This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Are married couples allowed to watch porn in Christianity?

#21OzymandiasIVPosted 11/24/2012 11:46:52 AM
Of course you can take everything too far. That's obvious. But a strict no-porn policy is too far in the opposite drection. It's all about balance. Porn is fine as long as it doesn't become an addiction. Masturbation, which porn is an aid for, has a lot of health benefits. It's a natural urge to keep in check just like all natural urges, but suppressing it to such an extent in this topic is just ridiculous. It's about avoidance rather than learning control.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#22Hustle KongPosted 11/24/2012 12:07:38 PM
"But a strict no-porn policy is too far in the opposite drection."

How can you say that with a straight face?

"It's a natural urge to keep in check just like all natural urges, but suppressing it to such an extent in this topic is just ridiculous"

"Porn" isn't a natural urge. You're mistaking your apparent sexual fetish for everyone else's. some people have functioning libidos that do not require aids.

That would be like me saying that choking is something that everyone should learn to control rather than avoid, and would say a lot more about my sexual predilections than anything else.

No one is talking about the ethics of masturbation here.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#23Julian_CaesarPosted 11/24/2012 4:00:43 PM
From: OzymandiasIV | #016
Too many religious people put sex on a pedestal (at least when discussing it publicly). Sex can be a very intimate, personal act between loving people, but it can also be a fun activity that doesn't have to perpetually carry such huge emotional baggage.


Well that's the modern view, yes. But the reason many religions put it on a "pedestal" is because they ascribe an emotional/spiritual significance to the act that cannot be separated from the physical. C.S. Lewis made this particular argument many times, that Paul's comments on "becoming one flesh" with a woman applied to any woman you had sex with. In other words, "casual sex" is an oxymoron by definition. And therefore, the only way to have "unattached sex" is to have an "unattached" body and soul, which is pretty unhealthy from a religious view.

Of course, the problem is that most "religious" people who take that view don't understand WHY they have that view, and it leads to all sorts of hypocrisy and nonsense.

From: anavriN | #017
Incidentally, I just realized once again how almost everything becomes a euphemism for sex if you look hard enough. I had to resist placing "no pun intended" after a few sentences.


teehee
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#24anavriNPosted 11/26/2012 1:23:43 AM(edited)
Hustle Kong posted...
I have occasional bouts of anger and I think society is better off if I keep that natural urge in check.

It might not damn me to hell, but there are definite reasons to not just go all chaotic neutral on everybody's asses with my "urges".


I'm not sure if this is a response to me, but I never meant to say that we should "go all chaotic neutral" on other people with my urges.

What I mean to say is that having sexual urges is morally neutral. There's nothing morally right or wrong with feeling to urge to **** someone. It is only when these urges are persistently harbored in thoughts (voluntary thoughts, not natural urges that arise autonomously) or when these urges/thoughts are translated into action that morality comes into play.

But Christianity adheres to Thoughtcrime: even the mere thought of mutually consensual sex in missionary position with anyone other than a married partner is enough to damn you for all eternity. It's no wonder that Christianity has contributed massively to sexual anxiety among humans.* This is my major gripe against Christian sexual morality: it invites to self-loathing for matters you have zero control over, instead of inviting you to build esteem over the actual choices you make.

(* Then again, any cultural form tries to push people into conformity, whether deliberately or not. Whether values tell you to stay a virgin until marriage, or whether to lose it as soon as you hit puberty; it all amounts to the same: anxiety about whether or not your sexual life is acceptable by contemporary standards.)


And yes, sex and violence are two different things. Same with overeating. But they are all natural inclinations that need self-discipline.


But overeating is different in one important aspect: it is something that an individual does to him/herself. When we judge sexual acts as either wrong or right, we consider an exchange between two (or more) individuals. And I think that it is logically evident that morality has everything to do with what happens between people.
Of course we can argue from pragmatic reasons that a person shouldn't overeat, but I'm sure this discussion is mostly about ethics, not pragmatism.


And just like I avoid hamburgers, I'm sure as hell going to avoid hamburger sex.


