Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Chit Chat
Chit Chat
New Discussion

Opinion Time: How much porn is too much

1246

Re: Opinion Time: How much porn is too much

  • levioosalevioosa member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    huskypuppy14 said:


    levioosa said:


    levioosa said:

    I know that for my ex, he didn't want to look at other women because he felt that it did not honor his partner by looking at other women lustfully (which essentially yes, is a sin in Christianity). To him, reserving sex and intimacy for your partner only was a very personal and important thing. It was similar (although not quite equal) to a level of cheating by looking at someone else in that way. He felt very strongly about the subject.

    I get that not everyone has the same view, and that's okay, just trying to respectfully discuss the reasons behind it. (It's not just "Ahhh! Boobies! What do I do?! How do I function!?!?")

    I mean, I get the idea behind the belief, sort of (even if I do think it's silly). But the bolded doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, I don't lust after every naked dude (or woman) that I see. Conversely, If I saw Mila Kunis on the street, covered from the neck down, I would lust my ladyballs off. Sooo... by this logic, I should avoid glancing at any human other than my spouse/SO ever, lest I accidentally look at them lustfully?



    Ugh, TK! Boxes aren't that hard-------------------------------------

    "Lustfully" means that you are looking at another person with sexual intent (whether you act on it or not) male or female. It's more about not allowing yourself to have those thoughts. Of course we all interact with with attractive individuals. "Normal" Christianity( aka not super fundamentalist) doesn't hold that you can never look at or interact with the opposite sex, or even acknowledge that they are attractive, but it does ask that you be careful in seeing the person first, not just their sex appeal. Sex is reserved for the spouse because it is a sacred commitment.

    Hope that helped explain it a bit. I know that outside of a Christian perspective it can be a little confusing/seemingly pointless. But there's a very logical reason behind it all beyond "boobies and penises are no touchy places!" (Which is probably how most non-Christians see it most of the time) It's actually kind of the opposite of sexism, although I know many people don't agree. If course you get the patriarchal asshats who blame women for making men lust, but that's not the way it's supposed to be. Both men and women have a responsibility to refrain from looking at others lustfully, and in treating each other with respect.


    No, I don't think this is what most non-Christians think.

    image


    Sorry, that was poorly worded. But there is this belief that Christians are sexist prudes among many people. I was exaggerating to get my point across.

    I'm knotting on mobile for the first time and it's getting to me. I don't know how you guys mobile knot all the time.


    image
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    Report Reply
  • levioosalevioosa member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    It's not flawed logic to abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, because they become actions, watch your actions, because they become character."  Why would you put yourself in a position to compromise a moral belief?  

    As an example: We all believe in boundaries with our SOs.  For some of us, it is refusing to look at porn, for others it is sexting, still for others, it is having sex with another person without asking consent.  But why knowingly put yourself in a position where your boundary might be compromised?  Say your boundary is sleeping with someone else without consent, but you start to see someone without telling your partner.  You meet them for drinks (when you know it's not strictly platonic) and get drunk and end up going home and sleeping with them without asking your partner's consent.  The easiest thing to do the first time around would have been to refuse to go out (since you knew you were not acting with platonic intent).  When a guy looks away from nudity, it's not saying that he can't control himself, but it is saying that he refuses to compromise a moral boundary. It's not really all that different.  


    image
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    It's not flawed logic to abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, because they become actions, watch your actions, because they become character."  Why would you put yourself in a position to compromise a moral belief?  

    As an example: We all believe in boundaries with our SOs.  For some of us, it is refusing to look at porn, for others it is sexting, still for others, it is having sex with another person without asking consent.  But why knowingly put yourself in a position where your boundary might be compromised?  Say your boundary is sleeping with someone else without consent, but you start to see someone without telling your partner.  You meet them for drinks (when you know it's not strictly platonic) and get drunk and end up going home and sleeping with them without asking your partner's consent.  The easiest thing to do the first time around would have been to refuse to go out (since you knew you were not acting with platonic intent).  When a guy looks away from nudity, it's not saying that he can't control himself, but it is saying that he refuses to compromise a moral boundary. It's not really all that different.  
    Right. I get what you're trying to say with the bolded, but it's still flawed logic if you try to apply it to my scenario.

    So, having lustful thoughts about someone other than your SO is against your (general you) moral beliefs, right? But someone doesn't have to be naked for you to feel lustfully about them (as in my Mila Kunis example). So, in order to "abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief", you (general you) would have to avoid looking at anyone of your chosen sex, ever.

    This is completely different from your example above. Sleeping with someone without your partner's consent is not something that is likely to result from necessary daily activities (like going out in public, and possibly looking at an exceptionally attractive person). You would have to choose to put yourself in a compromising position (i.e. getting drunk with a person that you know you have sexy, sexy feelings for) in order to be at risk to violate this boundary. Whereas, in order to violate the "no lustful thoughts" boundary, all you would have to do is accidentally glance at a person and have an involuntary thought. 
    Report Reply
  • levioosalevioosa member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    It's not flawed logic to abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, because they become actions, watch your actions, because they become character."  Why would you put yourself in a position to compromise a moral belief?  

    As an example: We all believe in boundaries with our SOs.  For some of us, it is refusing to look at porn, for others it is sexting, still for others, it is having sex with another person without asking consent.  But why knowingly put yourself in a position where your boundary might be compromised?  Say your boundary is sleeping with someone else without consent, but you start to see someone without telling your partner.  You meet them for drinks (when you know it's not strictly platonic) and get drunk and end up going home and sleeping with them without asking your partner's consent.  The easiest thing to do the first time around would have been to refuse to go out (since you knew you were not acting with platonic intent).  When a guy looks away from nudity, it's not saying that he can't control himself, but it is saying that he refuses to compromise a moral boundary. It's not really all that different.  
    Right. I get what you're trying to say with the bolded, but it's still flawed logic if you try to apply it to my scenario.

    So, having lustful thoughts about someone other than your SO is against your (general you) moral beliefs, right? But someone doesn't have to be naked for you to feel lustfully about them (as in my Mila Kunis example). So, in order to "abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief", you (general you) would have to avoid looking at anyone of your chosen sex, ever.

    This is completely different from your example above. Sleeping with someone without your partner's consent is not something that is likely to result from necessary daily activities (like going out in public, and possibly looking at an exceptionally attractive person). You would have to choose to put yourself in a compromising position (i.e. getting drunk with a person that you know you have sexy, sexy feelings for) in order to be at risk to violate this boundary. Whereas, in order to violate the "no lustful thoughts" boundary, all you would have to do is accidentally glance at a person and have an involuntary thought. 
    I don't think you understand what I am saying, but that's okay.  We can agree to disagree.  This is all hypothetical anyways.  I'm not offended or anything.  Although I wouldn't mind discussing it further, I feel like we are going in circles and I don't think either of us is going to sway the other.  It was fun discussing it with you though.  =)


    image
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited January 2015
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    It's not flawed logic to abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, because they become actions, watch your actions, because they become character."  Why would you put yourself in a position to compromise a moral belief?  

    As an example: We all believe in boundaries with our SOs.  For some of us, it is refusing to look at porn, for others it is sexting, still for others, it is having sex with another person without asking consent.  But why knowingly put yourself in a position where your boundary might be compromised?  Say your boundary is sleeping with someone else without consent, but you start to see someone without telling your partner.  You meet them for drinks (when you know it's not strictly platonic) and get drunk and end up going home and sleeping with them without asking your partner's consent.  The easiest thing to do the first time around would have been to refuse to go out (since you knew you were not acting with platonic intent).  When a guy looks away from nudity, it's not saying that he can't control himself, but it is saying that he refuses to compromise a moral boundary. It's not really all that different.  
    Right. I get what you're trying to say with the bolded, but it's still flawed logic if you try to apply it to my scenario.

    So, having lustful thoughts about someone other than your SO is against your (general you) moral beliefs, right? But someone doesn't have to be naked for you to feel lustfully about them (as in my Mila Kunis example). So, in order to "abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief", you (general you) would have to avoid looking at anyone of your chosen sex, ever.

    This is completely different from your example above. Sleeping with someone without your partner's consent is not something that is likely to result from necessary daily activities (like going out in public, and possibly looking at an exceptionally attractive person). You would have to choose to put yourself in a compromising position (i.e. getting drunk with a person that you know you have sexy, sexy feelings for) in order to be at risk to violate this boundary. Whereas, in order to violate the "no lustful thoughts" boundary, all you would have to do is accidentally glance at a person and have an involuntary thought. 
    I don't think you understand what I am saying, but that's okay.  We can agree to disagree.  This is all hypothetical anyways.  I'm not offended or anything.  Although I wouldn't mind discussing it further, I feel like we are going in circles and I don't think either of us is going to sway the other.  It was fun discussing it with you though.  =)
    No, I super understand. You are saying that one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs (because, again, seeing a naked person does not guarantee a lustful thought. Lots of  naked people are straight up gross), so they refuse to look at naked people. Fine. But, they also might have a lustful though seeing a fully clothed, and perfectly demure, stranger. So, by the logic "one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs", this same person should also not look at any fully clothed person, because they might have a lustful thought. That is why it is flawed logic. 

    ETA: The logical fallacy lies in the fact the the broad statement, "one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs", only works with the naked people on tv scenario. It falls apart with the seeing hot people in clothes, in public scenario.
    Report Reply
  • velvethelicoptersvelvethelicopters member
    250 Love Its 100 Comments Name Dropper
    Nude breasts to DF are natural, they're to feed children and nothing shameful.

    It's things like the Buccanner cheerleaders outfits that he finds overly graphic. Those take natural into only for male fun status. It's corruption of nature, and debases women into only sex objects.

    I adore my FMIL for raising her son who respects women always, and FFIL for showing his son that true men of quality behave exactly as FMIL taught. DF is so respectful to my daughters, that's how I knew I could trust him.
    Report Reply
  • levioosalevioosa member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    edited January 2015
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    It's not flawed logic to abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, because they become actions, watch your actions, because they become character."  Why would you put yourself in a position to compromise a moral belief?  

    As an example: We all believe in boundaries with our SOs.  For some of us, it is refusing to look at porn, for others it is sexting, still for others, it is having sex with another person without asking consent.  But why knowingly put yourself in a position where your boundary might be compromised?  Say your boundary is sleeping with someone else without consent, but you start to see someone without telling your partner.  You meet them for drinks (when you know it's not strictly platonic) and get drunk and end up going home and sleeping with them without asking your partner's consent.  The easiest thing to do the first time around would have been to refuse to go out (since you knew you were not acting with platonic intent).  When a guy looks away from nudity, it's not saying that he can't control himself, but it is saying that he refuses to compromise a moral boundary. It's not really all that different.  
    Right. I get what you're trying to say with the bolded, but it's still flawed logic if you try to apply it to my scenario.

    So, having lustful thoughts about someone other than your SO is against your (general you) moral beliefs, right? But someone doesn't have to be naked for you to feel lustfully about them (as in my Mila Kunis example). So, in order to "abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief", you (general you) would have to avoid looking at anyone of your chosen sex, ever.

    This is completely different from your example above. Sleeping with someone without your partner's consent is not something that is likely to result from necessary daily activities (like going out in public, and possibly looking at an exceptionally attractive person). You would have to choose to put yourself in a compromising position (i.e. getting drunk with a person that you know you have sexy, sexy feelings for) in order to be at risk to violate this boundary. Whereas, in order to violate the "no lustful thoughts" boundary, all you would have to do is accidentally glance at a person and have an involuntary thought. 
    I don't think you understand what I am saying, but that's okay.  We can agree to disagree.  This is all hypothetical anyways.  I'm not offended or anything.  Although I wouldn't mind discussing it further, I feel like we are going in circles and I don't think either of us is going to sway the other.  It was fun discussing it with you though.  =)
    No, I super understand. You are saying that one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs (because, again, seeing a naked person does not guarantee a lustful thought. Lots of  naked people are straight up gross), so they refuse to look at naked people. Fine. But, they also might have a lustful though seeing a fully clothed, and perfectly demure, stranger. So, by the logic "one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs", this same person should also not look at any fully clothed person, because they might have a lustful thought. That is why it is flawed logic. 

    ETA: The logical fallacy lies in the fact the the broad statement, "one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs", only works with the naked people on tv scenario. It falls apart with the seeing hot people in clothes, in public scenario.
    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts, so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  


    image
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    levioosa said:
    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts, so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  
    Is this like praying the gay away? (joking, sort of) But really, I don't think that it's all that easy to stop yourself from having certain thoughts, as they can often be .involuntary. I often find myself thinking what bitch my coworker is before mentally slapping myself, because she's really never done anything to warrant being thought of as a bitch. I just don't like her. Sure, this could be a weakness-specific to me, but I don't really think so.

    But, okay, let's say that you could effectively train yourself to not have lustful thoughts about anyone who wasn't your SO. If that were true, looking at a naked person on TV should be no problem - you have trained yourself not to think that way!

    Look, I have no illusions that I will get anyone to believe that their silly beliefs are, in fact, silly. The silliness of said beliefs is an opinion of mine, that not everyone has to share. You are welcome to have your beliefs; I am well aware that I can't convince you not to. My point in this conversation was to understand WHY some people held this particular belief. The reasons that you have given present a logical fallacy, and thus I can't and won't understand the why. Logical fallacy is a fact, not an opinion.
    Report Reply
  • levioosalevioosa member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts, so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  
    Is this like praying the gay away? (joking, sort of) But really, I don't think that it's all that easy to stop yourself from having certain thoughts, as they can often be .involuntary. I often find myself thinking what bitch my coworker is before mentally slapping myself, because she's really never done anything to warrant being thought of as a bitch. I just don't like her. Sure, this could be a weakness-specific to me, but I don't really think so.

    But, okay, let's say that you could effectively train yourself to not have lustful thoughts about anyone who wasn't your SO. If that were true, looking at a naked person on TV should be no problem - you have trained yourself not to think that way!

    Look, I have no illusions that I will get anyone to believe that their silly beliefs are, in fact, silly. The silliness of said beliefs is an opinion of mine, that not everyone has to share. You are welcome to have your beliefs; I am well aware that I can't convince you not to. My point in this conversation was to understand WHY some people held this particular belief. The reasons that you have given present a logical fallacy, and thus I can't and won't understand the why. Logical fallacy is a fact, not an opinion.
    It's not nearly the same, and it's a little offensive to liken the two.  But once again, we agree to disagree.  


    image
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited January 2015
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts, so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  
    Is this like praying the gay away? (joking, sort of) But really, I don't think that it's all that easy to stop yourself from having certain thoughts, as they can often be .involuntary. I often find myself thinking what bitch my coworker is before mentally slapping myself, because she's really never done anything to warrant being thought of as a bitch. I just don't like her. Sure, this could be a weakness-specific to me, but I don't really think so.

    But, okay, let's say that you could effectively train yourself to not have lustful thoughts about anyone who wasn't your SO. If that were true, looking at a naked person on TV should be no problem - you have trained yourself not to think that way!

    Look, I have no illusions that I will get anyone to believe that their silly beliefs are, in fact, silly. The silliness of said beliefs is an opinion of mine, that not everyone has to share. You are welcome to have your beliefs; I am well aware that I can't convince you not to. My point in this conversation was to understand WHY some people held this particular belief. The reasons that you have given present a logical fallacy, and thus I can't and won't understand the why. Logical fallacy is a fact, not an opinion.
    It's not nearly the same, and it's a little offensive to liken the two.  But once again, we agree to disagree.  
    Oh, for fuck's sake. Calm down. How is it offensive to liken training yourself to not dig people of the same sex (via prayer) to training yourself not to have lustful thoughts (via... the power of positive thinking, which is awfully similar to prayer), exactly? 
    Report Reply
  • levioosalevioosa member
    Knottie Warrior 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts, so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  
    Is this like praying the gay away? (joking, sort of) But really, I don't think that it's all that easy to stop yourself from having certain thoughts, as they can often be .involuntary. I often find myself thinking what bitch my coworker is before mentally slapping myself, because she's really never done anything to warrant being thought of as a bitch. I just don't like her. Sure, this could be a weakness-specific to me, but I don't really think so.

    But, okay, let's say that you could effectively train yourself to not have lustful thoughts about anyone who wasn't your SO. If that were true, looking at a naked person on TV should be no problem - you have trained yourself not to think that way!

    Look, I have no illusions that I will get anyone to believe that their silly beliefs are, in fact, silly. The silliness of said beliefs is an opinion of mine, that not everyone has to share. You are welcome to have your beliefs; I am well aware that I can't convince you not to. My point in this conversation was to understand WHY some people held this particular belief. The reasons that you have given present a logical fallacy, and thus I can't and won't understand the why. Logical fallacy is a fact, not an opinion.
    It's not nearly the same, and it's a little offensive to liken the two.  But once again, we agree to disagree.  
    Oh, for fuck's sake. Calm down. How is it offensive to liken training yourself to not dig people of the same sex (via prayer) to training yourself not to have lustful thoughts (via... the power of positive thinking, which is awfully similar to prayer) offensive, exactly? 
    I have tried being respectful this whole conversation, but I'm not even going to respond to the insinuation that stopping yourself from having a negative thought is the same as telling someone that who they are as a person is wrong.  And I don't know what it was about my original post saying it's a little offensive that made it seem like I was apparently flying off the handle, but now I'm done.  


    image
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited January 2015
    levioosa said:


    ashley8918 said:


    levioosa said:


    ashley8918 said:


    levioosa said:


    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts    , so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  



    Is this like praying the gay away?     (joking, sort of) But really, I don't think that it's all that easy to stop yourself from having certain thoughts, as they can often be .involuntary. I often find myself thinking what bitch my coworker is before mentally slapping myself, because she's really never done anything to warrant being thought of as a bitch. I just don't like her. Sure, this could be a weakness-specific to me, but I don't really think so.

    But, okay, let's say that you could effectively train yourself to not have lustful thoughts about anyone who wasn't your SO. If that were true, looking at a naked person on TV should be no problem - you have trained yourself not to think that way!

    Look, I have no illusions that I will get anyone to believe that their silly beliefs are, in fact, silly. The silliness of said beliefs is an opinion of mine, that not everyone has to share. You are welcome to have your beliefs; I am well aware that I can't convince you not to. My point in this conversation was to understand WHY some people held this particular belief. The reasons that you have given present a logical fallacy, and thus I can't and won't understand the why. Logical fallacy is a fact, not an opinion.

    It's not nearly the same, and it's a little offensive to liken the two.  But once again, we agree to disagree.  

    Oh, for fuck's sake. Calm down. How is it offensive to liken training yourself to not dig people of the same sex (via prayer) to training yourself not to have lustful thoughts (via... the power of positive thinking, which is awfully similar to prayer) offensive, exactly? 


    I have tried being respectful this whole conversation, but I'm not even going to respond to the insinuation that stopping yourself from having a negative thought is the same as telling someone that who they are as a person is wrong.  And I don't know what it was about my original post saying it's a little offensive that made it seem like I was apparently flying off the handle, but now I'm done.  

    BOXBOXBOXBOXBOXBOX

    Yes, please continue passive aggressively throwing the word "respectful" around.

    I have no idea what's getting you all upset. How is training yourself not to have an involuntary thought any different than training yourself not to be attracted to members of the same sex (also involuntary)? It's not. There is nothing offensive there. You chose to take offense by reading into things that I was not saying.
    Report Reply
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited June 2015

    Report Reply
  • sophhabobophasophhabobopha member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary Name Dropper
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    ashley8918 said:
    levioosa said:
    Boxes! I wasn't (ah! Sorry! Wasn't! Stupid autocorrect) trying to be condescending, just to respectfully explain a point of view that obviously differs from your own. And it's not flawed logic, but I also see where you are coming from and why it might not make sense. Fwiw I can look at someone attractive and naked without thinking "I totally want to bang them!" For my ex, it was black and white. There was no looking. I thought it was a bit immature at times, but I understand why he did it.
    Okay, but how isn't it? You've offered no explanation to the contrary.
    It's not flawed logic to abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Watch your thoughts, for they become words, watch your words, because they become actions, watch your actions, because they become character."  Why would you put yourself in a position to compromise a moral belief?  

    As an example: We all believe in boundaries with our SOs.  For some of us, it is refusing to look at porn, for others it is sexting, still for others, it is having sex with another person without asking consent.  But why knowingly put yourself in a position where your boundary might be compromised?  Say your boundary is sleeping with someone else without consent, but you start to see someone without telling your partner.  You meet them for drinks (when you know it's not strictly platonic) and get drunk and end up going home and sleeping with them without asking your partner's consent.  The easiest thing to do the first time around would have been to refuse to go out (since you knew you were not acting with platonic intent).  When a guy looks away from nudity, it's not saying that he can't control himself, but it is saying that he refuses to compromise a moral boundary. It's not really all that different.  
    Right. I get what you're trying to say with the bolded, but it's still flawed logic if you try to apply it to my scenario.

    So, having lustful thoughts about someone other than your SO is against your (general you) moral beliefs, right? But someone doesn't have to be naked for you to feel lustfully about them (as in my Mila Kunis example). So, in order to "abstain from placing yourself in a situation that may result in thoughts that are against a moral belief", you (general you) would have to avoid looking at anyone of your chosen sex, ever.

    This is completely different from your example above. Sleeping with someone without your partner's consent is not something that is likely to result from necessary daily activities (like going out in public, and possibly looking at an exceptionally attractive person). You would have to choose to put yourself in a compromising position (i.e. getting drunk with a person that you know you have sexy, sexy feelings for) in order to be at risk to violate this boundary. Whereas, in order to violate the "no lustful thoughts" boundary, all you would have to do is accidentally glance at a person and have an involuntary thought. 
    I don't think you understand what I am saying, but that's okay.  We can agree to disagree.  This is all hypothetical anyways.  I'm not offended or anything.  Although I wouldn't mind discussing it further, I feel like we are going in circles and I don't think either of us is going to sway the other.  It was fun discussing it with you though.  =)
    No, I super understand. You are saying that one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs (because, again, seeing a naked person does not guarantee a lustful thought. Lots of  naked people are straight up gross), so they refuse to look at naked people. Fine. But, they also might have a lustful though seeing a fully clothed, and perfectly demure, stranger. So, by the logic "one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs", this same person should also not look at any fully clothed person, because they might have a lustful thought. That is why it is flawed logic. 

    ETA: The logical fallacy lies in the fact the the broad statement, "one should not put themselves in a situation where they might have a thought that goes against their moral beliefs", only works with the naked people on tv scenario. It falls apart with the seeing hot people in clothes, in public scenario.
    It's not exactly hard to train yourself to abstain from certain thoughts, so my point still stands.  You (general) can train yourself not to be racist (even though everyone around you might be and maybe you even grew up being taught to be racist), and the same thing goes for sexual thoughts.  I'm not saying you repress all sexuality (because that inevitably goes terribly), but you just don't have those thoughts, or when you do, you recognize that they are inappropriate and move on.  It's not a huge moral conundrum that sets your mind on fire each time.  
    But why? 
    image
    Report Reply
  • artbyallieartbyallie mod
    Moderator Eighth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its
    I think the disconnect here is happening between people who don't believe thoughts by themselves are sinful (which includes me; in my assessment sin is something that hurts a person in some way and as long as my thoughts aren't causing me to hurt anyone I'm doing nothing wrong) and those that believe thoughts are equivalent to action.

    IMO the latter can easily turn into an unhealthy way to live if you're suppressing everything to the point of explosion or suppressing things like (as mentioned upthread) your orientation. I'm not saying that to conclude that anyone here is taking that to an unhealthy extent because I simply don't have enough information to assess that and it's not my business to in any case. I just know that if I believed thoughts could be sinful I'd have driven myself insane by now.
    image
    Report Reply
  • lurkergirllurkergirl member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited January 2015
    I don't know why @holyguacamole79 and @levioosa haven't mentioned it, but the Christian idea of not viewing porn comes from the Bible. It's in the sermon on the mount where Jesus says that lust=adultery of the heart. Then He says if your eye makes you stray, cut it out. Obviously, He loved His metaphors and did not want people removing body parts. What He meant was that they should remove the temptation. So, for holyguac's H, naked ladies are a temptation, so he removes it for himself. I don't think finding a person attractive means you want to have sex with them, and I also don't think that interacting with clothed people in real life elicits the same reaction as seeing people have sex on film or in print (speaking generally, of course I know there are exceptions.)

    ETA: it's in this same sermon that Jesus says adultery is the only valid reason for divorce, so for someone wanting a strictly biblical marriage, it makes sense that porn would be a big offense.

    I could start a whole other thread on that topic and how women in bad marriages are often treated by church leaders...it's the reason why this Christian girl has no home church.





    image
    Report Reply
  • doeydodoeydo member
    Seventh Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    Regarding lustful thoughts, shit I'd have to quit tumblr, watching most of my shows, and stop looking at people on the street.  For instance, there was this one woman with this short skirt and thick thighs that was so sexy who walked by me and you betcha I had me some lustful thoughts.  Hah, it'd be funny to see how much of my day is filled with lustful thoughts.  Probably a lot.  Anywho, I do not think it is easy to retrain your brain to not feel these lustful thoughts.  I was in cognitive therapy to try to stop thoughts of another nature and it didn't work worth a shit.  But, if an individual can and wants to try to do that, good for you, I guess.  
    image
    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    5000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    Thank you, @lurkergirl‌. That's quite spot on.




    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    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.
    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    5000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    @artbyallie‌ , your definition of sin is your own. The Christian definition of sin also regards thoughts as sin when it damages your relationship with God. Looking lustfully at another is an objectification, and it can keep us from seeing that person as a child and creation of Good.




    Report Reply
  • theartistformerlyknownastheartistformerlyknownas member
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers First Anniversary
    I guess the point is it doesn't have to be logical to you to be logical to someone else. I can't get myself off masturbating. That surely doesn't make sense to many here. Doesn't make it untrue. Insisting upon how that shouldn't be true won't change anything.

    I believe the lions will soon a playoff game someday; you believe in the bears. We can agree to disagree, even though I know you're wrong. ;)
    image
    image
    Report Reply
  • holyguacamole79holyguacamole79 member
    5000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    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.




    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    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.
    Report Reply
  • ashley8918ashley8918 member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    lolo883 said:

    I guess the point is it doesn't have to be logical to you to be logical to someone else. I can't get myself off masturbating. That surely doesn't make sense to many here. Doesn't make it untrue. Insisting upon how that shouldn't be true won't change anything.

    I believe the lions will soon a playoff game someday; you believe in the bears. We can agree to disagree, even though I know you're wrong. ;)

    ----------------
    I don't think I did any insisting or telling anyone that they had to/should believe differently, though. I simply explained why it didn't make sense to me. Had there been no response of "no, it's not illogical", the discussion would not have continued. There was nothing heated about this discussion until the "pray the gay away" debacle, so I guess I just don't see the problem.

    NO TO THE LIONS. NOT EVER! :)
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards