Category: Let's talk
Hi all.
On another topic, “the meaning of sin” we were discussing the potential problems wich arise with pornography, particularly when it comes to those who view it while in a relationship. I’m really curious, whether you’re religious or not, male or female, what you think about this subject. Particularly, how would you feel about your significant other watching and being turned on by it. As this is generally – though far from exclusively – an industry geared towards men, I’m particularly curious about the perspective of you ladies, but men’s perspectives are encouraged too. I ask this based on the feedback I received in the other topic. This is a pretty general question to start off with, but we’ll see where it goes. I’m also going to refrain from giving my own opinion for now, though if anyone has been following the other topic, you already know my argument.
Let's clear the recrd though. 40% of porn is viewed by women, and the current statistics show it's probably higher, only women have a stake in not admitting their porn use.
Ironically, to answer your question, I would not care if She was to watch a porn flick. I might learn something and do better, or it may not even be because of me. I need not be so childish and insecure as to assume she's doing it because I'm not good enough. The two don't rationally follow, and for most things in life we adults don't make such assumptions.
Now do I? I've read the occasional story on again off again, but I've not rented any videos or viewed them online.
I imagine the perspective depends upon who is the "gatekeeper" of sexual activities in the predominant cultures. If a woman in the Middle East were to watch porn it would undoubtedly be at her peril, since the man is the gatekeeper of sexuality in that culture. In the west, it's the woman who generally decides whether or not such activitiew will happen. So it makes sense that a man, who is not the controller in the situation, is less likely to even be bothered by the notion of the woman watching it. Just my view, as subversive as it might be.
I'd find it hot and I'd want to know what her preference is. I'd probably ask if
she wanted to add it to our bedroom activity, hell, maybe even make one
ourselves. Its just a video with sex on it. we don't call it porn when its anything
else with sex on it, but if sex is the actual subject, we get our panties in a twist.
We've had porn for thousands of years, and so far our world hasn't come to a
fiery end.
Remy, on another board you asked if there were nicknames for female masturbation. And that's a fair question, and one it's hard to ask in real life without being seen as a creeper.
So here's a few:
flick the bean
rub the nub
part the petals
And again I say at least 40% of porn is purchased by women. The only reason that men's consumption is seen as such a problem is that male sexuality in the West is something to be controlled.
Did you notice that nobody in the East complained about what a lech Bin Laden was, when they found tons of hard core pornography in his "house"? That wasn't a house, people, it was a mansion that made Donald Trump look like he's on the breadlines.
Anyhow, find women with porn and few will complain in the west. Men with porn in the east and few will complain. It depends who is the gatekeeper and who the gatekeepee.
Notice in the West that men are addicts who use porn, while women are getting their needs met and exploring their sexuality. While in the east, men who use porn, it's not even worth talking about, while a woman caught with porn could lose her head.
Any real move towards equality would remove the aforementioned keeper / keepee relationships.
But anyway, remy, yes there are terms for female masturbation, now you know what a few of them are.
Anybody else remember the very first HBO special on female masturbation in 1992? Rightly showing it as exploring their sexuality. Meanwhile Jane Goodall was trying to explain to unconvinced masses that male masturbation wasn't necessarily perversion, after all chimpanzees do it and so do other great apes. This is, of course, the West.
You bring up some very interesting points Leo, and thank you for that little bit of enlightenment about female strokery. Now, I won’t deny I’m bias, both due to my own experiences with this trap, and also due to my Christian LDS beliefs. That said, I think culture does play a large part in all of this, and that’s a very interesting observation. I’m not sure where you’re getting your statistics, but we’ll assume they’re accurate. I’d hazard that much of the way women consume porn may involve more erotic fiction; heck, fifty shades of gray goes to show you how women are just as seceptable to it as we men, but I have nothing to back that up with at this time. I do however think that, while women may be the "gatekeepers" of sex in this particular part of the world, I think that position really comes with a price. Even now women are presented as objects in the media, which also helps dictate standards of beauty and desirability. So while they may control the sex in the relationship in a way, society still plays a part in controlling them and how they view their sexuality. Any women can chime in on this, please. I think the media at large, and the sex industry to a point really doesn’t help this at all. If there’s one thing I learned during my time as a bit of a porn addict, it’s that even there, women – and to a slight degree men – are often categorized by age, experience, body type and attributes. In that way I will always find pornography dispicible , even if only for the way it portrays and objectifies women, and men too, though to a much lesser degree. And that’s the other thing. Women are intelligent and have a whole range of amazing talents. I have no doubt there are women who sincerely enjoy working in the industry, but a lot of them don’t exactly consider it their dream job. And that’s the other, other thing, you don’t know who’s doing it because they want to, and who is doing it out of a perceived need, or even against their will. The whole thing just objectifies the people doing it, and it makes the people watching it a bit weak, and a bit responsible. The industry is only so lucrative because people allow it to be. I hold to my religious sentiments about all this, but I think what I’m talking about is a far greater problem, because it affects us at large.
Porn does nothing for me, and I don't want to watch it. If my husband was to watch it, I would hope he would at least be open with me about it. As long as its not child porn, I say whatever floats your boat.
Personally think it's boring. If I had a bf and he watched it I'd be cool with that, I just don't find it interesting so wouldn't consider it a fun thing to do together.
Most of what I've seen has been pretty stupid and does absolutely nothing for me. Most of what I've seen is so staged and fake that I find it more laughable than anything.
If I were in a relationship, and my guy wanted to watch some porn, I guess I'd be ok with it. I'd rather he be honest with me and not hide it. So long as he respects my boundaries as to what I am and am not willing to do, he can watch whatever he wants, excluding child porn. That's not porn; that's just flat out sick, disgusting, and wrong.
Now, I would enjoy listening to hidden microphone sex that was actually real, where the people didn't know they were being recorded. Oh shit! I'm a voyeur. lol
Hmmm, interesting contributions, and I say thank you. Please, keep them coming.:)
Remy we give all sorts of special pleading and special attention to women for
being objects. But we men aren't objects? Come on! We are *all* objects, man.
Be a middle aged guy who doesn't make gobs of money and tell me you're not
disposable. Men are objects of provision and romance, the whole "say the right
thing at the right time" trope that is presented by comedy. You as a father are
an object of scorn in the media. So let's respect actual independent women and
not treat them as little girls here, no special pleading on this account. Seriously,
we're all objects, and yes we're all whores. We all work for someone else, using
our bodies and minds -- which is part of our bodies -- to expend most of our
lives for someone and something else. Man, woman, or other-gendered, no
exceptions. People want to feel sorry for the porn star, but no such luck if you're
using your body to mine coal or work in the sewers, or develop lower back pain
by using your body in the office, or develop wrist pain by using your body to
enter a lot of data. Or have your inventions comoditiized and sold without you
reaping the profits, using your body again to create these inventions.
I'd say the porn stars, at least the female ones, make better money per hour
than most of us. I'm glad at least their industry doesn't have the middle man
that the music industry does.
Did you know the late great Robert Johnson only got $15 per side of his
records? With the mystique surrounding him, are you going to tell me he hasn't
been objectified too?
Everyone is multidimensional. Everyone is more than just one thing. But when
someone uses me to develop software or fix a system bug, they don't know nor
need to know that I have a child, I'm also a has-been musician, I love birds, I
work in my community. All they know or care about at the time is the task I'm
paid to do. But when it's *sex* we start special pleading and infantilizing. Why
is that?
My position isn't even pro-porn. If anything, it's porn-indifferent. But I'm just
saying let's assume we're dealing with adults here, and the parties involved
unless trafficked, are consenting (and in the case of porn) very well-paid adults.
As to making a purchase where the provider didn't consent? Ever hear of child
and slave labor? Nice pair of shoes. Mine too.
Sex trafficking is far fewer in number than labor trafficking. But we don't care
about people bought and sold for labor, we just make special pleading over sex.
That kind of deflates the argument completely.
I will agree with others that some of the stories I've read are so poorly done
and laughable it's hard to do much but snicker. But that's true of any
commodity. Especially entertainment like porn which is vilified, and romance
which is deified.
I just drank a cup of coffee. Read how coffee is produced and how much they
get paid. They only wish it were what a porn star gets paid. But as I drank that
cup of coffee I didn't consider that the grower and processor has a certain
number of kids, may be very intelligent, and a whole host of other things. Or, is
that only a problem when the subject is sex?
You asked this question in the wrong group.
Notice one blind woman said she'd enjoy the sound of sex
My X was visual, so would describe what was happening on camera as we enjoyed an arotic film.
She enjoyed the ones that had a story line over straight fuck films.
Notice also the women would not want there mates to hide it?
I agree. Remember on the other topic I suggest hiding things is the reason for the problem?
Domestic, they have sites that are real couples having sex, not performers. They know the mic and cam is on, but they don't fake. They just do what they do.
That would be most interesting to woman, and is the porn women buy. Smile.
I will agree that hiding it is the problem. And also, that women coming out and
admitting what it is they do like will only stimulate their part of the market. And
make the rest of us treat them like adults rather than use the special pleading
the way we do, infantilizing them when it comes to sex, acting as though they
are the poor ones that "put out" rather than adult participants. I'm personally
neither feminist nor whatever you call the opposite of feminist; I'm non-
ideological, to be honest. But it seems a real feminist would eschew this
infantilization and pretense that women must require special pleading like this.
You'd see blind people go completely ape if someone suggested we needed that.
In fact, we as people striving to be independent and respected, do the exact
opposite.
What I’m trying to understand is how pornography can harm or hurt a relationship provided people are open about it from day one?
Example, if you are dating a woman, seems you should talk about these things, just like you should talk about your sexual needs, or desires.
Even if you subscribe to the wait until marriage, you still need to discuss your sexual thoughts, ideas, as you know them to be.
Even when I was in my 20’s, I talked to women I dated about this.
“What do you think of naughty movies?” “Would you enjoy watching, or listening to one with me?”
I personally don’t get much pleasure from it unless I’m sharing and can enjoy the turn on after.
A sex scene in a book can make me hot if it is written well, but I have no guilt over it at all.
Much like having a good meal. I enjoy it, and that is it.
I don’t know, and the ladies can correct me, but if you are invited to view, or enjoy porn with your boyfriend, you have the option to say no, and explain why you don’t enjoy it.
If it is hidden, you might feel bad, because you feel he needs something extra you aren’t giving him.
Most times, that simply isn’t true, but I’ll give you that.
Maybe I’m to broad minded, but I understand the people in the porn I can’t have, but the lady in my house I can, so she is never threatened at all.
Secrets hurt relationships, not porn.
Because it is seen is nasty, naughty, it is hidden, and that seems how the problem happens.
I think porn is what you make it. If a partner gets to the point where they'd rather watch porn than be with their partner, it's a problem. Hiding it or even feeling the need to hide it is its own problem, and it's much more deep-seeded. If we could all be open and honest and just say exactly what we're in to, most of this wouldn't happen, but society has fixed it to where we can't be, for the most part. It's like a person getting a credit card and going hog wild with it. To them, rather than say that they're week willed or unable to manage, they'd rather just say that credit cards are evil! They know from experience, after all.
Let's look at porn in a different light. I know a couple who were both virgins when they married. He was blind. She had some sight. They rented a few pornos and watched them, to get an idea of exactly what to do. They talked about it openly and picked out the things that they were both interested in. as they watched and listened, she described what was happening, and they made it work. To them, porn is not evil, and yes, they're very big in to the church, (mostly because volunteers come out from the church to clean their house or pay their bills when they get stuck,) but that's a different story for a different topic.
I like the credit card example.
If one partner is always spending and hiding the spending, when the bill comes due, it causes problems.
You pay it and they promise not to again.
The go at it again, and explain they are using personal savings, or receiving gifts.
You trust what they’ve said until the bill comes again.
This can really be disrupting if one partner is visual so reads all the mail.
It damaging not only to the relationship, but the partner’s ability to live or move on after the fact if divorce is necessary.
So, sure, porn is what you make it.
Wayne is absolutely right on here, so is Anthony.
Now I would say if the partner doesn't want to participate of course it goes
without saying that the other wouldn't force the issue.
Now, we're not interested in controlling the person who doesn't want to watch
porn or read a romance. So, let's not control the party who does. This is how
adults, not children, behave ourselves. Too often though, one side gets to
control everything and say what the other may or may not do, but wants the
freedom to "get their needs met".
Out of respect for all parties, no control necessary. In fact, anything less is not
even respecting yourself let alone other people.
Those few who know me may be surprised by my stance on this. But actually this topic is more complex than one my think. There is some very interesting theoretical work being done about porn consumption and what it does to the brain. I had a psychologist who works for quite an elite British University confide to me that he has dealt with a good few students who could not become interested in sex due to their longstanding habit of watching porn when younger.
There is a very interest 5 minutes about this topic on youtube, linked below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU
I figure I'm 44 years old, a gay bottom bitchboy. Ain't nobody gonna be interested in me anyway, and I still have needs, so porn it is.
The reason kids probably aren't interested in sex after watching porn is they've not been given the rest of the parts.
You could say that some girls slack interest in sex after going to church over much, because they are taught it is only to create. If she receives any pleasure, it is sinful.
So, she's not interested in it.
That is a real problem with couples in church.
I've seen some really frustrated men.
You wait all that time, marry the perfect girl, but you can only have her once a week for 30 minutes, maybe, or as quickly as it takes you to come.
I recently saw some heavy preacher state that a man that has a wife that isn't interested in sex shouldn't look at her face during it, so he won't see her distaste.
How about that.
I'm going to find it. This guy gives advice to Christian couples. He's the voice, so to speak, on couples relating.
He does an advice brog, or something.
Yup sad state of affairs, Wayne. Very sad state. Many young Christian men wait,
thinking that the young Christian women will appreciate them more because
they waited. It's a conn job, it's not the women's fault. I'm not sure it's the
preachers' either, as the system is so rotten through and through that I doubt
the preachers know any better. The further I am away from evangelical
Christianity, the more I see the lot of them as most people see wartime
refugees.
Put it this way: I've helped subdue a terrified Amazon parrot who'd been
abused. I say subdued because we had to. We were clawed, bitten, beaten in
the face with strong wings. This is the lot of the Christian man, as the Christian
woman is sufficiently terrified in order to maintain the system's status quo. I
mean not all Christian women, but those who are raised evangelicals.
It can't be helped, I guess; the longer I'm away from them, the more I view
them as hostages of war, and the hunger games the Christopolitical system is
playing with them has nothing to do with them, except using them as chattel
the way the gangs use twelve-year-old kids. It's morally awful in my opinion.
Everyone in there is being lied to.
Why, if the system is supposedly based on truth, must they lie? A good question
for the frustrated. Why is it so imperative they lie to you?
I believe my own parents have been lied to.
'This is very different from seeing people as gullible. Perfectly sound people can
be lied to, and lied to convincingly. What good is a liar unless it can do so
convincingly? They are not stupid: I've debated many a very intelligent one.
Although we frequently came to an impasse re: politics and the sciences, it was
clear they were intelligent people. But to lie to intelligent people, you must do
so convincingly and intelligently. And yes, Wayne, I have seen the horrible
ruinous results.
Bermuda I'd be curious to know why they believe boys aren't interested in sex
due to pornography? What is the causal link?
Also, doesn't that destroy the traditional sex-negative feminist and conservative
argument that porn leads to rape? Both cannot equally be true, unless they're
trying to say porn only leads to rape.
Again, I've only seen one porno when I was in college, basically a pair of
presumably naked chicks sneaking up on a guy, surprising him, pushing him
down on the sand and having their way with him. Sure, the sex-negative
controllers (TM) (R) wouldn't like it but how does a flick like that lead to no
desire for sexual activity, or to the crime of rape? BTW for you young millennials
that probably haven't cracked a book on forensics yet, rape is a crime of power
and control, not sexual gratification. I thought we'd put that one to bed back in
the 80s, but now look, we've got some new Puritans who probably can barely
read, who are out promoting that ancient tired religious myth that rape has to
do with the proverbial "blue balls". Else, why are corpses raped? Why are 80-
year-old-women raped? Why are women your mother's age raped? Real
sciences like forensics have actual answers unlike the two competing religious
dogmas.
Those must be some weird ass kids. I've known a lot of teens and college
students, I am one. I don't know any of them who, if offered, would choose
porn boobs over real boobs. Hell, I don't know many who would choose food
over real boobs. I know a couple who would probably cut their own head off
with a pencil sharpener to see some real boobs.
I'd definitely choose the food, but let it be something wonderful, like reese's cups.
I am not saying all Christian teaching is the way I described, but some is.
I'm still looking for the article.
I will give credit to the Christian advice people that think as I do, just they don't say it as I put it.
If you are going to live with one woman for years and years, she needs to be interesting.
Same with the man.
Before you get attached, people do all they can to make themselves interesting, sexy, and such.
After the rings get on, it is about rules.
Well, I know I've gained 50 pounds, but you still should think I'm sexy, because you love me right?
Just an example.
Sure, things happen you can't control, but over eating or just being generally unkempt you can.
If you were interested in the person and they were that 50 pounds over, you might dislike it if they lost it too.
So it goes both ways.
While I've already stated my thoughts on the "Meaning of Sin" topic, I have some to add here.
I find it interesting that people who are non-believers so harshly criticize the opposing arguments mentioned by Remy and myself--saying it is not rational or respectful to have standards like we do about porn is ludicrous. It's ludicrous because you don't see us saying that you're wrong, stupid, controlling, childish, ETC. All we're doing is discussing why we believe what we do. Although, I'm not Mormon, and Remy is.
My church believes porn is wrong, and I'm gonna look into more about why, to see if there's anything else I can give more perspective on, that I haven't already said.
That would be interesting, Chelsea. But thanks for having shared your own
personal opinion as well.
I do admit that my stance is more porn-indifferent than anything, which I know
is weird in this culture. I just long for us all to treat one another as adults, equal
adults, equal responsibility. Hell, I know Christian people who think I'm just a
little bit odd for towing the line about Hooters and not "discussing" it with Her,
but just following Her wishes. I guess I do that as I said, to honor what She
wants.
And Chelsea you aren't guilty of this, but far too often, people make their
"psychological" opinion to be fact, when there's no real proof. Maybe there is
proof, and I just don't know it. I've said before psychology is not something I
know much about. Maybe there is something verifiable, dangerous etc. about
porn that I simply don't know. Again, I'm largely porn-indifferent except for the
often-childish responses you see in society. On either side.
Even if there is no proof, just as Hooters never hurt anyone, it is fair if a couple
can make their own intelligent decisions about things. It's just too bad that in
this area it's far too often about Puritanical control of another's thoughts and
feelings. I'm not puritanical at all, I don't think seeing a chick as attractive is
wrong. Hell, at my stage of life I know guys who run off with someone younger.
I'd be lying to say I've never wondered what that would be like. But, it's a
mirage and we all know what a mirage is. Seeing it as a mirage rather than a
sin is far more constructive; it means I can act rationally about it rather than
either give in and be sorry, as I've seen some do and have their lives ruined, or
feel torn up and guilty for having had the thoughts, as I used to do when
younger. Part of how I see reason and rationality leading to ethical behavior, I
suppose.
If one thinks about it, and fully, really thinks about it, well, he can't help but
think about what the effects are going to be also if he dared act on such things.
Those effects being the hurt it would cause. Far more effective than any fear of
sinning or hell. Instead, I'm behaving like a rational moral creature instead of
one driven to obedience like a sheep.
For the record Leo, I do think the things I'm saying about porn being wrong, are facts. I don't just share things that are opinions I hold dear, but I truly believe them to be fact, just as I'm sure you and all the other unbelievers on here believe what you're saying to be true. It would be silly to say that we're simply sharing our opinions when we post to these boards, even though you wouldn't admit it.
I'm sure you'll come back and say that you're being rational, and you know that you're right because of what science says. That's okay--I know I'm right because of what the scriptures teach, along with the fact that there are numerous church bodies who know the same thing to be true. Simply put: porn is wrong because it goes against God's law, and encourages men and women to do what men and women wanna do, rather than encouraging them to follow God's plan that he's created for their lives.
Well something I have no answer for is why I'm largely porn-indifferent in a
porn-obsessed culture, people for or against can't stop talking about it. I've
seen people contract viruses from it and have warned people, even Christians of
that very thing. Even at one of the churches we went to, but they said I was
distracting from thei r message by pointing that out. Hell it's true, less so now
than 15 years ago. But when you watch something that's allegedly free, there's
probably something piggy-backed on it, especially in the days of the popups and
such.
I can't claim to explain everything, and one thing I can't explain is how in a
porn-obsessed culture I'm largely indifferent save the mechanical problems that
occur due to privacy violations and such online.
It's just the back-and-forth and the porn and anti-porn industries making such
an absolute killing out of the situation.
Porn is just like anything else really. Drinking to excess will harm you. watching a crap load of porn without positive sexual experience has been shown by some scientists to have adverse effects on your sexual health. They theorize that pathways in your brain remap to better serve this biologically new/different form of stimulation, with enough frequent use of porn, particularly without healthy and frequent real world sexual relationships.
In a similar way your brain adapts to higher levels of other hormones/ways of obtaining them you can do the same with porn. Its just how our minds work. People get hooked on things that give them a hit of dopamine. Only problem is that this new form of predominant sexual stimulation conflicts with the way in which you're supposed to find sexual gratification.
Basically like giving yourself an artificial feddishfor porn.
From what i've read though, this isn't something that just happens after watching porn. ITs the end result of extremely frequent and habitual use of porn that can create these conditions in people.
TLDR porn isn't bad in and of it self, but just like other things like thrill seaking and gambling, people can come to love the dopamine high which in this particular case conflicts with their natural sexual responses.
Chelsea, the instant you put -anything a church says forward as a fact is the instant you lose 99% of whatever remaining shreds of credibility you once possessed. I am not viciously anti-church, anti-religion or anti-Chelsea, and I'm not gonna start now. However, I will call a spade a spade as I see it.
Women have been sexually repressed for centuries. This is a fact.
The repression has been largely due to shaming. This is a fact.
The shaming has largely come from the church. This is a fact.
Thus, causally, the church has been largely responsible for repressing women, in this way and in many others I've touched on before.
And how does that matter, you ask?
I'm using logic to assert things as facts. You aren't. Scripture is not logical. We've kinda put that one to bed a few dozen times in the last year alone.
Go ahead and believe what you wish. Just don't pass it off as fact. It isn't.
I'd be interested to see about these studies that link excessive porn consumption to sexual problems. Unlike the more rabid pro-porn people I've known, I'd be willing to modify my stance if strong evidence came up. And if porn in large quantities does lead to sexual issues, then I'd definitely say enjoying it very responsibly, and not to excess, is the way to go. This is true in much the same way that enjoying alcohol too freely will hurt your body.
If you have no positive feedback and only watch specific type porn, you don't know any better.
I suspect the problem comes because people are taught to hide such things.
We are not open to talking about sex.
If you have a teen boy hiding his porn, and his dad unwilling to give him some constructive input, well.
Chelsea, what is God's plan as related to sex?
You say God has a plan to keep us from doing what we want to do. How is it supposed to be?
What if I suggested that a man watching and listening to his wife pleasure herself could bring them closer in other aspects of life?
She'd be as good as the films he watches, only better because she is his best and close friend.
He has seen her at her most open, relaxed, and that turned him on.
It also taught him much about her, and what she likes.
If he knew what she thought about while she pleasured herself, could he not learn to understand her a bit more?
Would he not feel tender towards her, because he has seen her vulnerable, open, and the same as the women on the films often are?
Would she not feel powerful, or sexy, or wanted because her husband received so much pleasure from her?
I for one would love being let in to her world that much. She's my right hand, and I know what it is like for me right?
It be a gift to me to be let in to her world, and that translate in to better and closer communication, love, and respect outside of anything sexual.
Is this not God’s plan for a couple to find close love?
What do you say?
That's actually a fantastic question, Forereal. Personally I would think because this is something that is being experienced between the two of you, it would serve a purpose beyond self satisfaction, but then, as I've said, I'm pretty liberal on the whole masturbation aspect of sexuality. That is indeed God's plan from my perspective however. I'd say porn itself would be excluded from this being okay if for no other reason than because it involves observing other people engaged in sex. Sex is, if nothing else, supposed to be a private, not public affair. And since sex outside of marriage is considered a sin, watching other people engage in it goes against God's intentions for sex. But of the rest of your question, You've got me. I'm with you on that one personally.
Greg, of course you'd say I lose credibility, because you are anti-Chelsea and you are anti-church; you can pussyfoot around all you want and try to claim otherwise, but being an unbeliever, of course that would be your stance. I will pray for you, and anyone who shares your viewpoint.
Wayne, we aren't talking about what two couples decide to do privately. We're talking about porn, which is not private when you're in a relationship because you're viewing other people having sex. Quit misconstruing my words, and reading into them what you want, rather than what I actually said.
So if a woman makes a video of herself masturbating and sends it to her husband, (Maybe he's out of town on business, stationed over seas or whatever,) This would not be porn? This would just be between the couple? That's actually what I myself think, and I see nothing wrong with her making it, or him enjoying it. It's still just between them, after all.
To be completely honest Anthony - and others who have asked what is actually a very interesting question - this seems to me like something you'd really have to make a personal decision on. It's easy to miss someone when you're used to seeing them, and then you're far away. These are examples of that gray area where a lot of people have differing oppinions. In that case it's not committing adultery obviously. Heck, if the two of you were enjoying yourselves mutually, I'm not even sure that's bad either. I think a lot of this would depend on intention, though unduoubtedly there would be peole who would say that because masturbation is flatly wrong, it would be considered wrong. I don’t really know about this one though.
I am asking that question Anthony posed.
Chelsea, I made sure I made it between the couple.
You said something about people doing what they wanted to do, not God's plan.
Remy explained that what I described would be porn, and he couldn't do it, because it is watching sex and enjoying sex, but not having married sex.
I'm going to wax purely religious nut job for a moment.:) Cody, you'd best ignore this one. Chelsea, I don’t really think Greg is anti-Chelsea. He certainly doesn’t appear to be anti-god, so much as exceedingly skeptacle based on a lack of “evidence” and not receiving what he considers satisfactory answers to his questions. Wasn’t long ago that I was like that. Spent most of my life making the same arguments that Cody and Leo and Greg – and even you once – made. Wasn’t long ago that you were aggressively on the other side of this debate too. The thing that’s hard for “non believers” as you put it, to understand is that a belief in God and acceptance of the commandments he’s laid out for us doesn’t come from impiricle evidence, or visitations, or knowledge, but by personal revelation which then may give rise to conviction. Often that conviction is the result of personal experience which further manifests the truth of things unto us. One’s mind and heart must be willing to seek in sincerity, and to accept. Knowledge and signs don’t garontee a willing heart, as the scriptures point out time and time again. Many a person there has been who has received the kind of signs and proof many people would like, only to turn away from God anyway. The holy ghost speaks to our spirits, it manifests the truth unto us according to our sincerity and our faith. And that’s something that we can never adequately explain to someone who has not experienced it. Even less can it be proven. Forces like the Holy Ghost don’t necessarily defy explanation, but they do defy basic human logic and rationality. That’s what’s so hard about religion in general: the power and the peace and certainty are deeply personal. Those who question, judge, or ridicule us have every right to do so. Keep in mind the vast tapestry of Christianity shines all shades of light, from the pure of heaven, to the black of the pit, and all shades in between. Contradictions abound at face value, and everyone has their own interpretation. People hear of this love of God, that Jesus was binevolant, loving and compassionate. And yet there are so many Christians who are the exact opposite. What are they supposed to think if we don’t strive every day to stand as a testament of Jesus Christ by our actions, words and deeds? But instead they see judgement. They hear about abuse. They look at Christian history and see the wars waged in God’s name at the hands of men who are either just evil, or believed they were doing according to God’s will. Skeptisism and denial exist because at face value, there’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t make sense, and even more that sounds purely fantastical. The point of talking to people about religion isn’t to convince them it’s true, but to open them up to the possibility it is. But one must make the effort to seek God, and an effort not to turn away from him when things get too hard, or too inconvenient. God never said there wouldn’t be adversity, but he did say that if we seek him, we will always find him. You who were once just as confrontational as others here are a clear testament of this reality. And if that reality is a fallacy we tell ourselves to give us comfort, then it’s still a fantastic testament of the power of the human mind to change its perspective.
Forereal, I'm not sure I "couldn't" do it. But admitedly I'm not sure if I "should". I'm all for a good wank, but being personally okay with it doesn't mean it's right.:) Still think this is an interesting question however.
Remy, you explain well. I just had that question.
All in interest, not critical of anyones thoughts or beliefs.
First of all Remy, I'm shocked that you're taking Greg's side. You must not have had time to follow all the other topics where Greg and his buddies have had something critical to say about practically everything I post. Cody says it's stupid, Greg says it's illogical, among other things--all of those things are not said by people who are open-minded and who truly accept the fact that people believe differently than they do.
Also Remy, as I've said time and time again, the reason I rebelled against God if you will, was because I had no sense of direction, and I desperately wanted to do something different than my family said I should. So, I looked up atheists, and figured out how to act like them down to a T. I also acted confrontational for the same reason, even though that's far from my actual nature. Neither of those things were right, and I'd never advise anyone to do what I did. I've never denied I acted that way and I never would; I'm simply stating that how I believed as a child is actually the right way to believe. Other people obviously don't agree with me, but that's one reason why I share my story and am honest about how I've faltered, and now how I've come to the truth.
Back to the topic at hand though: Wayne, what a married couple wants to do in the privacy of their own home is their business--I still don't think viewing porn is right, because sex is something to be enjoyed between two people. If they're watching porn, they aren't physically enjoying each other, because they're focused on the people in the video. Not just that, but if people need porn to get off, there are bigger fish to fry.
Remy, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that as Christians we aren't supposed to bring people to God--bringing people to God is the most important way to serve Him. From there, people have free will to choose whether to accept him into their lives or not, and as we know, most people here make a conscious choice every day to deny him, criticize his children, and otherwise live their lives like they can make it through on their own. That's their choice, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Would porn not be acceptable if a couple used it as entertainment, and or a sexual aid to enhance pleasure, not as a means to getting off?
We have different types of porn.
As I understand it couples are most interested in real couples having sex, or pleasing each other.
Some say it is relaxing, a turn on, and others say they learn things from watching it they can share with the mate.
Would you say this was God's plan?
If porn, or what couples do in the privacy of the bedroom is their business, why does the church look?
In my experience sharing porn, we didn't need it to get off, but it made the getting off interesting indeed.
I am completely with Wayne when it comes to finding out what it is she likes,
being invited into her world. This complicates due to sociopolitical factors and
yes, Christianity is not the only sex-negative outlook at least not in the U.S.
Ok Remy I was with you on your previous post to Chelsea up to a point.
Bear in mind I'm speaking as an atheist here and not a Christian:
But I feel sorry for Christians who are self-flagellating over events like the
Crusades. Seriously: you guys weren't there. And also, the Crusades and other
events really are not so much religious as they are political. Again, I read the
texts and sure the churchmen said it was the god or what have you, but looking
at things from a historical political perspective, the Crusades were the end of an
extremely complicated era of confrontation between east and west, parts of
Spain and even Italy being overtaken by the Mors for one thing. And yes, the
three competing monotheistic religions all believe they've got a monopoly on
the so-called holy land. That was certainly fuel for the fire, but it's my belief the
crusades would never have happened if European shores weren't being
constantly assaulted from the East. I do have extreme western bias these days,
having developed more and more of it in the past 15 years.
And atheists like me are not atheist because of Christians. That's really unfair to
Christians, to be honest, and I would personally consider it a cop-out bordering
on argument absurdum if I were to base my claims based on experience, and
not the arguments in favor and against. And here is how you will see me defend
my prior arguments about porn viewing and controlling other people:
I feel strongly that if I sit by while a Christian tears themselves apart I'm doing
exactly what the anti-porn advocates do: I'm maintaining a state of learned
helplessness, where the Christian is allowed to self-punish for being a
"perpetrator" and I the "victim" both of which aren't true. If you believe your
grandfather of Protestantism even a little bit, Martin Luther expressly claims
that it's up to the individual, and the individual's faith. I fully embrace that
personal responsibility as I do everything else in life. I have tried over the years
to understand people like my Wife's perspective where She talks about
environment and childhood and things. But I'm being completely honest in my
own bias that I tend towards the personal and ultimate responsibility, including
the right to opt out of things.
Ultimate personal responsibility and ultimate personal autonomy is not the
"right to do your own thing," as the evangelicals are so often dramatizing. No, it
is the ultimate in private property rights. My person is my property, and the only
rights I possess are the so-called negative rights, the rights to not be interfered
with. Now of course, I kick it decidedly old-school when it comes to rights: there
is no such thing as a right without an accompanying responsibility. As I highly
esteem the right of self-government, it is by extension my responsibility to self-
govern.
So, it is wrong for the Christian to be unjustifiably guilty on my account as an
atheist, unless they have directly harmed me. In yet again, the old-school
definition of harm, not this new way of everything offending everyone. The
reason it's wrong is because it places the Christian in the extremely unjust
position of being the forever-perpetrator if I adopted a learned-helplessness
state of victimhood as some describe; the Christians have made us atheists. I
reject all of that.
The only reason I will say that the evangelicals create atheists, is not that they
"made us do it," but we are the many who don't make the grade. They are the
few, fancying themselves the Navy Seals among the Christians. If you do not
pass rigorous dogmatic compliance, in their view you are not Christian. It was,
in fact, when I realized I no longer had a right to claim myself Christian, that I
began to really establish the skeptical arguments in my mind. I would never
have come that far, had I not been consistently and directly challenged by the
fundamentalists. And rather than cry the victim, I embraced their challenges
head on. Had I instead chosen to remain defensive, I might well still be among
them in some form, not very convincing to the more convinced of them.
How this relates to porn viewing? I have said several times that I am uniquely
porn-indifferent, even if I share Wayne's view and those of Greg re:
masturbation and the like. But I am decidedly not control-indifferent. I have a
deep and abiding loathing for the learned helplessness of the faux controller
types. And that would be any fellow atheist who blames the religious for their
atheism.
Ironically, in the same way that I support the rights of a porn viewer, I equally
support the rights of the puritanical academic feminist and James Dobson / Pat
Robertson alike. Not because all claims and religions are equal: far from it.
Claims like that are logically ridiculous.
For my part, skepticism is the default position left to me, as it does not require
belief, only seeks proofs. I don't, for that reason, just agree with all the latest
scientific claims that come along. Especially not from the social sciences. To do
so would be just another adoption of religion. And much of the porn debate is
entirely religious, in my view, fully unfounded claims on both sides. The major
part I can agree with is bringing it out of the shadows and removing the stigma
associated, not for license sake but for that of rationally objective
understanding. Keeping it in the shadows tends towards the illicit activities such
as sex trafficking and under-age abuse rings. That has more to do with the
black market than it does the act of viewing footage on TV screens.
By way of extension, if you're as old as I am, you remember how everyone
panicked about violent video games making everyone violent? Now that we
have drone pilots, we can see the major discrepancy between violent video
games and violent realities. I saw an interview with a drone pilot now suffering
PTSD. His response was: "Claiming drones are like video games is just stupid!
When you fly a drone, you know you're actually killing people!"
So people really do know the difference between reality and fantasy. Who knew?
Some of us not educated in the soft would-be sciences seem to have known this
since our childhoods, but we're not exactly political powerhouses, and reality
doesn't sell as many tickets as moral panics do.
Come now chelsea, I use other words besides stupid. Often I say its idiotic, or
moronic. Sometimes I even agree with you, though that is becoming more and
more rare. But, if the shoe fits, you can't blame us for expecting you to wear it.
Anyway, I'll refrain from commending on how remy's post, the one he said I
should ignore, is little less than victim blaming if god exists, and simply ask him
this question. Who says sex has to be private? Why does it have to be private?
If the people engaged in the sex want to be seen, does it still have to be
private? What if a couple makes web videos of themselves, and willingly sends
them out onto the internet to be watched by willing adults? Should that still be
private? Why can't it be public? Is this stance of yours nothing more than you
saying "ooh gross, I don't like that so you shouldn't do it, cuz jesus says I
shouldn't like looking at a woman's squishy bits?" Ok, the last question is an
obvious yes, but the rest I'm interested in.
Good questions.
Chelsea, you've basically just proven Remy's point. Let me illustrate it for you.
Most skeptics, self included, like proof. They like a person who doesn't go into an argument or discussion already so convinced of their righteousness that they won't move. We see people like that as narrow-minded and unwilling to listen. This is increased tenfold when those people say things like "this is fact" when they can't actually demonstrate it as such. And if there's one thing skeptics aren't going to waste their time on, it's someone who's supremely close-minded.
You're doing this in spades. You did it when you were an atheist, you did it when you were apparently bisexual or a lesbian or whatever you were, and you're doing it now. It has become a hallmark of Chelsea at this point, and it runs counter to what I personally see as good fodder for worthwhile discussion.
As such, I often dismiss or take apart your arguments because they're simply too self-assured, too flimsy or too unsupported to stand up to scrutiny. You are also, it would seem, very allergic to admitting that your way might not be right. It's all or bust for you...and that's fine, for personal belief, but it works far less well when dealing with others.
And this is where Remy's point comes in. Christianity is huge, complex and extremely varied across its breadth. I highly doubt any one person or group understands even half of it, much less the whole scope it presents. Skeptics want answers, they want explanations, and sometimes they aren't going to be able to get them. When they dismiss an explanation or an idea, it's not necessarily because their mind is closed. However, when the bringer of said idea says "this unprovable thing is fact", it puts a skeptic like me seriously off of it. Not only are you trying to make me think up is down, but you're arrogant enough to condescend when logic is, for this time at least, on my side.
If I were in y our shoes, honestly trying to bring the love of God to others, one of the first points I would make is to say that coming to him is different for everyone, and that an open mind is essential. I would absolutely, categorically not! go around talking about how right I am, or how wrong others are, or how every disagreement is some sort of willful personal attack or anti-faith agenda. It's not, and your insistence that it is further undermines both your credibility and your ability to influence others around you. From that angle, at least, you're a pretty piss-poor representative of your religion.
By contrast, Remy isn't. He admits that there are things he doesn't know, admits that some of it logically doesn't make sense. Remy doesn't look down his nose at me because I can't swallow it. Remy doesn't think he's 100% right beyond all possibility; he's just convinced enough to pick his path and hope for the best, due to his own experiences. I may not agree with him, but I respect his integrity if nothing else. Religious people like that can talk to skeptics and be taken semi-seriously, while you can't.
I realize I forgot to answer a question Anthony posed to me, so here goes: for people whose parents didn't sit them down and educate them about sex, that's why there are numerous books about it. While some may say that's not the right way to be educated, I'd venture to say that that's how things turn out most of the time.
While I didn't think my mom throwing a book at me was right at the time, I did read it, and I did learn from it. Hopefully others would think to do the same.
Greg, now you're presuming to know my head and heart, as you've so often done. Good job!! Just kidding.
Cause, let me tell you, I never said I know it all, and you never will hear me say that. You never heard me say that you atheists are worthless human beings, and you never will hear those words come out of my mouth. You think differently than I do, and I don't agree with your stance on where we came from, but that's as far as it goes.
Guess what Greg? I don't know everything. I don't have all the answers. I believe my church is correct in the way it teaches us to follow Scripture, and that it is my mission to lead people to that same understanding.
I'm sorry that it offends you so much to hear me say I believe my way is right, but everyone believes their way is right, atheist, Christian, Muslim or what have you. That is why we discuss things with one another, to hopefully encourage others to see things from our point of view even just a little bit.
My way isn't right for everyone. Remy points out why my way can't and won't work for him.
I can understand it too.
Chelsea: I’m really hoping you don’t take this as a personal attack, as it is not my intention. I did not say we shouldn’t strive to bring people to God. We absolutely should. What I’m saying is that trying to prove his existence, trying to persuade people, and trying to force our point of view on them isn’t the way. All we can do is talk about him to people who are interested. If I thought talking to people about God wasn’t important, I certainly wouldn’t be participating in discussions I haven’t a snowball’s chance in the desert of “winning”. I don’t speak here to “win” or to be “right”. I am somewhat learned in my faith, but being learned doesn’t mean convincing. I’m saying that convincing, that true conversion, doesn’t come from man, but from God. perhaps by my example other people might be inspired, if not to come to God, then to not dismiss him so completely. That’s really the only reason I spent so much time here. I’m no master debater; no philosopher. I’d prefer to just live my life rather than contend. I know I’ll not convince anyone by my words alone. All I can do is provide a different perspective from the anti Christian, and the destructive Christian. A little nudge to the people who may be reading my words. A good missionary is one who teaches by example, whose Christianness comes out in the way they interact with and treat others. No idea if that means I’m a good one or not, but I do strive to be. Now, I’m empathetic to Greg’s questions because I’ve asked many of them myself, and still ask many of them now. And I treat him and others with respect – at least I think I do – because I feel they are just trying to figure things out. My wife and friends will tell you I’m diplomatic to a fault, but I just try to see each side of a person’s story. And there is a difference between being skeptical, even extremely sceptical, and anti. A big difference. I’m a “Mormon”. That’s a very misunderstood Christian sect, even among other Christians. I have spent a very, very long time engaged in these conversations over the years. And for the most part, I’ve stood alone in my beliefs against many who clearly have their own understandings. I’m not saying it isn’t frustrating to find mostly opposition, and yes, there really are a couple here who step into the realm of more personal attacking, but I also don’t take things personally from most of those involved. Most people aren’t attacking “you” specifically, just your beliefs based on their understanding of them. And the same goes for being “anti”. Even if some may be anti established religion, it’s usually due to their perception – an often understandable one – of how that organized religion treats others. But I think there are very few here who are specifically “anti God”. I’ve seen people both praise and criticize you Chelsea, whether they believe in what you’re saying or not. And I’ve seen you both praize and criticize others too. To be critical of others comes easily to many of us, and it’s something that we usually give when we receive. It’s also something to strive to overcome. I know I struggle with it every day.
Leo, I’m not self-fladulating about the past as far as I know. But a lot of people love to bring up the evils perpetrated by Christians in the past. I am merely empathizing with people who find it hard to look past such atrocities committed in the name of the God I represent. I don’t blame myself, nor do I think it really matters what some Christians did in the past. Christians aren’t perfect. They’re people with motivations and ambitions. And if they sometimes employ words from the bible to justify their atrocities, that’s not my fault, and it’s not God’s fault either. I’m agreeing with you Leo, especially on that last paragraph. But still, a lot of Christian naysayers I’ve encountered love to bring up the past. That’s like blaming today’s white man for how the Native Americans were treated though in my opinion.
Cody, actually as I said before, I did like porn. I love the female form; I find it beautiful and desirable. Jesus said nothing at all about not appreciating female beauty. Sexuality is something to be enjoyed and appreciated as a means of bringing couples closer together. It’s an external expression of inner feelings. And yes, according to the laws set forth by God, it is to be refrained from until within the bonds of marriage. That is how my church views sex. I understand when you’re not married that would be a very hard law to follow, especially if you haven’t grown up that way. I’m not even sure I’m strong enough to abide by it if I were not married, but in a relationship with someone I loved. Yes, I do believe love should play a part at the very least. I’m not sure if I can say any more about my views on this subject than I already have. You know I’ve had an issue with porn in the past. You know my stance on sex and sexuality, and you know my stance on pornography and why. Yes, sex is a personal and private affair. If a couple wishes to make videos and distribute them, that’s their thing, but no, I don’t personally think that’s appropriate. But we’re each responsible for our own actions, and just because I find it to be improper shouldn’t really concern anyone. I’m not telling you to stop having sex, Cody. I’m not telling anyone to stop having sex. I’m not here to say believe in God or else. I’m here to explain my position, b"t I’m not going to condemn you for HAVING YOUR VIEWS.
Beautiful thoughts on the wrong Christians have done in the past.
I've pointed that out many times.
Christians aren't the only group. Atheist aren't immune to wrong doing either.
Chelsea, there's a huge difference between these two statements:
1. This is fact.
2. I believe this to be true.
I have absolutely zero problem with the latter. I can disagree with it, but your belief, frankly, doesn't bother me one way or the other. Believe as you will.
But when you cross the line and start saying things about God are "facts"...sorry, I'm going to challenge you there, because that's not a stance you can maintain. That doesn't mean I dislike you, it doesn't mean I'm anti--anything really. It simply means that when you start claiming things are facts when they aren't, I'm going to point it out. I will do this to -anyone I see who claims something is a fact when it clearly isn't, religious or nonreligious alike. Conversely, if I ever claim something is a fact when it isn't and someone decides to call me out on it...that's fine. I've probably earned it.
In short: figure out what the word "fact" means, and stop misusing it, please. That, or have the decency to accept that you've misspoken when you mislabel an opinion as a fact. We all do it sometimes (misspeak, I mean), and there's no shame in it.
First, Remy, if you are insulted by an atheist because of what Christians did in
the past, or if said atheist uses those arguments against you, feel free to call it
a cop-out. On my account, if necessary. *smile*
If we atheists can argue against the atrocities of Mao Tsetung and Stalin,
asserting that has nothing to do with Christianity but a political leader, then a
Christian can well make the same arguments re: the crusades. Else I might do it
for them.
Cody, as to the posting of sexual content on the Internet, I have an oddly
conservative view of it, and I'm not referring directly to the sex part.
If my daughter, for instance, wanted to do so, and if she asked for my advice,
my modus priori would certainly be to see to it she understands how content
gets distributed, by accident and otherwise. Even if you post your sexual
content to a site that is behind a paywall, it is possible for someone with the
right software to stream-download the video. Of course, with sharing being so
easy on so many devices now, anyone could innocently share with a party who
was fine with it, and it could go down the line till it met someone who wished to
use the content for nefarious purposes.
And many people, especially women, even if they want the sex to be public,
have an audience in mind. If they ever find out that someone they found
"creepy" (earned too little, came from the wrong racial demographic, was a bit
too short or too old), saw the video, and if she found out, here comes trouble.
You see, in the 60s when the Beatles and others had open free love fests or
bed-downs in the street, this was not captured on camera for all time. It was
public in that the people in the surrounding areas could see it.
But in our society, we have a dangerous combination of lack of technical
understanding of how systems work, and an overwhelming sense of entitlement
and learned helplessness, especially by certain demographics who really, in my
view, would have a right to call that learned helplessness a form of
discrimination. People who are the perpetual victim aren't technically any more
able to consent than a slave or a child. And I will say that you, or anyone else, if
you don't understand how networks work and how social networking works,
aren't technically able to consent to exposure of some very delicate material.
Why sexual material has to be so delicate? I'm not certain, to be honest. But in
recent years, we've seen how many nonreligious people react like lemmings at
feeding time when their sexual content was ultimately exposed. We've seen rich
stars who did not get hacked, in the way we old school technical types
understand hacking. Their pictures and videos they had were shared among
people they knew, and someone was the proverbial loose lip on the ship.
People seem to know well enough not to tell certain acquaintances certain
things, because that acquaintance is a blabbermouth. There's people, no doubt,
that you never tell anything to that you want to remain confidential. No matter
how much they beg to know, you simply know better and don't tell them.
But people don't understand that sexual and other material can get out. And
when they meant "public", we all know that people mean a select group.
Let me give you a sad, but nonsexual, description of how this happens. You may
have heard of Jerry DeWitt. He's a former pentecostal preacher who is now
atheist, functions like a humanist minister something like Michael Doud does.
Anyhow, his life was absolutely wrecked because of Facebook. He went to see
Christopher Hitchens before he died. He had someone take a photo, they posted
it to Facebook *they posted it not him*, and tagged him in it. A vengeful aunt
reposted it with all the bitterness and venom you and I are familiar with from
evangelical fundamentalist circles.
Now, because this wasn't sexual, and in part because he's a male and thus not
subject to learned helplessness here, nobody, well very few, felt sorry for him. I
did, and do. He and his friends clearly didn't understand the power of this
technology. He lost everything, and I do mean everything! There is no way
someone with his education could have known what to expect, and may not
have even known the pic would have been tagged.
Hell, I work in the software industry, I have since before some people on here
were even born, and I have trouble keeping up with all this! I just think caution
is in order before posting anything that could compromise someone. Why does
sex fall into that category? Hard to say, I'd go with the learned helplessness of
some, for one thing. Why atheism? In his part of the country, the answer is
pretty obvious to those of us versed in how the fundamentalists operate.
I know your question was for Remy. But Thought I would bring my response
anyhow. It's not a public park with a couple doing it under the trees, with the
rest of us walking past getting a giggle and admitting to ourselves we lacked the
courage to do that, wondering just what it would actually be like. Today, public
is very very public. And while I love technology, I really do, and do my best to
improve it where I work, I do think we really need to be conscientious about
where and how we do this stuff. Part of that would be to avoid any form of
learned helplessness like we've observed in recent years by people in the media
over this stuff. That's not doing anybody any good.
But if two *truly* consenting adults who understand exactly what they're doing,
are prepared for the inevitable unintended consequences, wish to post their
coital activities on the Internet, I personally have no problem with that. But
again, I think it takes a real understanding of the implications, and a real sense
of personal responsibility and ownership you rarely see anymore, especially
among millennials. And it's fine to be honest if you won't do it. We've got a
naked bike ride here in Portland every year. I've been asked if I'd go. I said that
even if my Wife allowed it, I personally lack the courage.
Now, if I didn't lack the courage, and She would not feel upset at such
activities? If I did go, then I'm responsible because I'm out there in public in the
birthday suit. So if I find out I've been riding along next to some young stud
and here I am, a middle aged guy with a bit of a belly and nothing to speak of
for a figure, I have no right to turn my personal insecurities into a public
tantrum. Not even if people comment. I, after all, put myself out there. I've yet
to meet a single millennial with that kind of maturity, or that lack of learned
helplessness. Doing anything in public results in public comment, and lots of
public comments aren't nice.
Greg, you don't have to talk to me like I'm an idiot; I know the meaning of the word "fact," thank you very much.
As I said though, I can't help it if you don't agree that my church's views are facts as we see them--that's fine that you think that way. That's your right, just as much as it's your right to continuously talk down to me, find fault in anything I say, and otherwise take issue with anyone who is devoutly religious.
Since both you and Remy addressed my "perception" that people are out to get me here, I'll address you both in this next bit.
As I've said before, I'm not on this earth to be loved by Zone members. I'm not here to be hated either, but rather, to participate in these forums, and share my perspective with the world, just as you all are here to do. You don't have to like it--Lord knows you don't, but I enjoy the discussions that come from this site, whether we disagree with things one another says or not.
I'm not so invested in this community though, that I'm hurt or otherwise offended when people say things I don't like--even the recent things that have been said in this topic, I don't have a problem with the fact Greg, Cody, Remy, and Leo "challenge" my beliefs, as they put it. Challenges are healthy; personal attacks are not.
Back to the topic though: Leo is exactly right about why people should be careful about public sex in any format. Because, especially in this day and age, when it's public, it's accessible to anyone who wants to find it. Not just that, but another reason it could cause problems, is cause if people you didn't want knowing about your sexytime with Bill, Bob and Jim, found out about it, you never know what else might result from that person's knowledge. I for one, wouldn't wanna find out.
A safer term than "fact" would be conclusion. Because a fact implies
overwhelming evidence.
It is a fact, for instance, that a kilobyte is 1024 byes in length due to how the
bit system works.
It is my personal conclusion that some of the more recent Acer offerings are
way better than what Acer used to produce, and that Acer produces a
reasonably good budget laptop these days.
I understand how people don't wish to use the term "belief". But I think
sometimes when religious people use either the term belief or fact, they really
mean conclusion. Conclusion implies you've thought about it, you've reasoned it
for yourself, and this is what you currently conclude to be the case at a
particular time.
So "conclusion" is not "safer" in a politically correct sense, it is more descriptive
of your position. You'll see me say that something is my conclusion also,
because I have no overwhelming evidence, even though I find after considerable
time and research that a particular perspective seems to make the most sense.
I understand how people of faith wouldn't want to use just the term belief, but
there's an intellectually honest term that doesn't imply the rigor of material and
reproducible evidence.
You could say, roughly, that "belief" is equivalent to "generalization" in the
scientific method. "Conclusion" would be equal to "hypothesis," and "fact" would
be equal to scientific theory. Not the populist use of the word theory as in "I
have a theory" meaning I have a guess. But scientific theory resulting from
rigorous testing and analysis.
I just see people of faith saying their "belief" about something, when it's clearly
more than just belief. Remy, for instance. And on the opposite, some say "fact"
without incontrovertible evidence. when again, it's not fact but probably not just
belief, it's in both cases probably their conclusion. Because they've looked into it
and done a certain amount of research, and they find, or conclude, what they
ultimately find or conclude.
I'm not hair splitting here, just pointing out that on the scale between belief and
fact, there is conclusion, and that position is an intellectually honest one when
used right.
Wait! Hold up! Can we get back to the naked bike ride?
People ride naked through the streets of Portland? Damn! Now that's something I've got to see. Um er, uh, depending on the riders, maybe not.
I've heard mixed reviews on the participants. If you want the most frank visual
reviews don't ask the nature people, to them nudity isn't sex anyhow, so they
will just say it's all beautiful bodies. Then again, it just depends on what you
want to look at.
I think for some people it is more about being able to tough it out in the
usually-pouring-rain on a bike nekked as a plucked bird. I've known people who
went, who that was all it was about. Others are into the nudist nature thing,
people have a lot of reasons. Generally the sexuality part comes in from the
prudes on the Lef and the Right who as mirror images of each other have
successfully fetishized the control of other people's sexuality, and made their
fetish normative.
But as to the participants you generally hear about toughing it out in the
pouring rain naked, and either getting or avoiding the types of minor injuries
you might expect being naked riding a bike along asphalt.
I don't know if we're the only city who has one or not.
I figure if you're going to be okay seeing public nudity, you have to be okay with "all" public nudity. That means the good, the bad and the ... ugly.
Well, it definitely takes balls. That's for sure.
Depends on what you mean by that remy. If you mean I have to accept that
there will be some bodies I don't want to look at, then I totally agree. But if you
mean I have to look at them all, then no. I can still have tastes. I like porn,
doesn't mean I like all porn. some porn is boring.
I meant the first, Cody. I just mean that one shouldn't complain if there are bodies they find unpleasant to look at. That's all.
I'm not gonna keep saying what I meant. I did not mean "conclusion," and I did not mean "belief." I mean "fact" because to me, there is overwhelming evidence that God exists. To most here, I know that couldn't be farther from the truth, and that's your choice.
Oh, and Leo, Portland is not the only place where such things as nudity go on. Austin Texas, at least when I lived there, was full of all kinds of weirdness. I'm sure it has only gotten worse now.
Thanks for the education on that one Chelsea, I knew Austin was supposed to
be pretty "progressive," as some would call it. But, maybe it's just my own idea
on public nakedness, I had guessed Portland would be an outlier. Guess that
goes more to show the extreme unlikelihood I'd actually have the courage to do
such a thing, even among a crowd of people doing it. Sure, I skinny-dipped in
Japan with some people, it was the culturally accepted thing at that location and
didn't have anything to do with sex. I will say, though, it did have a lot to do
with melting snow water, though.
We do some odd things here too.
Differently more interesting then porn if you can see it. Lol
That, my, conclusion by the way. Lol
Chelsea, you can go on calling a duck a chicken, but it's still a duck. Call it whatever you wish as long as you can accept that you're basically the only one in this minority and simply wrong to boot. Leo has the straight of it. You've come to a conclusion. That's fine. But your conclusion is not a fact in, say, the same way gravity or rainfall or iron density are facts. So when you try and pass off your experience or coonclusions as facts, someone is likely to call you out on it. Get used to it. I have tolerance for a hell of a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.
And, as far as naked bike rides and all that, I can't say I'm much interested in the whole thing. I don't think we've ever had one around where I live, though I suppose if we had, I might just as easily have not known about it.
The most self-proclaimed "tolerant" people are actually the most "intolerant" people, especially when they claim to be in other people's heads when they couldn't be farther from them. Just sayin.
Nobody is universally tolerant of everything, so I'm not sure Greg is claiming to
subscribe to that particular modern myth. People supporting the "negative" right
of others to be left to themselves with their own choices, is not necessarily
tolerant or intolerant. Just civil. In the same way, nobody could technically be
"intolerant" of you over the Internet. At least, they couldn't apply any kind of
actual restrictions on your movements or practices.
Right. I absolutely hate beets. If you don't, you should. Lol
Just finally started reading this board. I have to go back to post 19 for a second. Once a week for 30 minutes? Dude, you've apparently been talking to the wrong Christian women! Same goes, Leo. Not all of us are that frigid, or think it's only for procreation. I don't want kids, but sex is another thing altogether. I hope some of you guys remember that we're not all as the stereotype portrays. Obviously some are, or there wouldn't be a stereotype in the first place, but I think that kind of prudishness is far less common.
I'll admit that now that I have Mark, I very much wish I didn't have some of the history that I do. But I can't go back and change it, I can't fix it. But I will say I understand a lot more what my early church mentors were trying to teach me.
As to the original topic about porn, I need more coffee before I can formulate my thoughts on that. I just looked at this topic, so may put something together later. Just wanted to respond to the bit that I could.
I'm not sure we're making generalizations out of thin air; it's the constant
demonization of male sexuality in our culture and the promotion that women
are too fragile and sensitive to take responsibility for themselves.
That doesn't mean *all* or even *most* women do this, but it does mean that
said stereotypes are probably very profitable, financially and otherwise, to some
systems. Not people, infrastructures.
Take the ideologue away from the group, and it's just like what cops used to tell
us about taking gangsters away from the gang. You've got yourself a human
being. An individual. Ideology, like gangs, is what is corrosive and causes people
to do things they otherwise would not. I'm ashamed of many things I've done in
life, and for the most part, it's the things I did in the name of various ideologies.
I actually think there's probably quite a caste of porn-indifferent people like
mme, even though the marketing machinery for both sides would not really
profit from us.
I've seen the removal of gang boys from gangs, and I've seen it work, you've
got a human being. And I think removing ideologues from the ideology, and
there you go, you've got a human being, once separated from the victim
industrial complex, academic industrial complex, military industrial complex, or
any of these other very bloated very expensive complexes.
And I would say the same thing of the so-called MRA's too, if they ever become
a movement. Sitting on the couch isn't a movement in my book. But if they
were actually prolific, their ideology would cause all the very same casualties
that every single other one does.
So yes, perhaps we've made generalizations, but they are true, not for
individual human beings but for systems. Systems who make billions off of so-
called frigidity or so-called promiscuity.
If a woman is called a "whore" or a "slut," I am left to wonder who is making a
killing off of taking her resources. That is what those two terms are for, or were
for at least. Same with anyone who is lambasting another with unverifiable
claims. And these "anti" movements, whatever they happen to be from the
Church, State and Academia, are all the same. It's a cash cow for someone,
albeit at your expense and mine.
Part the petals?
That is awesome!
hi, generally i use porn as for finding out if it is as hot as i think it is and is
worth trying.
But also sometimes it is just an relaxation thing, some girl on girl porn is real
hot, and well since I'm bi i have no shame in admitting i watch it.
Would i do it if i was in a relationship? i might , i am not sure, but i don't see
the problem in it.
Sandi