Should there be more regulation of pornography?

[Liesje]

I don't think porn can fairly and effectively be more regulated than it is currently.

As for porn destroying relationships, I believe that the porn itself is incidental. It creates a situation that exposes issues with trust, self-confidence, and communication. I don't really care either way about porn and I know a lot of happy couples are OK with porn. There's something to be said about this...it seems these couples are OK with porn b/c they know how to communicate and have developed trust and respect for each other. If a couple is not at this point, then porn together or alone is not appropriate, but that doesn't mean it needs to be regulated across the board.

 

[martha]

My idea of marriage is idealized, that's right. I am looking at marriage at how it should be - two people who love each other and are committed each other. Where is the love in looking at pictures of someone other than your spouse naked? Can you give me any support for that being a sign of love for your spouse? Even one? What good is served by a man looking at another woman naked?

n. If a man loves a woman, he will refrain from porn because he will be satisfied with her, and on top of that, he won't want to hurt her. If I knew your female friends, I'd tell them to go out and find men who would respect them and love them enough to not look at porn.

Nobody but nobody can understand the dynamics of someone else's marriage, whether ths outsider is married himself or not.

For you to constantly pontificate on what should be happening in a marriage is pointless for all of us, given your extraordinarily limited firsthand experiences with marriage.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think you can still have views if you've never been married-I've never been, but based upon my parents' marriage and other marriages I've observed, and my ideals/values, I have my views. I don't force them on anyone, and I don't think anyone here is doing that

Anyway, I've been thinking about another issue related to this-if anyone here feels comfortable sharing. Are men and women really "wired" differently re this whole issue? I don't find porn that hot at all really, I'd rather watch a really sexy scene in a mainstream movie. For example, the other night No Way Out W/ Kevin Costner was on. Now that limo scene, to me that is sexy. I don't like graphic sex in movies, if you know what I mean. Of course that could have been edited, I don't really remember the details about the original version.

I admit, I looked at Playgirl magazine w/ my friends when I was in high school. Of course then it was giggly and all that, forbidden fruit, etc. But even then, not really my thing. To me it's far more sexy to leave things to the imagination-I'd rather look at a guy in a nice suit in GQ, to me that is sexy and appealing. Or an athlete in a tight uniform

I've seen a little soft core porn on cable, still really not my thing. I prefer to have a whole relationship story involved, etc.

You can generalize about how men and women view that , but it's interesting and more enlightening to hear individual opinions.

 

[martha]

I think you can still have views if you've never been married

This is true, but you don't present your views on it as absolutes, which he does. Constantly.


On your other note, I do have to admit watching certain parts of Rattle and Hum in slo-mo.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This is true, but you don't present your views on it as absolutes, which he does. Constantly

Well I don't see it that way, I don't mean to be argumentative w/ you and he can answer for himself. I don't think he means to do that.

And there's absolutely nothing sexy about Rattle And Hum, I watch it strictly for the music

 

[80sU2isBest]

how marriage should be ... i think that's a dangerous phrase because it implies that there's a standard, and that everything that devaites from it is somehow less worthy. i think marriage should be what works for the individuals involved, and that if your ideal marriage, you would never look at pornography. fine, if that works for you, but it doesn't work for everyone.

I am looking at marraige based on my Christian beliefs. And as you know, I believe that my beliefs are correct. That is my filter. However, everyone has a filter by which they look at things - I am not alone in that. Your filter is that the Biblical view of marriage isn't right. Therefore, how you do view marriage doesn't jive with the Biblical view of marriage.

more power to someone who would divorce someone for owning a Playboy? i can understand porn addiction, kiddie porn, violent porn ... but i cannot understand a relatively mainstream magazine like Playboy. divorce? isn't that far, far worse?.

Not according to the Bible. Christ said that anyone who even looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart. The New Testament says that adultery is a viable reason for divorce. If a man won't stop lookin at porn if his wife asks him to, there's something wrong in his heart, and I would seriously doubt that he loves her.

perhaps men look at other naked women simply because they are beautiful -- is that much different than looking at a beautiful painting, sunset, or landscape?

Do you think that men look at a naked woman in Playboy the same way they look at a beutiful sunset? Do you think it causes the same ---umm--reaction and feelings?

i think it's simply unrealistic that, once you marry someone, all women become instantly unattractive. i don't think that happens -- if you were to get married would you not still find, say, Angelina Jolie beautiful? you might never do anything with her in real life (even if given the opportunity) and that's a good thing, but to deny that she is beautiful and sexy simply because you are now married is, i think, rather silly.

I never liked Angelina Jolie to begin with.

But to answer your question...women don't stop being "attractive", that's natural. Men don't pluck out their eyes when they get married. Men can't help it if a beautiful woman enters the room. But what they can help and what they do have control over is how they respond. A man certainly has control over whether he forms lustful thoughts about her, or even if he takes a second look at her. Men need to learn to do that sort of thing (control their thoughts), for the sake of their marriage and to do the right thing by their wives.

I've never been married, but I've been love, and when I was, I could see a beautiful woman and not have any thoughts about her whatsoever.

 

[80sU2isBest]

This is true, but you don't present your views on it as absolutes, which he does. Constantly.

The way I view marriage is based on my Christian beliefs. I believe that my Christian beliefs are correct. Therefore, I believe that my views on marriage are correct.

In believing that my beliefs are correct, I am doing nothing different than most people in this forum, including you. You have made a statement that reflects your belief that my absolute beliefs aren't right for everyone. That, whether you admit it or not, is an absolute statement of your absolute belief.

We all have filters by which we judge things, including you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well I don't see it that way, I don't mean to be argumentative w/ you and he can answer for himself. I don't think he means to do that.

Thank you, Mrs. S

All I am doing is expressing my views on marriage which are based on my Christian beliefs.

 

[Irvine511]

i suppose i don't understand the filter then -- i don't think that taking my experience and then filtering it through a 2,000 year old text is a good way to live. my experience tells me that people are complicated, and that the only constant is deviation, and you do more harm condemning those who fall from arbitrary standards that you do enabling people to solve their own problems.

this is a difference of opinion, and that's fine, but i also know that there are people far more well versed in the Bible than i am who would disagree with your understanding of what Christ says -- but i won't debate you on that point, because i simply don't know enough about specific Biblical instructions. i would assume that the Bible would/should be elastic and a constantly evolving text -- but that's just my viewpoint.

my filter has nothing to do with my view on the Biblical view of marriage -- i don't really care. marriage is a social contract, and traditional marriage, if there is such a thing, is one man and many women. i'm interested in what works here and now -- i would argue that my filter is that i don't have a filter, or that i try not to have one (and we can argue that this then becomes, in and of itself, a filter).

i guess i don't agree that you can help having lustful thougths -- they seem pretty much involuntary to me, but you choose whether or not to act on them. though i suppose you could train yourself to think about baseball or whatever ... that seems to me to be repressive, and unhealthy.

 

[Irvine511]

The way I view marriage is based on my Christian beliefs. I believe that my Christian beliefs are correct. Therefore, I believe that my views on marriage are correct.

In believing that my beliefs are correct, I am doing nothing different than most people in this forum, including you. You have made a statement that reflects your belief that my absolute beliefs aren't right for everyone. That, whether you admit it or not, is an absolute statement of your absolute belief.

We all have filters by which we judge things, including you.

forget beliefs. what do you *think*?

believing seems to me to be a passive activity, where as thinking is active.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I really don't care if my boyfriend looks at porn. I really don't even care if I walk in on him jerking off to porn. I'd rather him do that than have an affair with another woman. As long as our relationship is otherwise strong and healthy (and yes, I do believe porn can be a part of strong, healthy relationships) I have no problems with it.





further evidence that joyfulgirl is really a gay man

 

[pax]

forget beliefs. what do you *think*?

believing seems to me to be a passive activity, where as thinking is active.

That I have to disagree with. I think belief is (or should be) the result of a great deal of thought, doubt, research, wrestling, dreaming, praying...belief is anything but passive. Beliefs are often tested and developed and changed--and that's all good!--but they are not, and cannot be, passive.

 

[Irvine511]

That I have to disagree with. I think belief is (or should be) the result of a great deal of thought, doubt, research, wrestling, dreaming, praying...belief is anything but passive. Beliefs are often tested and developed and changed--and that's all good!--but they are not, and cannot be, passive.

i would then call that "faith."

i'm starting to get an allergy everytime i hear someone on the news saying, "this is what i believe." that seems like such a cop-out, a way of not thinking.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i guess i don't agree that you can help having lustful thougths -- they seem pretty much involuntary to me, but you choose whether or not to act on them. though i suppose you could train yourself to think about baseball or whatever ... that seems to me to be repressive, and unhealthy.

Here's what I have learned from experience on this subject.

First let me say that I am not one to see a beautiful woman and immediately think "I want to go to bed with her". It's never really struck me that way.

But I do know that there are certain situations I can put myself in and out of that will affect how likely it is for a lustful thought to pop up. For instance, if I am somewhere and a whole gaggle of scantily clad women arrive, and if I want to maintain a pure thought life, it is best for me to leave that vicinity. If I stay there, the thoughts are more likely to mainifest. By the same token, I am not going to go to places in the first place, if I can help it, that will increase the likelyhood of lustful thoughts.

But imagine I'm standing there at the mall, and a beautiful scantily clad woman passes in front of me. That first thought might hit me "oh man, what a beautiful bod". There is no law in theh world that syas I have to stand there and take a second look or have a second thought. If I dwell on that thought, if I let it stir up lust in my heart, that's my fault, no one else's. I can look at something else and start thinking about something else. I have done it many times. I make a habit of "bouncing my eyes" away from certain sights, and I do the same with my thoughts.

Thaht's not "unhealthy repression". That is simply training myself to behave in the way I want to in the first place, to concentrate on the the things I want to fill my mind up with anyway; to, in the words of the Bible, "set [my] mind on the good things of God".

In so training, even my initial thoughts become less and less lustful. And I don't miss it. I don't want to lust, never did want to lust. I'm going to take the proper steps to avoid lust as much as possible.

 

[80sU2isBest]

forget beliefs. what do you *think*?

believing seems to me to be a passive activity, where as thinking is active.

Belief is not passive. Not at all. I can not separate my beliefs from who I am or what I do - they are intertwined like a strong and sturdy weave.

What I "think" is not in contrast to my belief.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i would then call that "faith."

i'm starting to get an allergy everytime i hear someone on the news saying, "this is what i believe." that seems like such a cop-out, a way of not thinking.

Belief is the first step of faith. You take away belief, you have no faith. Faith cannot exist without an underlying belief.

 

[Irvine511]

Belief is not passive. Not at all. I can not separate my beliefs from who I am or what I do - they are intertwined like a strong and sturdy weave.

What I "think" is not in contrast to my belief.

so which comes first: belief or thought?

 

[Irvine511]

Belief is the first step of faith. You take away belief, you have no faith. Faith cannot exist without an underlying belief.

i agree, but with a big caveat: i'd say that faith is the maturation of belief.

faith, i respect; simple beliefs are little more than superstition.

 

[pax]

i agree, but with a big caveat: i'd say that faith is the maturation of belief.

faith, i respect; simple beliefs are little more than superstition.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Is this going to be about religion again? Can't we just get back to my "what turns you on" question? Clean discussions, of course

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

Strangely, even though I strongly disagree with 80sU2isBest on the ideal of marriage, and think that belief in the biblical dictation of marriage ignores the historical precedent of marriage's corruption (which sours me on it but is not reason in itself to abandon belief in the religious value of the ceremony, I will conceed)...

I am inclined to agree, though, that seeing beauty and lust are connected in the mind, and you can control whether or not you feel lust. I would even go so far to say that the sexuality of nudity is entirely in the eye of the perceiver, and even the most overtly sexual nudity can be seen without striking up lusty passions in the person viewing it. This isn't denial, so much as state of mind. Nudity in art doesnt have to be seen as sexual, nudity on television, in magazines, or in real life; you really do choose how it affects you. We dont see things as they are, we see them as we are. If you see it as sexual, you're allowing it to provoke that from in you, but it's only really an issue when you allow it to provoke sexual feelings in you. So I guess, I sortof disagree in the sense that no ammount of nudity should be overpowering of your will, whether you look at it or look away. You can appreciate nudity like a scarlet sunset without doing anything illicit or wrong. There's so much beauty in the world, why should the human body, one of the most beautiful and ugly of all things be treated any differently? Everything is beautiful, and everything can be appreciated as beautiful on the same plane.

I had a problem a few weeks ago where I was at a party with my friends, and my friend's ex-girlfriend decided to get naked and strut around. My girlfriend wasn't there to witness it, but I still had to tell her what happened, simply out of principle. The thing is, though, I didn't see that nudity as being a sexual thing, or something that stoked the flames of passion or any such thing. The 'betrayal' or 'adultery' occurs in the mind, the act of allowing someone other than the one you love to enter your thoughts in the one way reserved expressly for the one you love. Of course, I think anyone might agree that this is a 'betrayal' in some purely philosophical way, but I think many will argue that you can see something arousing without forcing the love of your partner out of your heart in lieu of this momentary indulgence. I don't think the simple 'seeing of nudity' equates to betrayal, there needs to be some sort of action on behalf of the perceiver, whether that's allowing lusty feelings, or worse still, allowing lusty feelings to dictate physical actions.

The argument can be made, I think some will agree, that once you make it acceptable to admit these lusty feelings into your mind, that the 'foot is in the door' so to speak that might slowly force lust into your hearts in more increasing 'severity' if it can be measured in such a way. I don't really agree with that, myself, but a lot of people think that 'slippery slope' is the end-all of causality-related theories. What it comes down to is whether your love is more important to you than feelings of lust, and most people have the strength in their love to force that door closed as soon as it's opened without allowing any sort of transgression to occur. You can choose where to draw the line before you slide all the way to the bottom with things like this. Where I turned away and stared into the night whenever not talking to one of my friends on the night I mentioned earlier, one of my friends went so far as to cop a consentual feel of the naked lady despite having a girlfriend. He didn't draw that line, he let himself be won over by his passions in a clearly unacceptable manner. Maybe if you're single, this is okay, but if you're not... well, yeah. Of course, having known him for 7 years, his actions didn't suprise me at all, and it certainly doesn't suprise me that he's still with his girlfriend because he only told her about the nudity and not the groping. But, you know, what happens in other peoples lives is their business.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

As for faith/belief... I'm not sure there's any real difference between faith/belief. We believe we know what we know; we have faith in our knowledge. Two ways of saying the same thing. This does not make our 'knowing' any more true or meaningful. Why someone would give privelige to 'faith' over 'belief', I'm not sure; except if it gives them an excuse to write off what others believe in as wrong/superstitious/false/flawed whereas they have 'faith' and therefore are somehow elevated and true. That's just me, though.

 

[Irvine511]

The 'betrayal' or 'adultery' occurs in the mind, the act of allowing someone other than the one you love to enter your thoughts in the one way reserved expressly for the one you love. Of course, I think anyone might agree that this is a 'betrayal' in some purely philosophical way, but I think many will argue that you can see something arousing without forcing the love of your partner out of your heart in lieu of this momentary indulgence. I don't think the simple 'seeing of nudity' equates to betrayal, there needs to be some sort of action on behalf of the perceiver, whether that's allowing lusty feelings, or worse still, allowing lusty feelings to dictate physical actions.

i guess i don't agree. i don't think we can be held responsible or found guilty for our thoughts, only our actions. i really can't help it if i see someone and feel sexual feelings, i can help by not acting on those feelings. i don't think that my eventual partner can, will, and *should* be able to be all things to me sexually, or even personally. why do you think people have best friends? don't you need people with whom you can talk about your spouse?

i think people often expect too much out of marriage -- that they create impossible standards and then are profoundly disappointed when things don't work out. i know that there are some very, very happily married people in here and they offer accounts to the contrary, and that's great -- i am very happy for them, but i think they are the exception rather than the rule.

i am not saying that one should cheat, but i am saying that the urge to have sex with other people is totaly normal, isn't something to fear, and it's only the action that warrants censure. to me, having these feelings, and understanding them -- *not* repressing them -- and then choosing not to act on them strikes me as a very loving action towars the health of the relationship. to me, staying together is the goal, the union itself is the greatest good, not strict adherence to whatever "rules" you've picked.

why not talk about these things? might such a discussion not lead to a more creative sex life? communicate with your partner -- if something is missing, try and put it there. if you want to do something that you haven't done before, for pete's sake, go ahead and ask your partner.

 

[martha]

i think people often expect too much out of marriage -- that they create impossible standards and then are profoundly disappointed when things don't work out. i know that there are some very, very happily married people in here and they offer accounts to the contrary, and that's great -- i am very happy for them, but i think they are the exception rather than the rule.

I think that you'll find the happily married people here have much more realistic expectations from their marriage than you may think. It's the people who set up all kinds of "rules" that end up miserable. Adaptation is a key component of a happy, functioning, growing marriage.

i am not saying that one should cheat, but i am saying that the urge to have sex with other people is totaly normal, isn't something to fear, and it's only the action that warrants censure. to me, having these feelings, and understanding them -- *not* repressing them -- and then choosing not to act on them strikes me as a very loving action towars the health of the relationship.

Exactly. Everyone feels things for others. It's the choices you make about those feelings that matter. Including the choices you make about your responses to porn (to bring this back to the topic).

 

[Irvine511]

I think that you'll find the happily married people here have much more realistic expectations from their marriage than you may think. It's the people who set up all kinds of "rules" that end up miserable. Adaptation is a key component of a happy, functioning, growing marriage.

yes, that's precisely what i was hoping to get at.

 

[U2DMfan]

If it wasn't pornography, it would be a vivid imagination.

Oh sure, like any person with common sense, I say regulate it, keep it away from impressionable kids, but make it avaliable to consenting adults. Do what you have to do, otherwise.

What did people do before motion pictures and film to releive their sexual tensions? I guess they used their imagination.

Oh, I guess morally speaking it's a form of lust.

But physically speaking, and I do mean purely physical, if you beleive as I do that God created us and our hormones, that this is a purely natural thing to do?

I mean,if the sin is the act of lust itself, then what difference does it make if it's on film, or if it's an imagination?

I'd have to think that most men not looking at porn, have an active imagination. Not merely because I think we are creatures of lust, which we probably are, but merely I think it's part of our physicality. It's a natural process. Contolling it is probably the test of humanity. Yanking one out doesn't seem to be anything other than meeting a physical need, what difference does it make if it's done imagining a woman or looking at one on film?

And if you don't masturbate, and you just view, is it still a sin?
If you view a pornographic tape and take no sexual pleasure or lust from it, then it's hardly the act of viewing a tape itself is it?
So it's has to be the lust itself. The viweing of X,Y or Z whether it's in your head or on tape is irrelevant to the morality argument.

Easy target, that's all it is. Are you going to try and convince me that the guy next door who has been married to the same woman for 30 years doesn't have lustful thoughts about other women even if he's never viewed a porno or magazine his whole life?
I am going to say I don't think it's physically possible.
I wouldnt say he ever acted anything out, I would say he thought about it, so what is the difference between that and looking at a porno tape? None, morally.

I think your physical needs like water and food, and the occasional morning wood are just that.
Purely physical. Intelligent design included hormones, methinks.

 

[Irvine511]

good question -- if we are meant to control and suppress lust, and if lust is a sin, just why do we have morning wood pretty much every morning?

 

[80sU2isBest]

good question -- if we are meant to control and suppress lust, and if lust is a sin, just why do we have morning wood pretty much every morning?

Biology 101.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It's the people who set up all kinds of "rules" that end up miserable.

By making such a blanket statement, you are doing exactly what you accused me of:

"This is true, but you don't present your views on it as absolutes, which he does."

Martha, you have proven my earlier point, that most people treat their own beliefs as absolute truth, not just me.

 

[Irvine511]

Biology 101.

didn't God create biology?

seems like he keeps setting us up to fail.