I had to do was be introduced to them and the thoughts and the desires would well up inside and consume me. I didn't have to try to be this way, I just was. And the more I separated myself from girls from the fear of my impulses, the more I became desirous of actual female contact, which inflamed my lusts even more.

As I began to grow close to one or two females and date, the desires and impulses and fantasies would well up inside me and despite my best efforts, I could not stop from acting in some ways based on them. Fortunately, it was not long after actually becoming involved with women that I became a Christian and it was my desire to serve God and follow Jesus that kept me from actually going anywhere even near sex. But I was continually doing battle with my flesh, a battle I was losing over and over in all sorts of ways.

Despite warnings from other Christians, I decided to try porn as a way to satisfy my natural sexual inclinations in order to not fall into the sin that I had been entangled in for so long. And it worked amazingly! I stopped fantasizing or even wanting to fantasize about women I knew or met. I stopped being controlled by and being consumed by my impulses and desires. Despite the fact that all my other Christian friends were having premarital sex left and right, getting into all sorts of trouble and sin, I remained untouched by it. I no longer took advantage of women either in my mind or in my actions. I did not grow hungry for more or for bizarre or for outright despicable sexual situations—either in real life or in porn. I was satisfied. And remain so to this day. In fact, it is only because of that that not only have I retained my virginity and not defiled a single woman, but that I am able to continue to live the single life that I want to live—and be totally satisfied, without lust or longing or even loneliness, in my singleness.

I continue to value each and every woman I meet as a person. In fact, I fight even harder today for treating women with respect and dignity and honor than ever I did before. I continue to live morally righteous in my day to day life in interaction with other people. I have not become uninterested in other women, nor could lose satisfaction with a sexual partner some day since I know from the little experience I've thus had how much more satisfying real flesh is than simple images. When I have gotten together with women since, I have remained as pure as anyone could ever hope for in my interaction with that woman—something that almost no other man I've known has been able to say. Unlike before when I was consumed day in and day out with impulse and desire to do things and think things and want things that were either not good or not right, now not only is it as far from me as east is from the west, but I find that I only need enjoy myself once a week and every day between is fulfilled and wonderful and free.

So I have to ask where is the sin? Where is the wrong? What horrible things have I NOT DONE that did NOT have sinful and bad results that so many other men HAVE DONE and DID? Look at the fruit, the Apostle says. Look at me and see my fruit. I've had more than one Christian admit that my fruit is good. And I am not ashamed of what I do. I am vocal. I will let anyone know who wants to ask. I have no doubt that there is nothing in what I do that God will judge against me. I become aroused and I pleasure myself. There is nothing wrong in that and nothing wrong has come from it. I do not purchase porn--I refuse to enable any woman to be swept into the filth of the porn industry. Everything I could want is online, free. And my enjoyment does nothing to further their actions. Nor do I reduce a person to an object, I simply work with the natural chemical reactions inherant in myself in reaction to seeing a naked body. So again I ask, where is the sin?

Basically, its like a Drug addicted person taking small doses of his addiction to remain sane?

[Nazaroo]

*Note that this is from a Canadian Standpoint. Laws might be different in other places.

I find that its Rather STUPID that I can legally have sex [with no legal issues] at 16ish, yet I cannot legally get married at the same age without parental consent or reasonable grounds [ie pregnancy].

That does seem stupid, and suggests that while tipping the hat to traditional values, it almost seems to encourage the loss of virginity before marriage and independant of it.

Another secular-humanist plank toward the erosion of Christian culture and values.

[Chaotic Void]

That does seem stupid, and suggests that while tipping the hat to traditional values, it almost seems to encourage the loss of virginity before marriage and independant of it.

Another secular-humanist plank toward the erosion of Christian culture and values.

If I get a girl pregnant and they won't let us 'legally marry' [even if criteria is met], I can point out that its an infringement of rights [specifically, the right to practice Religion]. however, it says right in the Charter that the rights ain't absolute. Fundamental Freedoms are Absolute, however....

[Nazaroo]

The Canadian constitution is carefully designed to sound politically correct, but maintain the government's right to rule the masses.

[Chaotic Void]

The Canadian constitution is carefully designed to sound politically correct, but maintain the government's right to rule the masses.

Still, they have to maintain the letter AND spirit of the law, otherwise they risk getting canned.

ie, if a guy is speeding to get his wife to the hospital cuz shes in labor and gets pulled over, the cops probably arent going to give him a ticket. [If so, they have a chance to appeal. And the last thing a cop needs is to get his butt burned from someone appealing his mistake.]

[Nazaroo]

Still, they have to maintain the letter AND spirit of the law, otherwise they risk getting canned.

ie, if a guy is speeding to get his wife to the hospital cuz shes in labor and gets pulled over, the cops probably arent going to give him a ticket. [If so, they have a chance to appeal. And the last thing a cop needs is to get his butt burned from someone appealing his mistake.]

Wow. I don't know what its like in Edmonton, but in Ontario cops rule with an iron fist. They are the biggest bike gang in the province, having the power to beat the crap out of anyone, steal their stuff, and put them in jail with little hope of a fair trial.

The Canadian 'justice' system as interpreted in Ontario is "guilty unless you can pay a lawyer a lot of money and you are a WASP."