And I don't blame you. My first three sexual partners were girls I had a relationship with and/or was in love with. After that, I had some one-night stands and as of the moment, I'm in a ****-buddy agreement. Sexual as an expression of love is better by a thousand degrees than sex as a 'mere' release of biological urges.
But my preference for making love as opposed to ****ing is mostly a matter of aesthetics than morality. Beyond the - almost obvious - prerequisites as mutual consent (given by people reasonably able to do so) and taking precautions for physical and emotional safety, pretty much anything goes.
---
§ 157. Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel: mit ihm kommt man gut über manche böse Nacht hinweg.
#25anavriNPosted 11/26/2012 12:46:55 AM
Finally,

Hustle Kong posted...
"Porn" isn't a natural urge. You're mistaking your apparent sexual fetish for everyone else's. some people have functioning libidos that do not require aids.


Two things.
First, it's definitely a natural urge to get sexual arousal from watching other people engaged in sexual acts.
Second, only those who have a serious addiction to pornography actually become dependent on porn for sexual functioning.
---
§ 157. Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel: mit ihm kommt man gut über manche böse Nacht hinweg.
#26OzymandiasIVPosted 11/26/2012 1:07:00 AM
From: Hustle Kong | Posted: 11/24/2012 2:07:38 PM | #022
some people have functioning libidos that do not require aids.


I love porn. I don't need it. I can handle myself without porn, and I can copulate with my wife without porn, and without viagra or similar drugs or any other aids or costumes or fetishes. Just because I use porn doesn't mean I need it, so you can drop the moral high ground attitude. It's incredibly moronic to think that enjoying porn means one requires porn to function sexually (and if you honestly weren't saying that, your post was very poorly worded).

"But a strict no-porn policy is too far in the opposite drection."

How can you say that with a straight face?


Pretty easily. Can you justify a strict no-porn policy? I'd love to see it. I really don't know what's so bewildering about saying porn isn't inherently evil and shouldn't necessarily be avoided at all times.

That would be like me saying that choking is something that everyone should learn to control rather than avoid


Not really. I'm talking about doing something you enjoy because you enjoy it, and not letting someone else tell you it's inherently wrong and that you're wrong for doing it. If someone simply doesn't like porn (or masturbation), fine, but most people do. No one should learn to control choking if they don't have a natural urge for it, and most people simply don't. If they do, then yeah, they do need to learn to control, because that can get pretty dangerous. If someone tried to impose a strict no-choking policy, I'd say the same thing. If you want to do it, you should be allowed to. Don't avoid it if you want to do it, but make sure you learn how to do it safely.

And this is, of course, an act done between mutually consenting adults. I hope you don't come up with any violent urges BS (and I hope I didn't mistake what you meant by choking), because violence is not a mutually consenting act between all participants (except for certain sports). I didn't think I had to point this kind of thing out, but there you go.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#27darklaoPosted 11/26/2012 3:58:04 AM
Okay but what if they make some porn, then the wife dies. Can the dude still watch it between her death and his next marriage and/or death, or would that be a no-no?
---
[agitprop]
come and play come and play forget about the movement
#28Hustle KongPosted 11/26/2012 5:05:20 AM(edited)
""But a strict no-porn policy is too far in the opposite drection."

How can you say that with a straight face?


Pretty easily. Can you justify a strict no-porn policy? I'd love to see it. I really don't know what's so bewildering about saying porn isn't inherently evil and shouldn't necessarily be avoided at all times."

If someone thinks that watching people who are not them have sex is wrong, then a strict no-porn policy is justified. If someone is sexually aroused by voyeurism, then finding ways in which to indulge that fetish that involves the full consent of all parties involved (whether it be pornography or watching real couples do it) is justified.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#29OzymandiasIVPosted 11/26/2012 9:36:43 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#30OzymandiasIVPosted 11/26/2012 9:38:27 AM
From: Hustle Kong | Posted: 11/26/2012 7:05:20 AM | #028
If someone thinks that watching people who are not them have sex is wrong, then a strict no-porn policy is justified. If someone is sexually aroused by voyeurism, then finding ways in which to indulge that fetish that involves the full consent of all parties involved (whether it be pornography or watching real couples do it) is justified.


You seem to have forgotten the part where I'm talking about fellow Christians and Christian leaders (or any other members of another religion doing the same) passing down edicts saying no one should watch porn. I am quite obviously not talking about couples that have come to the decision themselves to not view porn and adhere to their own policy of their own volition.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.