Opinion Time: How much porn is too much

holyguacamole79

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone.

And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me.

In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box---------------
No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion.

I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------

You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

--------------------------
No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

---------------------

I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

ashley8918

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone.

And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me.

In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box---------------
No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion.

I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------

You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

--------------------------
No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

---------------------

I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

------------------------

So, I should act guilty of what? Snarkiness? Okay, guilty!

I find it complete bullshit that having an opinion on a belief that was shared, and stating said opinion means that I'm "attacking" anyone.

littlemushroom

@ashley8918 Your points are full of logical fallacies. Mainly the Nirvana fallacy. Just because not looking at naked people on TV doesn't guarantee a person will never have lustful thoughts does not make it illogical. A solution does not have to be 100% effective to be valid. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you smoke because even nonsmokers get lung cancer. Since it could happen anyway, don't bother not smoking as a way to avoid lung cancer.

Also false analogy because seeing an attractive clothed person on the street is in no way the same as seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations.

There are more, but I still have to get ready for work. What fallacies do you see in @holyguacamole79‌ position?

jenna8984

I'm glad we got into the facts that looking at someone other than your spouse lustfully is the sin. I know nothing about Christian beliefs (despite going to a Catholic school for 5 years), so three pages again when I read that he doesn't want to be tempted to sin, I really thought masterbating was the sin.

 

ashley8918

littlemushroom said:

@ashley8918 Your points are full of logical fallacies. Mainly the Nirvana fallacy. Just because not looking at naked people on TV doesn't guarantee a person will never have lustful thoughts does not make it illogical. A solution does not have to be 100% effective to be valid. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you smoke because even nonsmokers get lung cancer. Since it could happen anyway, don't bother not smoking as a way to avoid lung cancer.

Also false analogy because seeing an attractive clothed person on the street is in no way the same as seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations.

There are more, but I still have to get ready for work. What fallacies do you see in @holyguacamole79‌ position?

-----------------
OMG ATTACK! ATTACK! YOU ARE ATTACKING ME FOR SAYING MY POINTS ARE ILLOGICAL!
(See how ridiculous that is?)

But, I never made any determination of the logical validity of the action, itself. If not looking at naked people on TV truly causes a person to have a lustful thought (which for me, isn't always the case, but that's me) and they want to not look at naked people, fine. I don't get it, but that's not my problem.

In this thread, it was stated that a person would choose not to see a naked person on TV in order to avoid any situation in which they might have a sinful thought. This doesn't make sense to me because, seeing naked people on TV is not the only situation that might elicit a sinful thought. So, my point was never "not looking at naked people on TV is not logical". It was that the possible reasoning for that belief, posed by another poster contained flawed logic.

In re: false analogies: Are you telling me that I can't possibly feel the same lust for a naked person, that I feel for a sexy clothes person? Because I absolutely can.

I see no logical fallacies in Guac's position, because I don't know it. She didn't share it here, which is totally fine.

holyguacamole79

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone.

And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me.

In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box---------------
No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion.

I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------

You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

--------------------------
No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

---------------------

I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

------------------------

So, I should act guilty of what? Snarkiness? Okay, guilty!

I find it complete bullshit that having an opinion on a belief that was shared, and stating said opinion means that I'm "attacking" anyone.

I'm totally fine with snark on many aspects. I never claimed those were attacks. And if it were just me commenting on it, then you can continue your claim that its "just an opinion". In my religious faith, lust is a grave sin. In our faith, we also believe that marriage is a partnership where we are leading each other closer to God and away from sin. Snark on burlap. Snark on the Bachelor. When you snark on something that my husband does voluntarily to prevemy himself from sinning (an act that I even said that I don't think it's necessary for others) .... them, don't be surprised when others come to my defense. This is something sacred to us and a part of a deeply held religious belief.

ashley8918

jenna8984 said:

I'm glad we got into the facts that looking at someone other than your spouse lustfully is the sin. I know nothing about Christian beliefs (despite going to a Catholic school for 5 years), so three pages again when I read that he doesn't want to be tempted to sin, I really thought masterbating was the sin.