But hey, maybe because I am not priviledged, I don't know what you're talking about.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Chaotic Void]

Wow. I don't know what its like in Edmonton, but in Ontario cops rule with an iron fist. They are the biggest bike gang in the province, having the power to beat the crap out of anyone, steal their stuff, and put them in jail with little hope of a fair trial.

The Canadian 'justice' system as interpreted in Ontario is "guilty unless you can pay a lawyer a lot of money and you are a WASP."

But hey, maybe because I am not priviledged, I don't know what you're talking about.

Peace,
Nazaroo

I have no clue what its like in Edmonton either. I live in Saskatchewan.

they can do that out there? The biggest jerks out here are the Social workers..... ugh.

the pay a Lawyer thing applies everywhere.

WASP? never heard of that.

I ain't priviliged either. You think I'm just some dumb rich kid with a fancy car Mommy & Daddy bought for me?
If so, I got news for you: I ain't.

[Chaotic Void]

anyhoo.... maybe we should get back to the matter at hand?

[Nazaroo]

Oh yeah, right: Is Porn Wrong?

My position is that buying it, investing in it, handing over money to this industry is wrong, even if you attempt to justify the product itself (tapes, videos, photos, magazines) as essentially harmless once manufactured and packaged and presented to the public.

One person here has justified porn as meeting some kind of psychological or biological 'need' (e.g. a safety valve for biological release of endorphins or whatever).

Another has excused porn on the basis that no harm is shown to be done by its use and also the accompanying activities (e.g. masturbation etc.).

My argument of denying support for organized crime and criminals seems to remain intact, regardless of the objections so far raised in terms of the potential 'harm' of the finished marketed product.

Lets put it another way. Suppose Lampshades were demonstrably a positive and even necessary product. A useful tool, helping to regulate light from lamps, etc.

But suppose lampshades were manufactured by deceiving and exploiting a segment of the human population, conning them into allowing themselves to be decoratively tatooed so that their skin could be harvested to make 'designer' lampshades.

I think many people would still object to the practice, or at least the particular solution adopted by the manufacturers. Even if some lampshades were not made from human skin harvested from dumb or impoverished and desperate people, the general practice and popularity of human-tattoo lampshades would be protested.

Protestors would recommend alternate sources for lampshade material, even if the continued need for lampshades was scientifically defensible. In any case, corrupt and shadey companies that violated human rights to make their products would be prosecuted, banned, shut down, and the industry would be regulated by government.

This might not be an ideal moral or ethical or total solution to the problem of human lampshades, but it would be progress in the direction of protecting the vulnerable and those being exploited by criminal organizations.

Obviously boycotting human lampshades would be a reasonable piece of any strategy for eliminating or controlling the black market. The public would have the power and right to exercise its purchasing power to help end the injustice and exploitation of part of its own population.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[James Peter]

Newsflash: Not all porn is made by criminals tricking people.

Plenty of people choose to use their bodies in this way to make money. They know exactly what they are doing and what they will get paid for it. It is no more exploitative than forcing somebody to work a 50 hour week for a low wage. Somebody should have the right to choose to do 5 hours work a week instead.

The creation of pornography is a legal and legitimate industry. Does some crime circles have links to it? Sure, but the same is true of many other industries.

If you make porn illegal then yes, it will feed criminals (just like underground copies of DVDs do) but the problem there isn't with porn itself but with the way society has handled it. Make drugs, pornography and prostitution legal and taxed and you deny criminals income. The solution is legalisation, not prohibition.

[Cynic Sage]

:popcorn:

[Nazaroo]

Newsflash: Not all porn is made by criminals tricking people.


CounterFlash: That doesn't address the huge amount of real crime hiding in this industry, like kidnapping, rape, and child exploitation.


Plenty of people choose to use their bodies in this way to make money. They know exactly what they are doing and what they will get paid for it.


The fact that some people in this industry are not exploited, but arguably belong to the "exploiters" category is hardly an argument in favour of porn either.

The fact they know what they are doing and why, doesn't automatically make it an ethical or moral activity that should be legalized or legitimized. You could say the same thing about the drug manufacturing industry. The chemists who work for biker-gangs grinding out 'meth' also 'choose to use their talents this way to make money. They know exactly what they are doing and what they will get paid for it."

Its a non-argument for legitimizing porn.




It is no more exploitative than forcing somebody to work a 50 hour week for a low wage. Somebody should have the right to choose to do 5 hours work a week instead.


Here again the logic is fallacious. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because there are serial killers out there doesn't mean that rape or robbery is a-okay.

Somebody should have the right to choose to do 5 hrs/wk instead, PROVIDED everyone gets the same economic opportunity. Otherwise this is an argument for IMMORALITY not an ethically convincing argument for porn.

And if one person has an opportunity to make 40 times as much money, without due exchange of fair labour as the rest of the community is obligated to do, then this is an obvious inequality however it is generated.

If one person were to have this advantage, and DIDN'T take that opportunity to redress the injustice itself, by restoring the resources to the community from whence it came, they would be committing a SECOND act of immorality, that of stealing, hoarding, and inspired by the root of all economic evil, greed. Is that your best argument for porn?

I'd rather have Robin Hood in charge of that loose change than Bill Gates.


The creation of pornography is a legal and legitimate industry. Does some crime circles have links to it? Sure, but the same is true of many other industries.

If you are making the argument that porn is 'no worse than' the military/industrial complex, or that porn is no worse than pharmaceutical companies or car-makers, you may have a prima face case: Who can measure the amount of evil caused by the dumping of millions of tons of toxic materials into the ocean, which is now killing it?

http://deepseanews.blogspot.com/2005/11/massive-ocean-dumping-program-finally.html


If you make porn illegal then yes, it will feed criminals (just like underground copies of DVDs do) but the problem there isn't with porn itself but with the way society has handled it. Make drugs, pornography and prostitution legal and taxed and you deny criminals income. The solution is legalisation, not prohibition.

I hope you realise your statement here is not an argument in favour of 'legalization' of porn, but an argument in favour of CLOSE REGULATION of the porn industry.

The same mistaken argument is used about drugs. But the argument itself supports government regulation of narcotics, not free legalisation of narcotics.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Tlalynet]

So, are we leaving the statment that Porn is inheirently wrong as beaten? Just curious. Personally my wife and I use Hentai, no exploited women. I generally think of it as a flimsy rationalization though. We probably shouldnt, we use it because it is our weakness.
Anyone going to use the nature of the word Porneos as a reason that it is in itself wrong? I'm sure it can be done but I don't have the motive to do it myself. I probably should though, its not good to just assume there is no strong case in it.
You got anything Chatoic?

[Chaotic Void]

Personally, I try to stay away from the stuff. Mind you, its a real pain to abstain.

[Nazaroo]

Personally, I try to stay away from the stuff. Mind you, its a real pain to abstain.

Your experience is certainly understandable. I don't want you to feel condemned for being attracted to porn. I would be happy personally if you merely agreed not to give them your hard earned cash.

A man once told me very profound proverb which has been useful to me repeatedly over many years:

"Don't give your money to the people who are trying to kill you."

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Ryokan]

Newsflash: Not all porn is made by criminals tricking people.

Plenty of people choose to use their bodies in this way to make money. They know exactly what they are doing and what they will get paid for it. It is no more exploitative than forcing somebody to work a 50 hour week for a low wage. Somebody should have the right to choose to do 5 hours work a week instead.

The creation of pornography is a legal and legitimate industry. Does some crime circles have links to it? Sure, but the same is true of many other industries.

If you make porn illegal then yes, it will feed criminals (just like underground copies of DVDs do) but the problem there isn't with porn itself but with the way society has handled it. Make drugs, pornography and prostitution legal and taxed and you deny criminals income. The solution is legalisation, not prohibition.

The question, really, is do you think extra-marital sex is wrong. If yes, then you are at the least paying people to have sex with each other who are not married to do it on camera. Which to me seems wrong. i don't think porn causes all these other whacked out problems, or that it amounts top rape, or that it shouldn't be legal. But I as a Christian don't see watching it in good conscience.

[Cynic Sage]

Here's basically my argument:

Even if porn was not harmful as a product, it is harmful in its collateral damage to society.
How is that kooky?

Even if you want to use porn, I recommended not giving any of your money to pornographers.
How is that kooky?

I suggested engaging in warfare against criminal organizations rather than being complacent,
and allowing them to corrupt society, government and even Law enforcement.
How is that kooky?

I suggested stealing from crooks, rather than buying their products and making them rich. The government is doing this right now when they confiscate private property that they *suspect* has been acquired by crime, specifically drug dealing. Since Law Enforcement is doing this already, and you are apparently approving of this by not fighting it politically or protesting,
How is that kooky?

I am only suggesting that the campaign to confiscate drug proceeds and other proceeds of crime be extended to pornography.
How is that kooky?

And if so, why aren't you fighting against current Law Enforcement practices?

There are two reasonable and logical arguments for my position.

(1) If Drug dealers are being aggresively pursued using the new confiscation laws, and the result is already racist, since largely poorer and lower-level dealers are being targeted (= mainly blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic minorities), then why should Jews be excluded or protected from this same treatment? THAT is racism. Its not racism to have the same law enforcement procedure, and the same punishment for EVERYBODY, even Jews dealing porn.

(2) If pornography is harmful to society and Christian values, which it plainly is, why can't individual Christians boycott the porn industry, and stop the hemorraging of 'good money' (precious resources) and pouring it into criminals organizations? BOYCOTTING is one of the few powers and rights that all good Christians can exercise, without breaking any laws, and which can have a real, significant and dramatic impact on organize crime.

Are you suggesting we steal porn? :huh:

[Cynic Sage]

BTW: Has anyone here read Countryman's Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (http://www.amazon.com/Dirt-Greed-Sex-Testament-Implications/dp/0800624769/ref=sr_1_3/104-8468967-7708730?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182024503&sr=1-3) ?

[Nazaroo]

Are you suggesting we steal porn? :huh:


The first thing I am suggesting is a strategy that deals practically and realistically with crime.

The second thing I suggest is consistency, not hypocrisy.

The third thing I suggest is that if you follow a claim to its logical conclusion, you still can't support pornography as a 'legal' unregulated product, because of the way it is manufactured.

The fourth thing I suggest is that if you don't like the proposal of breaking down the porn industry by aggressive police methods, then you should for consistency protest their use in combatting other types of crime.

I think that covers most of it.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Ryokan]

The third thing I suggest is that if you follow a claim to its logical conclusion, you still can't support pornography as a 'legal' unregulated product, because of the way it is manufactured.

Huh?

[slinky]

So, are we leaving the statment that Porn is inheirently wrong as beaten? Just curious. Personally my wife and I use Hentai, no exploited women. I generally think of it as a flimsy rationalization though. We probably shouldnt, we use it because it is our weakness.
Anyone going to use the nature of the word Porneos as a reason that it is in itself wrong? I'm sure it can be done but I don't have the motive to do it myself. I probably should though, its not good to just assume there is no strong case in it.
You got anything Chatoic?

I've seen a little on-line. It does absolutely nothing for me... In fact, I kinda wonder how anyone could be turned on by a cartoon...

Let me also say...my last girlfriend complimented me. She had at first freaked out and almost broke up when she learned that I had reguarly looked at the stuff. But later on, she told me that she couldn't believe how much self-control I had and how firm my resolutions and actions were and that she really respected me for it. Irony is, had I not made use of porn, she would never have said that.

[Progeny]

If you make porn illegal then yes, it will feed criminals (just like underground copies of DVDs do) but the problem there isn't with porn itself but with the way society has handled it. Make drugs, pornography and prostitution legal and taxed and you deny criminals income. The solution is legalisation, not prohibition.

I agree with you in that it should remain legal (while being meticulously regulated): simply because cracking down on it is so unrealistically impossible. The sheer number of people who utilize it, firstly. Secondly, because it proliferates over the Internet, it is extremely difficult to fully regulate. Thirdly, outlawing it would spawn a massive underground, to indeed rival the Prohibition of alcohol. We have to keep it under control any way we can, and criminilization is not the way to do that.

This doesn't mean that I support its use. I consider it wrong, immoral, degrading, and an insult to people everywhere, and I hate to see money go into the pockets of soulless smut-peddlers. BUT: It is your choice, as the viewer, who ultimately decides whether or not you will use pornography. If you want to get your hands it, you will, and the "legality" of it will only be a minor setback for those who are truly addicted or committed to obtaining it.

I hold much the same stance on drugs and prostitution, as at least this way, it can be regulated and kept in check by the government, who can at the same time make a profit that can be put toward health care, or what have you, rather than expensive police stings and fruitless wars on drugs.

So my stance is: legal, but regulated. I agree with Nazaroo that lack of regulation is ludicrous, but at the same time, I think that outlawing it would be equally ludicrous.

[Nazaroo]

So my stance is: legal, but regulated. I agree with Nazaroo that lack of regulation is ludicrous, but at the same time, I think that outlawing it would be equally ludicrous.

Thanks! The only qualifier on this is that I think some things in the porn industry really are crimes and require outlawing, like kidnapping, exploitation of children, enslavement by drugs, and murder.

So, yes no regulation at all is ludicrous.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[SlapShot]

outlawing, like kidnapping, exploitation of children, enslavement by drugs, and murder.
Those things are "regulated". They're called CRIMES! And they're not part of the adult entertainment industry.

[Chaotic Void]

I agree with you in that it should remain legal (while being meticulously regulated): simply because cracking down on it is so unrealistically impossible. The sheer number of people who utilize it, firstly. Secondly, because it proliferates over the Internet, it is extremely difficult to fully regulate. Thirdly, outlawing it would spawn a massive underground, to indeed rival the Prohibition of alcohol. We have to keep it under control any way we can, and criminilization is not the way to do that.

This doesn't mean that I support its use. I consider it wrong, immoral, degrading, and an insult to people everywhere, and I hate to see money go into the pockets of soulless smut-peddlers. BUT: It is your choice, as the viewer, who ultimately decides whether or not you will use pornography. If you want to get your hands it, you will, and the "legality" of it will only be a minor setback for those who are truly addicted or committed to obtaining it.

I hold much the same stance on drugs and prostitution, as at least this way, it can be regulated and kept in check by the government, who can at the same time make a profit that can be put toward health care, or what have you, rather than expensive police stings and fruitless wars on drugs.

So my stance is: legal, but regulated. I agree with Nazaroo that lack of regulation is ludicrous, but at the same time, I think that outlawing it would be equally ludicrous.

Prostitution was actually a key part of the US economy when people first came in. Men gave their money to the prostitutes, the prostitutes spent their money on necessities and ultimately gave it back to the men, who once again spent it on prostitutes.

[Nazaroo]

Prostitution was actually a key part of the US economy when people first came in. Men gave their money to the prostitutes, the prostitutes spent their money on necessities and ultimately gave it back to the men, who once again spent it on prostitutes.

Doesn't this simple picture neatly sidestep the issue of bankers hijacking the economy and control of goverment, and the question of the moral crime of usury?

Right now, the USA, although mandated by its Constitution to print and control its own money, has handed that power over to a hidden and unaccountable privately owned non-govenmental institution, the "Federal Reserve", which is not a part of the US Govt. or accountable to the voting public.