 

-------------
I also didn't realize this, which is why I asked "tempted to do what?". See, good discussion!

holyguacamole79

jenna8984 said:

I'm glad we got into the facts that looking at someone other than your spouse lustfully is the sin. I know nothing about Christian beliefs (despite going to a Catholic school for 5 years), so three pages again when I read that he doesn't want to be tempted to sin, I really thought masterbating was the sin.

 

I can't speak for other Christian faith traditions. In Catholicism, masturbating is a sin.

melbenso

jdluvr06 said:

melbenso said:

larrygaga said:

Would you be just as upset if he was staying up late to watch tv or read?

That wouldn't make me happy either.  But the porn makes it more troubling, in large part because he wasn't telling me about it.  Makes me wonder why he feels he had to be so secretive. 

Playing devils advocate here. Maybe he wasn't really being secretive about it. There is a chance he didn't find it important enough to mention. Or maybe he is a little embarrassed. There could be any number of reasons or no reason at all. 

Also quick question. Why would it bother you if he was staying up late to read or watch tv? Just curious. 

It would bother me if his staying up late to watch TV or read interfered with the time he spends with me (or kept me up - I have to get up really early for work and I'm a light sleeper).  His work schedule is flexible.  He has to be there for 8 hours a day any time between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.  The later he stays up, the later he gets up to go to work, thus the later he comes home.  Occasionally, he's not home until 7:30 or so, and by the time dinner is prepared and we actually get to sit down together, we only end up having an hour or so to spend together before I have to go to bed.  Having that happen on a regular basis is not ok with me and he knows it.  He tried to be home by 6:30 on nights he is cooking dinner, but it doesn't always work out that way.

ashley8918

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone.

And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me.

In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box---------------
No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion.

I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------

You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

--------------------------
No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

---------------------

I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

------------------------

So, I should act guilty of what? Snarkiness? Okay, guilty!

I find it complete bullshit that having an opinion on a belief that was shared, and stating said opinion means that I'm "attacking" anyone.

I'm totally fine with snark on many aspects. I never claimed those were attacks. And if it were just me commenting on it, then you can continue your claim that its "just an opinion". In my religious faith, lust is a grave sin. In our faith, we also believe that marriage is a partnership where we are leading each other closer to God and away from sin. Snark on burlap. Snark on the Bachelor. When you snark on something that my husband does voluntarily to prevemy himself from sinning (an act that I even said that I don't think it's necessary for others) .... them, don't be surprised when others come to my defense. This is something sacred to us and a part of a deeply held religious belief.

-----------
Good for you? Please do not read any condescension into that. What I mean is, those are your beliefs. You're allowed to have those believes. Good for you but in no way does that mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on said beliefs. Just because you don't like my snarky comment about those beliefs doesn't make my opinion not "just an opinion".

Please disregard any weird spelling/grammar stuff; Siri is typing for me. Siri is always fucking my shit up.

lurkergirl

holyguacamole79 said:

jenna8984 said:

I'm glad we got into the facts that looking at someone other than your spouse lustfully is the sin. I know nothing about Christian beliefs (despite going to a Catholic school for 5 years), so three pages again when I read that he doesn't want to be tempted to sin, I really thought masterbating was the sin.

 

I can't speak for other Christian faith traditions. In Catholicism, masturbating is a sin.

____________________________

This is catholic doctrine. I grew up non denominational church of Christ, and we followed the Bible only without any man made doctrine which is a component of most denominations. I can tell you that Bible itself never actually addresses self-love.

ashley8918

lurkergirl said:

holyguacamole79 said:

jenna8984 said:

I'm glad we got into the facts that looking at someone other than your spouse lustfully is the sin. I know nothing about Christian beliefs (despite going to a Catholic school for 5 years), so three pages again when I read that he doesn't want to be tempted to sin, I really thought masterbating was the sin.

 

I can't speak for other Christian faith traditions. In Catholicism, masturbating is a sin.

____________________________

This is catholic doctrine. I grew up non denominational church of Christ, and we followed the Bible only without any man made doctrine which is a component of most denominations. I can tell you that Bible itself never actually addresses self-love.

---------------

This is always been my understanding on the matter as well. However I wasn't raised Catholic, or Christian for that matter, so I can't really speak to it with any certainty.

ETAalso, this is really interesting. I never understood the difference between nondenominational versus some of the other denominations.

holyguacamole79

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone.

And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me.

In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box---------------
No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion.

I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------

You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

--------------------------
No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

---------------------

I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

------------------------

So, I should act guilty of what? Snarkiness? Okay, guilty!

I find it complete bullshit that having an opinion on a belief that was shared, and stating said opinion means that I'm "attacking" anyone.

I'm totally fine with snark on many aspects. I never claimed those were attacks. And if it were just me commenting on it, then you can continue your claim that its "just an opinion". In my religious faith, lust is a grave sin. In our faith, we also believe that marriage is a partnership where we are leading each other closer to God and away from sin. Snark on burlap. Snark on the Bachelor. When you snark on something that my husband does voluntarily to prevemy himself from sinning (an act that I even said that I don't think it's necessary for others) .... them, don't be surprised when others come to my defense. This is something sacred to us and a part of a deeply held religious belief.

-----------
Good for you? Please do not read any condescension into that. What I mean is, those are your beliefs. You're allowed to have those believes. Good for you but in no way does that mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on said beliefs. Just because you don't like my snarky comment about those beliefs doesn't make my opinion not "just an opinion".

Please disregard any weird spelling/grammar stuff; Siri is typing for me. Siri is always fucking my shit up.

Thanks for that clarification.

ashley8918

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ashley8918 said:

STARMOON44 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone.

And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me.

In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box---------------
No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion.

I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------

You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

--------------------------
No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

---------------------

I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

------------------------

So, I should act guilty of what? Snarkiness? Okay, guilty!

I find it complete bullshit that having an opinion on a belief that was shared, and stating said opinion means that I'm "attacking" anyone.

I'm totally fine with snark on many aspects. I never claimed those were attacks. And if it were just me commenting on it, then you can continue your claim that its "just an opinion". In my religious faith, lust is a grave sin. In our faith, we also believe that marriage is a partnership where we are leading each other closer to God and away from sin. Snark on burlap. Snark on the Bachelor. When you snark on something that my husband does voluntarily to prevemy himself from sinning (an act that I even said that I don't think it's necessary for others) .... them, don't be surprised when others come to my defense. This is something sacred to us and a part of a deeply held religious belief.

-----------
Good for you? Please do not read any condescension into that. What I mean is, those are your beliefs. You're allowed to have those believes. Good for you but in no way does that mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on said beliefs. Just because you don't like my snarky comment about those beliefs doesn't make my opinion not "just an opinion".

Please disregard any weird spelling/grammar stuff; Siri is typing for me. Siri is always fucking my shit up.

Thanks for that clarification.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but you're welcome.

holyguacamole79

ashley8918 said:

I'm not really understanding the level of animosity directed towards @holyguacamole79‌ on this thread. She hasn't been demanding people justify why they think porn is okay or suggesting what she and her husband do should be the route for everyone. And I really don't understand this omg it's illogical argument at all. He seemingly prefers to avoid lustful thoughts. For him, nakedness on screen triggers those thoughts. So he chooses to avoid those images. Seems perfectly logical to me. The fact that you might have lustful thoughts looking at a fully clothed Mila Kunis, well, ok, but I don't really think it's fair to a) assume he does or b) insist that seeing real live people walking around is the same as on tv. I also must have missed the rule that only logical decisions are ok. I do all kinds of things that seem illogical but just feel right to me. In general I find it pretty disrespectful to go after people who are just sharing what works for them in their relationships. Lots of people arrange their sex lives in ways I wouldn't want to be a part of, so I don't sex with those people and it's fine.

---------------Hi, I'm a box--------------- No animosity here. She chose to post something about her husband, that caused me to say "but why?". Someone else posed a potential reason for that belief. My pointing out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning and the discussion that ensued constitutes neither an attack, nor a "going after" of any sort. It constituted a discussion. I, personally, don't understand believing in something that doesn't make sense (or provides a logical fallacy) and am pretty sure I am free to say so and discuss with another willing participant to the discussion.

------------------ You said "but why" and called my husband's ways childish. It may not necessarily constitute am attack, but I'm sure you can see why it put me on the defensive. I'm not going to continue in discussions of that nature. And when I said that out of respect for him and his privacy, I would rather explain that to anyone who was interested via PM. As of yet, you have not accepted that invitation. So I'm not convinced that you are actually interested in the deeper why. You just want to mock it and debate it.

-------------------------- No one is forcing you to continue in that discussion. But someone else chose to, and I don't see anything wrong with discussing something that someone posted on a message board, with or without that someone's continued participation.

--------------------- I just find it complete bullshit that you're acting all innocent after this. You "just can't" with what is a temptation to one person when I offered a concise answer to your "but why?".

------------------------ So, I should act guilty of what? Snarkiness? Okay, guilty! I find it complete bullshit that having an opinion on a belief that was shared, and stating said opinion means that I'm "attacking" anyone.

I'm totally fine with snark on many aspects. I never claimed those were attacks. And if it were just me commenting on it, then you can continue your claim that its "just an opinion". In my religious faith, lust is a grave sin. In our faith, we also believe that marriage is a partnership where we are leading each other closer to God and away from sin. Snark on burlap. Snark on the Bachelor. When you snark on something that my husband does voluntarily to prevemy himself from sinning (an act that I even said that I don't think it's necessary for others) .... them, don't be surprised when others come to my defense. This is something sacred to us and a part of a deeply held religious belief.

----------- Good for you? Please do not read any condescension into that. What I mean is, those are your beliefs. You're allowed to have those believes. Good for you but in no way does that mean that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on said beliefs. Just because you don't like my snarky comment about those beliefs doesn't make my opinion not "just an opinion". Please disregard any weird spelling/grammar stuff; Siri is typing for me. Siri is always fucking my shit up.

Thanks for that clarification.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but you're welcome.

No - it was genuine.

ashley8918

ashley8918 said:

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but you're welcome.

No - it was genuine.

Good, so was my "you're welcome".

ashley8918

Holy fucking quote tree! That thing is a nightmare on mobile.

holyguacamole79

ashley8918 said:

Holy fucking quote tree! That thing is a nightmare on mobile.

It's not exactly pretty on my laptop

theartistformerlyknownas

Why the hell did you quote that whole damn thing then?? Holy shit. I think I got carpal tunnel in my thumb from swiping through that.

ashley8918

lolo883 said:

Why the hell did you quote that whole damn thing then?? Holy shit. I think I got carpal tunnel in my thumb from swiping through that.

I don't know how to truncate a quote on mobile, I always screw it up. I AM A FAILURE! I'M SORRY!

ETA: LOOK! I fixed it! Forgive me!

littlemushroom

ashley8918 said:

littlemushroom said:

@ashley8918 Your points are full of logical fallacies. Mainly the Nirvana fallacy. Just because not looking at naked people on TV doesn't guarantee a person will never have lustful thoughts does not make it illogical. A solution does not have to be 100% effective to be valid. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you smoke because even nonsmokers get lung cancer. Since it could happen anyway, don't bother not smoking as a way to avoid lung cancer.

Also false analogy because seeing an attractive clothed person on the street is in no way the same as seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations.

There are more, but I still have to get ready for work. What fallacies do you see in @holyguacamole79‌ position?

-----------------
OMG ATTACK! ATTACK! YOU ARE ATTACKING ME FOR SAYING MY POINTS ARE ILLOGICAL!
(See how ridiculous that is?)

But, I never made any determination of the logical validity of the action, itself. If not looking at naked people on TV truly causes a person to have a lustful thought (which for me, isn't always the case, but that's me) and they want to not look at naked people, fine. I don't get it, but that's not my problem.

In this thread, it was stated that a person would choose not to see a naked person on TV in order to avoid any situation in which they might have a sinful thought. This doesn't make sense to me because, seeing naked people on TV is not the only situation that might elicit a sinful thought. So, my point was never "not looking at naked people on TV is not logical". It was that the possible reasoning for that belief, posed by another poster contained flawed logic.

In re: false analogies: Are you telling me that I can't possibly feel the same lust for a naked person, that I feel for a sexy clothes person? Because I absolutely can.

I see no logical fallacies in Guac's position, because I don't know it. She didn't share it here, which is totally fine.

I don't think the reasoning was not looking at naked people on TV was the way to avoid ANY situation of lustful thoughts. It was... As a Christian, I should do what I can to avoid temptation of lustful thoughts. Seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations on TV can be a temptation of lustful thoughts. Therefore, I will avoid looking at naked people on TV. Perfectly sound reasoning.

I agree with you that there would be flawed internal reasoning that if the argument was not seeing things on TV means being able to avoid any situation of temptation of lustful thoughts. I just never saw anything to suggest that was the end goal of the behavior. So in the end, we were talking about different things.

Re: false analogy. Saying or implying, in general, that seeing an attractive clothed person has the same probability of eliciting lustful thoughts as seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations is not a sound argument. Now, in a specific situation involving you and Mila Kunis, it could be true. But that in itself is not an argument. That is simply a fact for you. Anecdotal evidence of such a specific nature is irrelevant to what was being discussed as I took it (see above). However, it does matter if you thought the point of avoiding the behavior was to avoid ANY lustful thoughts. Then the fact lustful thoughts can come up in other situations is relevant. Again, we were discussing different things, as I agree with you if the premise was the way you took it.

theartistformerlyknownas

I recognize that I am irrationally angry about that quote tree. I haven't had any coffee yet.

ashley8918

littlemushroom said:

@ashley8918 Your points are full of logical fallacies. Mainly the Nirvana fallacy. Just because not looking at naked people on TV doesn't guarantee a person will never have lustful thoughts does not make it illogical. A solution does not have to be 100% effective to be valid. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you smoke because even nonsmokers get lung cancer. Since it could happen anyway, don't bother not smoking as a way to avoid lung cancer. Also false analogy because seeing an attractive clothed person on the street is in no way the same as seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations. There are more, but I still have to get ready for work. What fallacies do you see in @holyguacamole79‌ position?

----------------- OMG ATTACK! ATTACK! YOU ARE ATTACKING ME FOR SAYING MY POINTS ARE ILLOGICAL! (See how ridiculous that is?) But, I never made any determination of the logical validity of the action, itself. If not looking at naked people on TV truly causes a person to have a lustful thought (which for me, isn't always the case, but that's me) and they want to not look at naked people, fine. I don't get it, but that's not my problem. In this thread, it was stated that a person would choose not to see a naked person on TV in order to avoid any situation in which they might have a sinful thought. This doesn't make sense to me because, seeing naked people on TV is not the only situation that might elicit a sinful thought. So, my point was never "not looking at naked people on TV is not logical". It was that the possible reasoning for that belief, posed by another poster contained flawed logic. In re: false analogies: Are you telling me that I can't possibly feel the same lust for a naked person, that I feel for a sexy clothes person? Because I absolutely can. I see no logical fallacies in Guac's position, because I don't know it. She didn't share it here, which is totally fine.

I don't think the reasoning was not looking at naked people on TV was the way to avoid ANY situation of lustful thoughts. It was... As a Christian, I should do what I can to avoid temptation of lustful thoughts. Seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations on TV can be a temptation of lustful thoughts. Therefore, I will avoid looking at naked people on TV. Perfectly sound reasoning. I agree with you that there would be flawed internal reasoning that if the argument was not seeing things on TV means being able to avoid any situation of temptation of lustful thoughts. I just never saw anything to suggest that was the end goal of the behavior. So in the end, we were talking about different things. Re: false analogy. Saying or implying, in general, that seeing an attractive clothed person has the same probability of eliciting lustful thoughts as seeing naked people engaged in sexual situations is not a sound argument. Now, in a specific situation involving you and Mila Kunis, it could be true. But that in itself is not an argument. That is simply a fact for you. Anecdotal evidence of such a specific nature is irrelevant to what was being discussed as I took it (see above). However, it does matter if you thought the point of avoiding the behavior was to avoid ANY lustful thoughts. Then the fact lustful thoughts can come up in other situations is relevant. Again, we were discussing different things, as I agree with you if the premise was the way you took it.

See, I wasn't arguing probabilities, per say, though. I was arguing possibilities, as that is how a previous poster posed it. Her ex (I think?) wanted to avoid the possibility of having certain thoughts by not looking at naked people on TV. Okay, that's fine. But isn't it possible to have those exact same thoughts in other situations? Sure is!

The bolded: Yes, this is exactly it. This is the way I took it (based on a comment that I would totally go back and find if I wasn't pretending to work).

holyguacamole79

I can't lie - a good looking man in a suit turns me on.  Barney Stinson effect, perhaps?

Avoiding porn or closing one's eyes during a sex scene in a movie are easily avoidable situaions.  But when I was working on a client site that involved men in suits daily, that was something that I could not easily avoid (without losing my job).  It didnt' get to the point where I was having fantasies during a meeting, but there were times where I had to use Stuart Smalley-esque self talk to say "Yes, that guy looks damn fine in that suit.  Get back to your spreadsheets."  Sometimes it takes simple self-talk like that.  I have to do it when I find myself having irrational thoughts due to depression.  Take a step back, think it through, and condition your mind to recognize it.  Cognitive therapy FTW.

beethery

Omfg. I didn't sleep last night, I get on the computer and 35 replies. Fuck's sake.

I'm not taking either side in this, though there have been some SERIOUS eyerolls at shit that I'm not into while I read this, but we all know it's going to come down to 'Have a good Tuesday* Wednesday' at least 3 times, and we've already seen 'agree to disagree' a bunch. There's no point in running in this circle much longer.

It's not worth dragging it out, trust me.

*I don't even know what day it is anymore.

melbenso

@beethery 81 replies for me when I came on this morning.  And another 10 or so since then. 

I haven't weighed in on the religion-porn-etc. issue and wasn't really planning on it, except to say this: people have different values and different relationships. If you find someone who shares your values - whatever they are - and you want to make a life with them, good for you.  Not my place to judge as long as those values aren't hurting other people, even if I disagree with your values or even your ideas. 

I'm sorry that my thread caused consternation for some people.  Thanks again for the advice, opinions, and insight.  It really was helpful.

ETA - Wow - those were some long quote trees.  They made my eyes hurt, even on a regular computer screen.  :-)

ashley8918

beethery said:

Omfg. I didn't sleep last night, I get on the computer and 35 replies. Fuck's sake.

I'm not taking either side in this, though there have been some SERIOUS eyerolls at shit that I'm not into while I read this, but we all know it's going to come down to 'Have a good Tuesday* Wednesday' at least 3 times, and we've already seen 'agree to disagree' a bunch. There's no point in running in this circle much longer.

It's not worth dragging it out, trust me.

*I don't even know what day it is anymore.

Meh. It's been an interesting discussion for me, so i don't really see it as dragging anything out.

P.S. I slept exactly 1.5 hours, so I feel you on that. Now, I have to do work shit. KILL ME.

theartistformerlyknownas

ashley8918 said:

See, I wasn't arguing probabilities, per say, though. I was arguing possibilities, as that is how a previous poster posed it. Her ex (I think?) wanted to avoid the possibility of having certain thoughts by not looking at naked people on TV. Okay, that's fine. But isn't it possible to have those exact same thoughts in other situations? Sure is!

Possible, sure. But not for everyone. Like I mentioned with the drinking triggers - H has a friend who refuses to step foot into a bar, because he'll be tempted to drink, and he personally chooses to avoid that temptation. H doesn't have that particular issue, and has no problem going to bars, but just doesn't drink things that resemble alcohol. He has another friend though who loves ordering virgin bloody marys and even the occasional NA beer. 

I would relate that to some people thinking just going to the strip club is a no-no. Other people say sure, look but just don't touch. Still other people think "as long as we're not having sex, I can touch all I want." This convo just tells me that Mila Kunis in a burka is not Holy's H's particular brand of lustful temptation. But if he were to see something on the street that made his undies go boing, he would likely avert his eyes as best he could.

As long as your particular threshold of what's allowable versus what's bordering on your own personal definition of a "relationship sin" aligns with your partner's, it doesn't matter one whit what the rest of the world thinks about it.

And now I want a bloody mary and a big meat stick. Let your dirty minds run with that one.

ashley8918

lolo883 said:

ashley8918 said:

See, I wasn't arguing probabilities, per say, though. I was arguing possibilities, as that is how a previous poster posed it. Her ex (I think?) wanted to avoid the possibility of having certain thoughts by not looking at naked people on TV. Okay, that's fine. But isn't it possible to have those exact same thoughts in other situations? Sure is!

Possible, sure. But not for everyone. Like I mentioned with the drinking triggers - H has a friend who refuses to step foot into a bar, because he'll be tempted to drink, and he personally chooses to avoid that temptation. H doesn't have that particular issue, and has no problem going to bars, but just doesn't drink things that resemble alcohol. He has another friend though who loves ordering virgin bloody marys and even the occasional NA beer. 

I would relate that to some people thinking just going to the strip club is a no-no. Other people say sure, look but just don't touch. Still other people think "as long as we're not having sex, I can touch all I want." This convo just tells me that Mila Kunis in a burka is not Holy's H's particular brand of lustful temptation. But if he were to see something on the street that made his undies go boing, he would likely avert his eyes as best he could.

As long as your particular threshold of what's allowable versus what's bordering on your own personal definition of a "relationship sin" aligns with your partner's, it doesn't matter one whit what the rest of the world thinks about it.

And now I want a bloody mary and a big meat stick. Let your dirty minds run with that one.

"Made his undies go boing" I am DYING.

But anywho, yes to all of the above. Sure, it shouldn't matter to them what my opinion is on the matter (though it obviously does). But, that won't stop me from giving my opinion on the matter. Nor is there anything inherently disrespectful or worthy of being referred to as an attack (I realize it wasn't you or the poster who was supposedly attacked who said this) in stating my opinion. So, I'm just going to opine all over this.

Like now. I am of the opinion that bloody marys are an abomination. Why would you ruin perfectly good alcohol with tomato juice, you heathen?! Blech!

VulgarGirl

esstee33 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

To each his own, @ashley8918. If you have a respectful curiosity, you're welcome to ask privately. Or you can mock me for respecting my husband and our faith beliefs. Your call. ETA: and this is mostly in movies, not television. There aren't too many boobies on SportsCenter.

Have you seen NFL cheerleaders? Good lord, they tempt ME to sin.  

This was my first thought when SportsCenter got brought up. Cause dude. Cheerleaders.

I totally have a cheerleader kink and I blame Bring It On. And my high school girlfriend who was a cheerleader. Yay for cheerleaders!