Peace
Nazaroo

[Cynic Sage]

Prostitution was actually a key part of the US economy when people first came in. Men gave their money to the prostitutes, the prostitutes spent their money on necessities and ultimately gave it back to the men, who once again spent it on prostitutes.

Interesting.

[Chaotic Void]

Interesting.

Isn't it? I saw a Documentary on the History Channel [?] about it. Rather odd up how Prostitutes and Brothels get bashed a lot, but without 'em, the States Economy might be different now.

[James Peter]

The question, really, is do you think extra-marital sex is wrong. If yes, then you are at the least paying people to have sex with each other who are not married to do it on camera. Which to me seems wrong. i don't think porn causes all these other whacked out problems, or that it amounts top rape, or that it shouldn't be legal. But I as a Christian don't see watching it in good conscience.

Thats only an argument against specific forms of pornography. I'm not arguing that everything is ok, simly that porn isn't all inherently wrong. What about the example of a husband and wife who are having sex for the cameras? Or a girl merely doing a striptease and masturbating? Neither of those forms of pornograhy consist of fornication.

And I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should watch it either. If you can't do so in good conscience then don't do so at all. Like eating meat sacrificed to idols. If you think doing so is an affront to God then obviously don't do so.

[James Peter]

I hope you realise your statement here is not an argument in favour of 'legalization' of porn, but an argument in favour of CLOSE REGULATION of the porn industry.

The same mistaken argument is used about drugs. But the argument itself supports government regulation of narcotics, not free legalisation of narcotics.


Legalisation and regulation aren't mutually exclusive. In fact legalising something normally imlies that it is to be regulated. Alcohol is legal but its also quite heavily regulated. In order to regulate something you actually need it to first be legal. If it is simply illegal then you will merely create an underground market which is entirely beyond regulation. So by all means regulate the industry, but don't think that making it illegal will get rid of the social ills of the situation.

Oh and remember that there is a huge difference between 'is it morally wrong in a christian worldview' and 'is it absolutely morally wrong' and 'should it be illegal'.

[SinikalSaint]

You know, I'm wondering if, by and large, we all aren't judging this the wrong way. There's a very technical, rule-based frame of thinking that seems to underpinning all these arguments, here--hence all the appeals to whether its married or unmarried persons having sex on camera, or individual women stripteasing or masturbating or what have you.

Perhaps we ought to be thinking from a bit more of a big picture view. From what I understand, no ethical system, no code of morals, is perfect--even if one for the follow to a T, for example, the Ten Commandmants or the whole Mosaic Law, this wouldn't necessarily entail that one is being moral or has a righteous soul (hence, pretty much, the whole earthly ministry of Jesus and His rivalry with the Pharisees; as well as St. Paul's emphasis on salvation by faith rather than by works of the Law). Moral rules, including (in fact, I would say especially) the commandments of Scripture, are meant to be guidelines toward an even higher truth, a highest plane of righteousness, that would embody God's eternal shalom and be the only Law of His Kingdom, written in the hearts of men.

I'm reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Ethics, and one of its main points is that, for the Christian, all man-made systems of ethics are to be supplanted by Jesus Christ. I know "What Would Jesus Do" is a rather tired and trite cliche, by now, but it's at the very least a good place to start when considering one's moral decisions in relation to God.

We can debate all day and all night long, till we're both blue in the face, until the Resurrection, on whether and why pornography and its use are "technically" morally wrong or sinful. Perhaps we should try to argue how pornography (and this goes for anything, not just pornography) does or does not contribute to, or reflect, the Kingdom of God. In what way would it, or would it not, reflect the Spirit of Christ? Does it seem like something God would want to exist? Why or why not?

[RainPete]

Personally, I don't see how porn contributes to Kingdom and the transformation of society. In fact, it seems to have a more negative effect.

In other words, we are called to be people of LOVE. Is Porn beneficial to building faith or changing a heart to love unconditionally?

I don't see one way in which it does that.

You might say that entertainment doesn't do these things either. Well... that's just bad entertainment. There's some good entertainment that does. If tomorrow Jesus came back, I don't see him establishing a porn industry in the New Jerusalem. But I CAN see him, perhaps, establishing a music venue or the like... maybe even a bar. But not a strip club, certainly.

If we're supposed to be working towards having the Kingdom here, porn is a waste of time.

Everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial, and we should not become slaves to anything. That's what scripture says. So, porn is permissable but not beneficial, and seems to have the record of making slaves out of people... so that they waste their lives on something useless... perhaps destroy marriages, or their view of the naked body etc. etc.

[docjam]

Or a girl merely doing a striptease and masturbating? Neither of those forms of pornograhy consist of fornication.

so you don't think that masturbating is wrong, or am I misreading this?

[Nazaroo]

Yes, he seems to be limiting "porn" to exclude acts that he thinks are acceptable in principle.

We see this with the other poster too, when they argue that only certain types of activity in the porn industry are "illegal", or "criminal" or morally wrong from the NT viewpoint. For instance, where filming of married couples having intercourse is apparently being given the green light.

My problem with these kinds of arguments is that the main porn industry is NOT about someone "innocently" masturbating, or the filming of "married" couples engaging in heterosexual (biblically normal) relations.

The majority of porn involves extramarital, fornication and adultery, inappropriately under-age sex, sex and sexual lifestyles which promote a Hedonistic (selfish) ethos, and non-procreative forms of sexual practice that is both degrading to the self and others, perverse and unnatural practices, and of course dangerous and harmful practices that involve injury, disease, the prevention of fertility (sometimes permanent), medical malpractice, and a long list of criminal activities.

Add to this the fact that the porn industry is driven by greed, organized crime, and motivations such as an open hatred of Christian moral and ethical standards, and you have incredibly strong reasons for abstaining from encouraging, or at least contributing financially to the porn industry.

If you could selectively target where your money investment goes, as for instance you can when donating to charities that are organized along such lines, that would be one thing. But the secretive nature of the business and financial side of the porn industry prevents you from effectively using your power of investment to control where your money is diverted.

Just because you "only buy safe porn" or only buy "masturbation" videos, this cannot in any way credibly show that you are controlling where your dollar is going. The fact is, the same porn-store that sells you the "nude bathing beauty" video is also selling the "beastiality" videos, and the same companies and organized crime companies are taking and keeping and reinvesting the money.

Also, what is not sufficiently appreciated, is the nature of the slippery slope of how beginning with one form of pornography, one can be led into other more serious and dangerous, more immoral attractions. These things are after all packaged and promoted, and designed to encourage the user's participation and experimentation in MORE activities.

The situation is just like the drug situation. You begin with 'approved' and legal recreational drug use, like alcohol and tobacco. From there it is easy to argue and participate in smoking marijuana. Its only a little more serious to smoke hashish and then experiment with a variety of prescribed drugs, which are after all "approved" by their regulated legality anyway.

People reason, that if doctors prescribe drugs to people, why not take them? Why should I need a prescription? Next one finds thrill seeking and hedonism is itself an aim, a goal, a "reasonable" direction for your lifestyle. After all, your friends at work and school are drinking socially and more, and doing drugs recreationally.

It is the same thing in the porn industry and in sexual relations in the West. People begin by experimenting. Things happen, and they seem to be 'harmless', or a least not "serious" sins. Next more risky behaviour is engaged in, because of impatience or selfishness or "lonelyness" or a need to "fit in" or "be cool" or have fun like "other people do".

Its a long downhill slide, and without some counter-force, some reason to fight the current, resist the direction of the flow, there is no likelihood that a person is going to "remain high on the hill". The natural action is to walk downhill with the rest of the crowd. One may travel down the hill slowly or fast, with or without serious setbacks, but eventually you are going to end up at the bottom, regardless of what you tell yourself or promise others.

Unless there is a stronger force keeping a person's behaviour in check, they will take the easy route, and go down the hill. There is no "dabbling" in porn, anymore than there is "dabbling" in drugs, in the long run, without overpowering constraints.

The only constraints upon behaviour which work are those imposed by economic status, law, or the power of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Archangel]

Hi. My name is Archangel and I am a Christian. I cuss appropriately, watch R movies, unselfishly offer sexual pleasure to my fiance' and accept what she offers in that area of her own free will, I listen to a wide range of music that some might disagree with, I have no problem with drinking in moderation, I try to be unselfish and loving toward my God and fellow humans. But i am also weak and do some sinning as well. Many of you will probably ask, "how can he do that stuff and still call himself a Christian?" Sorry to make you guys look bad, but im sure glad Christ doesnt look at me that way.

I will link this to pornography in a sec...but just roll with my banter for a while. Im sure that many a pastor is teaching the evils of cussing, sex before marriage, and alcohol. These seem to be the three deadly sins now days. Of course there are others, but i mostly hear about those. I think that to say cussing is always sinful, sex before marriage is always sinful and that sex in marriage is always ok, is a pretty black and white way of thinking. Christ didn't come down here and start making a list of all the things we could and could not do. In fact, I think that the old Law was such a list and he freed us from its bonds.

Christ gave a much simpler message which one can apply to any situation to figure out its moral compliance rather than listing all the situations that were bad or good. Love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as your self. Sure there are some specific sins listed in the new testament, but i cant think of any that dont fall under disobeying that commandment anyway so i think we can just stick with that. Basically its a choice. Am I choosing myself over someone else when I make a decision? Or am I putting them before me? Or is it non applicable? I should make a WWJD braclet that actually reads AIBS "Am I Being Selfish?"

I would love to talk about cussing but its hard to do without using the words. Im just going to use generic symbols to make up imaginary cusswords like they do in the comics.

I can make all kinds of sounds with my mouth, not all of which have meaning. They only become words when I give them that meaning. It is common in our English language to even have multiple meanings for the same sound. This is especially true of our cuss words. Let me use an example. If i stub my toe on a rock and yell "OUCH!" the sound coming out of my mouth has an acceptable meaning to most Christians. However, if I stub my toe and say "$#!!&" many would say i have just sinned. In both instances, the sounds have the exact same meaning, but one man is condemned for conveying that meaning and one isn't. Here is an example of this concept really backfiring. I can hurt someone in one of two ways. I can call them, legitimately meaning it, stupid or I can say "@&$$$%%# you" legitimately meaning it. I think that we would both agree that neither would be good. But is it the sounds that we are making which are bad, or is it the meaning behind them? Who is worse? The man who stubs his toe and says "@###$#" or the man who calls someone else stupid and means it? Some people can even use cuss words as filler space in between words. They arn't really hurting anyone by doing this, after all those sounds in that context have very little meaning. However, these people who make those meaningless sounds more frequently are less easily accepted by christians than the guy who just called someone stupid and meant it. Pretty sad if you ask me. Also, I think that christians do cuss all the time. Cuss words are a part of most everyone's natural language in my experience. Well, if the meaning defines a word anyway. For instance, a man who says "Fiddle sticks," or "darn," or "freakin" is not considered to be sinning while the man who says the same meanings using a different sound is. So if the meanings of #@@$% and fiddle sticks are the same, then are Christians cussing too and being hippocratical or is it possible to innocently cuss and not hurt anyone with the words. Also, could it be that many times a non-cuss word can hurt someone more than the toe stubbing @###$. I think it again boils down to am i being selfish or am i going to chose this other person over my self. I can either express my emotions in a hurtful way at someone with my words or I chose not to hurt the person. That choice is the same with all sounds. I can be selfish with my words or I can use them to edify someone. I can even use a cuss word to edify someone by saying "your so @###@ Awsome! I love you!" Or your words can be not directed at anyone in particular and so it doesnt fall under the sin or love category. The point is maybe cussing isnt just black and white wrong. Maybe its the intent behind all of our words that matter.

Sex before marriage. Is it black and white wrong? Sex after marriage, is it always right? I believe that a man can still rape his wife, as well as committing other acts of sexual immorality, after he is married. I think that sex, like other things, falls under the selfish or the selfless category. If its selfless than it is ok and if it is selfish it is wrong regardless of marital status. The thing with sex is, it always involves another person so your always going to have to be selfless, there is no time where another person isnt involved as in cussing. As such, if you ever put your self before that of your partner, then you are not following that commandment that i mentioned earlier. It becomes hard to do that when pleasure gets involved for sure, but sex should always be an act of giving and receiving only what is given, as in all other interactions with other people. In that way we dont even have to define sex as when someone touches what ever or sticks something wherever. It doesnt really matter because your interacting with another human being and so all of your actions should be giving and unselfish. BTW I am only talking about men and women having sex as that is more obviously a condition of sex in the scriptures than marriage. So, can you be having sex with three girls in one week and be doing it in a selfless way? I guess if you knew it wasnt bothering any of them at all, and that your motives for doing so somehow didnt involve your self then probably. However, someone doing that to show love to each of those girls and not to satisfy himself is highly unlikely i think. As is the girls not caring. However, when i get married, does that mean that i can start being selfish and do what ever I want with sex? Nope. It is still an act with another person so you still have to be on top of things, or i think it is sinful. If the focus of sex with my wife is all on me and her giving me pleasure and im not focused on the opposite, then mabe that is wrong sex even in marriage.

A marriage relationship, i think, should be modeled after Christ and the church At least after his comming and dying for us, it is supposed to be a picture of that. So when you commit to be a woman's christ and she commits to be your church, then you are entering into a very powerful bond with each other. To have sex outside of that relationship would probably hurt the other person greatly, and would not be an unselfish act of love. Adultery doesnt happen until God has bonded two people in marriage. The marriage relationship says that your spouse comes second in all choices (just behind God) in all things because they are either your Christ or your church in that relationship. This is why sex should stay in a marriage once one is married. It isnt the sex that binds the marriage, but while your having sex with that other person, you are more than likely putting them before your spouse. The hierarchy is sort of like (at the marriage point) God, My spouse, other people, me. That is how it is intended and so maybe any time you put something before your spouses best interests, other than God, it is marital unfaithfulness.

Anyway, even if your having a giving sexual relationship with someone outside of marriage, then you can hurt them by going outside of that relationship and having sex with another. Such a thing would be sinful because it is a selfish choice made a the expense of another person.
So with all of this choice talk behind us I can finally discuss PORN. yay! To me, it seems like a pretty minor thing to worry about when compared to having real sex with a person in which you must be giving when so much personal satisfaction is there for the taking. Porn i believe is like anything else. One must ask themself "Am i putting myself above the interests of another human being when i look at it?" Probably doesnt apply too much outside of a relationship with another person. But in a relationship, if your looking at that stuff, could you be hurting the other person in that relationship by looking at it? You could be sending the message that they aren't good enough for you etc. It could also cause some self esteem problems with them. I guess you could talk it over with each other and decide that it wont hurt either of you and that there is a good reason for looking at it, education maybe? As long as its not a selfish choice i dont see it as wrong to watch. This kinda goes for your average jessica beal people magazing cover, if your into that sorta thing as well. Are the people in the pornography sinning? If they are using that to make money at someone elses expense then probably. Are they being selfish when they are having that sexual experience with the other actor? If yes then their selfishness is a sin for sure. Its just like everything else, selfishness or giving or non applicable.

Can porn be harmful, sin aside?...absolutely. I believe that our culture lies to us about sex in three very common ways. If one buys into any of these, they may be disappointed when the real thing comes around.

1. Sex in movies (at the movie theatre yall). These portray sex in a very unrealistic manner as far as emotions go. They cant get too physical on screen so the best they can do is play up the emotions. FYI Sex is not about losing oneself in love feelings or passion. It is about making the other person feel good. Someone who expects the kind of emotions portrayed in movies to be in their sex life is probably being unrealistic and ungodly.

2. Porn. This portrays sex in a very unrealistic manner as far as the physical aspects go. These people, like the people portraying the emotions in movies, are actors. Porn is not a realistic portrayal of sex, it is extremely exagerated physically for the viewer's pleasure. Do not expect to have a physical experience like you see in a porno with your partner. Or if you try, dont expect it to be so physicly exiting that your screaming your head off. You might, like those actresses, feel a little uncomfortable and sore though, or hurt the girl if your a guy. Not too unselfish if you ask me. Sex is not like the pornos, please be familiar with the ways in which you can bend without being uncomfortable, and go easy on the male and female giblets, they can be quite sensitive. If you do not realize that porn is fake and acting then you might be disappointed as well during real sex. Also it, like all other media, can damage how you view the bodies of the opposite sex or yourself.

3. Literotica. Contrary to popular belief, reading an erotic story is not your safe outlet when you deem porn sinful. Just because there isn't a picture on the page and the people in it are not real, doesnt mean it isn't potentially harmful. In fact, I believe this to be the most dangerous type of sexual lie out there. This is because the author is limited only by his imagination as to the emotional and physical exageration of the story. If you buy into the physical feelings described in literotica, then you will most definitely be disappointed in real sex. The author can describe things going on inside as well as outside the body. Please remember that you are reading a work of fiction. You wouldn't expect a to find a dragon just because you read about one in a book would you? Movie directors and porn creators are limited by an outside view of things so they must stay somewhat in reality. Literary writers are not limited by such things so i hope that you never try to get an idea of what sex is like from these stories.

So, is watching porn sinful? I hope that some can see past this question and look at the broader picture. The focus shouldnt be on what you are doing, but why you are doing it. If you can remain selfless and in all situations involving other people, then you should be good. I can't judge your heart when you are looking at that stuff. I don't even think its the most poisoning to your mind. Why dont you ask yourself, when your doing whatever, is this for my own satisfaction or am i putting another person before my own interests. If no other person is involved, then it doesn't matter. But in a sociaty as social as ours, expect to be presented with the choice of self or other much more than the times that you can do whatever you please.

Anyway, sorry for writing so much. But i think there is something to be gained from it, even if its just some of the info in the 1 2 3 sections. If you made it this far, then thanks for reading it and I look forward to hearing from you. Oh, and please realize that I am very much a sinner and i know that the ideals described above are hard to reach. I merely offer a point to strive towards to the best of our abilites. The rest is up to the Blood of Christ.

[Archangel]

Oops, sorry for all the writing. That may be too much. Hope someone reads it. If not, my bad.

[RainPete]

The focus shouldnt be on what you are doing, but why you are doing it. If you can remain selfless and in all situations involving other people, then you should be good.

As much as I agree with most of what you said (ie, how porn advertises sex and portrays what sex isn't etc.) I have to ask you about your methods of thinking here, especially with regards to having sex with your fiance etc.

While no one could say "That's wrong, bro," the truth is you need to ask "is it beneficial?" Is it beneficial for your relationship to be having sex now, rather than waiting? Even if not waiting is not wrong, what's so wrong with waiting anyway? For the benefit of others, especially.

What I'm saying is that I love smoking, especially the pipe, and have never had an addiction problem with this. I may only smoke my pipe now and again, when I am bored and totally alone for a long time. I'd like to smoke more, because I enjoy it, but I don't for the simple fact that it would mean I would have to smoke in front of others, or could develop the habit of smoking... most times, it's not beneficial for OTHERS that I smoke regularly. Because they attach smoking to addictions, or drugs, or have had issues in the past themselves, and can't seperate the two. So, what I'm trying to say is that I see it as MORE LOVING to give up smoking entirely for the sake of others who struggle with it. It's not a case of whether it's wrong or right, it's a case of it being more beneficial to the Kingdom if I'd not do it... especially because of my culture (see, it could be different in another culture.)

The same can be said for cussing. Is it really beneficial for all involved? I'd say that 90% of the time it isn't... the only time I might cuss is really with my close friends (and very limited) and usually in the form of some joke or something... but hardly ever as well. I see it as more beneficial, within my culture, to stay away from cussing.

Now, the sex thing. Even if it is beneficial for you and your fiance to be engaging in sex before marriage (and I would disagree that it is, but that it neither here nor there) how beneficial is it to OTHERS that you are engaging this? Will not others, particularly weak Christians, who get to find out about it, see it as a license to sleep with three girls in a week?

What is more LOVING here? To abstain or to engage? Surely to abstain, for the sake of others first, and then for your relationship. Seriously, your relationship with your fiance shouldn't need sex to keep it going... so I question whether or not you two as partners are being selfish... not towards each other, but perhaps to the world. I'd be interested in hearing your comments... it's about testimony to the world here, a world who unfortunately cannot seperate love between partners and lust for a partner (I know some know the difference, but for the case of others, what's more beneficial to do?)

Keeping it for marriage keeps your testimony more clean than not... IMO. And sex and marriage is a universal thing, I don't think there is a culture where waiting for marriage would be seen as less loving than not.

Sorry for the long-winded reply as well :smile: