Adultery preferable to pornography?

[omegaseamaster75]

Yeah, it says she has a porn problem.

She may, but what other marital problems are there? It goes both ways unless it was a preexisting condition(pre marriage) I suspect it was not.

[The Folk Prophet]

She may, but what other marital problems are there? It goes both ways unless it was a preexisting condition(pre marriage) I suspect it was not.

 

That's like claiming marital problems are the cause of porn viewing.

 

Bull-freakin'-oney!

[MrShorty]

Yeah, it says she has a porn problem.

After years in a sexless marriage, I have sometimes been intrigued by the idea of "bibliotherapy" for low sexual desire. The basic idea is that one can use erotic or sensual literature as a way of "jumpstarting" libido. Some have reported some success using erotic literature in this way. Obviously, there is not enough given about the anecdote in question to know if she would have a "normal" response to her husband without the literature or if she would have no response to anyone without the literature or exactly what the hypothetical scenario would be. I also know that many of us (including our church leaders) have expressed "discomfort" with the idea of porn/erotica as a therapeutic tool (I personally am not sure either way). I will withold judgement and let the wife, her husband, and God decide if there is a "problem" with her approach to sexuality or not.

 

If we truly understand our women we would realize that our actions speak louder than words. I'm sure to Christi Brinkley she didn't look at it like "wow..I'm one of the most beautiful woman in the world, this guy really has a problem" but rather "I'm not pretty enough, good enough to satisfy my spouse". What I'm saying is that even if a wife know's on some level she's beautiful,  it's meaningless when her man, the person that matters most, is obsessed with lusting over other women.

I'm not sure about this, myself. Based on what I have read from Dr. Schnarch, how much of this is "true" damage to the wife, and how much of it is "emotional fusion"? i think Dr. Schnarch would say that, any woman who completely loses here sense of emotional equilibrium based on her husband's porn use -- who cannot see herself as beautiful because her husband looks at porn -- is too caught up in her "reflected sense of self". Whether or not porn is sin or not, it seems to me that one person's porn use should not be able to disrupt a person's emotional equilibrium this much. Sure a wife can still say that she will not tolerate porn use, but it should come from a place of strength rather than "your porn use injures me beyond words."

[Guest]

Frankly omega, I'm not inclined to take any relationship philosophy from you with much more than a grain of salt, based on past posts. I say that as a poster, not a mod, for the record. 

[Traveler]

I will attempt to not make this post too long but there are some ideas that take time to explain.  Often I discover that things obvious to me are not so obvious to others so I will try to hit all the points I think are important as well as enough background as to why I think or have discovered them to be important.  To me everything presents something that can be studied.  But for the most part I can only study myself and what makes me tick.  If someone has a differing opinion – I try to determine if it is because they are ignoring something or if I have missed something.  Not to brag but it usually appears to me that in disagreements – there are things – that for whatever reason –things that certain individuals just will not take into account or even consider considering.

 

What makes some ladies appealing to me and what do I find unappealing?  Before I answer this question I would point out that I am a guy and I am a push over with ladies.  I tell my wife that she has complete power over me – if she so desired.  That if she were to say, “You idiot why do I have to tell you ever time when the garbage needs to be taken out?”  That does not work real well for me and is usually answered by a sarcastic or in kind remark.  However, if she were to come give me a passionate kiss and say, “Take out the garbage for me and I will do something special for you.”  Not only would I immediately take out the garbage plus 12 other things but I would be most happy doing it.   Trying to explain this to my beloved – however, is unproductive – My beloved does not understand the concept of incentive – at least when it come to me – she believes or at least it appears to me that she thinks that I should be “good for nothing”.  Sometimes the most appealing person in the world to me is very unappealing.  I have limited guys in my personal circle – but this particular issue of incentives is hardly unique to me and my beloved.  But let’s get on to the real reason of this post.

 

The first thing that I notice in others (especially ladies) is their face.  I am always drawn to the face and especially the eyes.  I may have been taught this – but I enjoy eye contact.  I find ladies that enjoy and are happy with eye contact are attractive to me.  I am not saying this is the only thing that draws me or I find attractive in ladies but it is the first and most important to me.  Eyes seem to tell me much more than the words that are exchanged.  I think my eyes tell ladies as much or more about me.

 

Every lady I know and have talked with on the matter – and this includes my darling wife, my mother, sisters, daughters, daughter-in-laws, past girlfriends and others – tell me that guys that do not look them in the eye make them nervous.  Guys whose attention is centered on other features of ladies bodies really, really make them nervous and uncomfortable.  I do not know if this is a learned behavior or if it is instinctive (though I tend to think it is a learned behavior).   I discipline myself to center my attention and focus on the eyes of ladies that I deal with – even if it is not romantic.  But sometimes it is quite difficult and requires a lot of concentration – sometimes more than I am able.

 

Some things that keep eye contact with ladies difficult for me are revealing clothes and other things ladies do to draw my attention away from their face and eyes.  The more blatant this is the more it makes me uncomfortable and the extreme diversions will create negative reaction (perhaps for spiritual protection) from me.  Too much makeup does this – as well as excessive piercings or tattoos.   Strange as this may seem – my experience is that the more ladies like to reveal the more it is that they are hiding something.  Though this is my experience – I really do not care to argue this point – for those that do not believe it or think otherwise – it is alright with me – just that my experience indicates otherwise.

 

I have also discovered that when I become involved with provocative images of women it will draw my attention away from the eyes when I am dealing with ladies in real life.  The more indulgent I become in provocative images the more I desire to look at something other than ladies’ eyes.  When I do this in real time and reestablish eye contact – I can read in their eyes that they are not at all pleased or comfortable with my wandering eyes.  However, there have been exceptions and such exceptions make me very nervous and uncomfortable.  In short there have always been ladies that other say are sexy that I personality find unattractive (perhaps I should say scary) – or perhaps I should say difficult to think of trusting things with them that are sacred and important to me.

 

What I am saying is that I honestly believe that guys that indulge in eye candy (even if it is technically not porn) for their own pleasure and enjoyment are likely to find that many ladies (at least the ladies I find attractive) will notice subtle clues in their eyes and find them repugnant – or in other words unattractive to them. 

[Guest]

Interesting post.  At first when I read that some may feel that pornography is worse than adultery, I thought that was nuts.  However, now that I have read the responses, I can see how a one-time affair would be less painful on a spouse than a decades-long addiction to pornography.

 

As for the whole Sports Illustrated thing, my understanding is that it is sinful any time you look at someone who is not your wife in any degree a lustful manner.  I have heard general authorities say that even looking at women who are merely dressed immodestly (as in short shorts or whatever) is the same sort of sin as pornography - the two only vary by degree.

 

Now, I don't interpret this to mean that you need to march yourself to the bishop if you happen to be watching Star Wars Return of the Jedi and you look at Princess Leia in Jabba's palace the wrong way for a second.  But you have sinned, you need to repent, and for heaven's sake you need to stop sinning and do better now before you get yourself into big trouble.

 

As for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, partaking in something like that is essentially reveling in filth. Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition takes immodestly to the extreme, and exists for no other reason than having a smorgasbord of lust.  I think I read a post on this site that said the Swimsuit Edition today is equivalent to Playboy magazine 50 years ago, which right there is a big red flag.  I haven't actually seen a copy of the swimsuit edition, but if it is not technically pornography (and that is a big if), it is as close as you can get to the line.  Yeah, I might seriously go to the bishop over the Swimsuit Edition.

 

Anyhow, my two cents.  May the force be with you.

[Leah]

Not to be nit-picky but women don't read smut novels to get aroused.  They read it to get the gooey emotional "I'm loved" feeling - including in the bedroom where a guy says just the right lovey words and does just the right deeds to make the woman feel like a Disney princess (well, the old damsels in distress princesses - not this new-fangled I'm the one doing the saving princesses).  It's not a physical thing but an emotional thing.

 

 

Nit-picky or not, but your first sentence is simply not true.  There are women who do read certain novels with the conscious decision of making arousal their goal.  You may not have met them, you may not have talked to them, but they do exist.

 

Books like 50 Shades of Gray have nothing to do with "gooey" emotions or love.  If a woman associates things love or "gooey" emotions with BDSM, emotional and physical abuse, degradation of women (or any human being) then that woman has a serious problem.

 

Refuse to believe it all you want.  Call it porn or don't call it porn.   But sticking one's head in the sand doesn't change the reality that there are women who read this kind of crap because they want to get turned on.  

 

Do those of  you pooh-poohing this truth also believe that there exists not a single man on the planet who looks at pictures of naked women in order to get aroused?   Do you really not understand that there are women who use "erotic" novels in the same way that men use their visual porn?

 

What's it like to live in such a naïve little world?

 

So don't call it porn.  Pretend that BDSM and emotional abuse are actually elements of a good ol' love story.  But do you really think those themes bring the Spirit into our lives?

 

Pardon me for a minute while I try to imagine members of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the 12 apostles bringing gifting their wives with such a book 'cuz they know they enjoy a good love story.

 

Nope.  Sorry.  Never gonna happen.

[omegaseamaster75]

That's like claiming marital problems are the cause of porn viewing.

 

Bull-freakin'-oney!

No Marital problems are not the cause of porn viewing the viewing of porn is the fault of the individual. my statement remains true though, if someone is viewing porn there are typically other marital issues the predated porn usage.

[Guest]

Nit-picky or not, but your first sentence is simply not true.  There are women who do read certain novels with the conscious decision of making arousal their goal.  You may not have met them, you may not have talked to them, but they do exist.

 

Books like 50 Shades of Gray have nothing to do with "gooey" emotions or love.  If a woman associates things love or "gooey" emotions with BDSM, emotional and physical abuse, degradation of women (or any human being) then that woman has a serious problem.

 

Refuse to believe it all you want.  Call it porn or don't call it porn.   But sticking one's head in the sand doesn't change the reality that there are women who read this kind of crap because they want to get turned on.  

 

Do those of  you pooh-poohing this truth also believe that there exists not a single man on the planet who looks at pictures of naked women in order to get aroused?   Do you really not understand that there are women who use "erotic" novels in the same way that men use their visual porn?

 

What's it like to live in such a naïve little world?

 

So don't call it porn.  Pretend that BDSM and emotional abuse are actually elements of a good ol' love story.  But do you really think those themes bring the Spirit into our lives?

 

Pardon me for a minute while I try to imagine members of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the 12 apostles bringing gifting their wives with such a book 'cuz they know they enjoy a good love story.

 

Nope.  Sorry.  Never gonna happen.

 

#1.  Nobody in this thread, including me, believe smut novels are not porn.  I don't even know where you got that from.

 

#2.  My views are not just pulled from my arse.  It is the guideline followed by romance writers all over the world.

 

 

I don't have much time so I spent two seconds flat to pull up google to find support for my point.

And this is what came up:

http://www.women24.com/BooksAndAstrology/News/Why-do-women-read-erotic-fiction-20121107

Basically the exact same thing I said.

 

Women get off from an emotional connection not a physical one.  If you're a guy and you don't know that yet, you might want to research up on that... your wife will thank you.

 

And, of course, I use Women in a general sense.  There are always those nymphomaniacs who are the exception.

[Vort]

No Marital problems are not the cause of porn viewing the viewing of porn is the fault of the individual. my statement remains true though, if someone is viewing porn there are typically other marital issues the predated porn usage.

 

This is almost certainly true, because all marriages have "issues". But the implication that the marital issues led to porn usage strikes me as false. It may be true in some cases, but I do not believe it is true as a rule.

[The Folk Prophet]

my statement remains true though, if someone is viewing porn there are typically other marital issues the predated porn usage.

 

This is based on...which study?

 

Like Vort said...probably true because all marriages have "issues", but that isn't your point, is it? Is not your point that porn usage indicates prior marital issues? That isn't true. I could be true. But just as likely isn't.

[omegaseamaster75]

This is based on...which study?

 

Like Vort said...probably true because all marriages have "issues", but that isn't your point, is it? Is not your point that porn usage indicates prior marital issues? That isn't true. I could be true. But just as likely isn't.

No that's not my point at all. marriages have issues without interjecting porn addictions/usage.  I have seen that most use the porn as an excuse to check out of the marriage without looking inwards first.

[Leah]

#1.  Nobody in this thread, including me, believe smut novels are not porn.  I don't even know where you got that from.

 

#2.  My views are not just pulled from my arse.  It is the guideline followed by romance writers all over the world.

 

 

I don't have much time so I spent two seconds flat to pull up google to find support for my point.

And this is what came up:

http://www.women24.com/BooksAndAstrology/News/Why-do-women-read-erotic-fiction-20121107

Basically the exact same thing I said.

 

Women get off from an emotional connection not a physical one.  If you're a guy and you don't know that yet, you might want to research up on that... your wife will thank you.

 

And, of course, I use Women in a general sense.  There are always those nymphomaniacs who are the exception.

 

Oh, for crying out loud.

 

Do you not know the difference between different styles of writing?  "Romance" writing is a vague, self-identifying term.

 

Do you really believe that themes of degradation, bondage, rape and abuse fall under "romance writing"?  Is that the type of "romance" you think women of the church should strive for in their lives?

 

And please provide documentation that every single author out there subscribes to the same "guideline" you tout?  Is there a form you have to sign?  Do publishers everywhere decline to publish you if you haven't signed the magical form on some mythical "guideline"?  If you don't join this exclusive club of "official" romance writers are there consequences if you dare to publish your work and call it a romance novel?  Do you get fined?  Arrested?  Shunned from conventions?

 

There actually was a former member of this very board who was (and is) very active in writing "erotica".  If you were to check out the forums wherein such work is shared and lauded, it would disabuse you very quickly of the notion that "romance" is always and only the goal.  The authors themselves will tell you so.

 

And, again, why must a "romance" novel include graphic sex?  A true romantic story can easily (and well) be told - whether via literature or motion picture or play - without any details of what goes on between the sheets.

 

After my husband's death, I actually had a number of people tell me that I needed to write a book.  Or at the very least, a short story or article.  Would I have needed to include the details of our sex life for it to be considered romantic?

 

And there are any number of therapists and other professionals who would be glad to educate you.

 

Not to mention the words direct from women themselves.  Or are they - and everyone else mentioned above - lying just for kicks and giggles.

 

Do you have any clue that romance novels exist without needing to resort to the literary laziness of graphic sex scenes?  Of acts and attitudes degrading to and abusive of women?

 

But maybe I need to be reading some of those romance novels sold in Deseret Books.  I guess I've been missing out not knowing that I could get my jollies reading the sex scenes that surely must be included in those, or otherwise they wouldn't be considered "romantic".

 

It's laughable and ironic that you expect one person's opinion (in your link) to stand as proof positive that no how, no way, never, ever does any woman ever pick up erotica with the intention of getting herself aroused. Sure.  Just like no man ever in history has picked up Playgirl or Penthouse with the idea of getting all hot and bothered.  Nope, those magazines are always and only read just for the intellectual articles.

 

And I guess Eowyn was just flat out lying about the woman she spoke of. Or do you also dismiss her with your random label of "nymphomaniac"?  Like she is some kind of "other" that doesn't count as a woman?  I know you're not such a delicate, sheltered little flower that the idea of women using masturbatory "assists" is beyond  your comprehension.  C'mon now.  They just are more apt to use words as a device, rather than visual devices the way that men do.

 

I am glad that we live in a land of free speech (sort of, as long as  you don't give your opinion on the PC cause of the day or come across as "religious") and all that - people can write and publish any level of nonsense they want.   But that doesn't make pornography - in whatever form it appears - a goodly and positive thing (unless you think exploitation is a good thing, I guess) that is going to somehow add to the plan of salvation.

 

I'll keep passing on reading the likes of '50 Shades of Grey", thanks.

 

If I'm in the mood to read something romantic, I'd much rather read something like the story of President Monson's long and happy marriage to his wonderful wife (may her memory be for a blessing), Frances.

[MrShorty]

Interesting post.  At first when I read that some may feel that pornography is worse than adultery, I thought that was nuts.  However, now that I have read the responses, I can see how a one-time affair would be less painful on a spouse than a decades-long addiction to pornography.

 

More back to the original topic, I sometimes find it tricky to really rank sins.

 

For example, this bit about "decades long porn use" is worse than "a single adulterous one night stand" sends me down this thought path. In the spirit of "the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance", unrepented sin (as with the case of ongoing sin) is always going to be worse than repented sin (a one time affair that is ended suggests at least the possibility that one is trying to repent).

 

In another vein, Some have suggested that the quality of a marriage is more about the small, daily interactions than the occasional big interactions. I think this is a big part of why Dr. Harley includes "annoying habits" as one of 6 lovebusters. Each annoying incident is small and seemingly insignificant. The real damage comes in being annoyed day after day for months and years. It seems obvious that, with two things that we usually view as significantly as porn use and adultery, the one that gets the most "repetition" could easily be seen as the most important.

 

Ranking these two sins may not be cut and dried. It seems clear that, as I asked several  pages ago when this thread was first opened, that persistance of the offending behavior is important in determining which is more serious. I still think that, if we put both on "equal footing" (either both are one off occurences or both are ongoing habits) that adultery is worse than porn use.

[Guest]

Oh, for crying out loud.

 

Do you not know the difference between different styles of writing?  "Romance" writing is a vague, self-identifying term.

 

Do you really believe that themes of degradation, bondage, rape and abuse fall under "romance writing"?  Is that the type of "romance" you think women of the church should strive for in their lives?

 

And please provide documentation that every single author out there subscribes to the same "guideline" you tout?  Is there a form you have to sign?  Do publishers everywhere decline to publish you if you haven't signed the magical form on some mythical "guideline"?  If you don't join this exclusive club of "official" romance writers are there consequences if you dare to publish your work and call it a romance novel?  Do you get fined?  Arrested?  Shunned from conventions?

 

There actually was a former member of this very board who was (and is) very active in writing "erotica".  If you were to check out the forums wherein such work is shared and lauded, it would disabuse you very quickly of the notion that "romance" is always and only the goal.  The authors themselves will tell you so.

 

And, again, why must a "romance" novel include graphic sex?  A true romantic story can easily (and well) be told - whether via literature or motion picture or play - without any details of what goes on between the sheets.

 

After my husband's death, I actually had a number of people tell me that I needed to write a book.  Or at the very least, a short story or article.  Would I have needed to include the details of our sex life for it to be considered romantic?

 

And there are any number of therapists and other professionals who would be glad to educate you.

 

Not to mention the words direct from women themselves.  Or are they - and everyone else mentioned above - lying just for kicks and giggles.

 

Do you have any clue that romance novels exist without needing to resort to the literary laziness of graphic sex scenes?  Of acts and attitudes degrading to and abusive of women?

 

But maybe I need to be reading some of those romance novels sold in Deseret Books.  I guess I've been missing out not knowing that I could get my jollies reading the sex scenes that surely must be included in those, or otherwise they wouldn't be considered "romantic".

 

It's laughable and ironic that you expect one person's opinion (in your link) to stand as proof positive that no how, no way, never, ever does any woman ever pick up erotica with the intention of getting herself aroused. Sure.  Just like no man ever in history has picked up Playgirl or Penthouse with the idea of getting all hot and bothered.  Nope, those magazines are always and only read just for the intellectual articles.

 

And I guess Eowyn was just flat out lying about the woman she spoke of. Or do you also dismiss her with your random label of "nymphomaniac"?  Like she is some kind of "other" that doesn't count as a woman?  I know you're not such a delicate, sheltered little flower that the idea of women using masturbatory "assists" is beyond  your comprehension.  C'mon now.  They just are more apt to use words as a device, rather than visual devices the way that men do.

 

I am glad that we live in a land of free speech (sort of, as long as  you don't give your opinion on the PC cause of the day or come across as "religious") and all that - people can write and publish any level of nonsense they want.   But that doesn't make pornography - in whatever form it appears - a goodly and positive thing (unless you think exploitation is a good thing, I guess) that is going to somehow add to the plan of salvation.

 

I'll keep passing on reading the likes of '50 Shades of Grey", thanks.

 

If I'm in the mood to read something romantic, I'd much rather read something like the story of President Monson's long and happy marriage to his wonderful wife (may her memory be for a blessing), Frances.

 

Oh my gosh.  Really?

 

You took my one paragraph to mean that I ADVOCATE the reading (and writing) of smut novels and defends BDSM or any of that crap?  Are you nuts?

 

And no... there's no form to sign.  The sign is the sales.  If you want to sell a smut novel, you don't write a story about the sex.  You write a love story with character and emotional depth with sex interspersed.  And yes - 50 Shades used that formula.  Of course, if you just want to write a non-smutty romance novel, you write a non-smutty romance novel!  Gee Weez Lueez, Batman!

 

Okay, I'm thinking about this arousal business.  So yes, women who want to get physically aroused can use smut novels to get aroused.  But that arousal stems from an emotional connection.  Otherwise, there is no need to write the novel.  Just write page after page after page of the sex.  And I can prove to you those novels do not sell just by the fact that you can't find a single one of those anywhere.  Smut novels sell because of there's a story to go with the smut.

 

And once again... I AM SIMPLY TELLING YOU A BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN'S USE OF PORNOGRAPHY.  I AM NOT ADVOCATING, SUPPORTING, NOR DEFENDING PORNOGRAPHY.  Chill out!

Edited August 21, 2015 by anatess

[jerrop]

This talk of "normal" is nagging at me. The concept of normal taps into how prevalent something is, so can really only refer to an action or a thing's observable existence. Don't you have to be able to count something to say how common it is? Even if you ask people how often they have feelings or thoughts, you're really only getting what they decide to tell you. We run into this question all the time with psychological assessment -- are they honest or somehow deceptive? -- but that's a different discussion. "Normal" is only descriptive, any meaning that comes with it is something we infer or assume. It's at best ignorant (even if innocent) and at worst destructive to talk about norms without considering assumptions. And normal does not mean right. Pornography use is no exception.

 

Was it normal for boys of my generation to be exposed to pornography as adolescents? I believe so (can't remember the numbers). I'm normal that way, but it has brought absolutely no joy to me or others close to me in the years since. I'm even less okay with the idea that it's predicted to be far more common (if not guaranteed) for my kids. That thought scares me to death.

 

Back to the point, I think in LDS culture we still underestimate the importance of actions. My current bishop, whose spirituality and intellect I have immense respect for, has talked a lot about this the last couple of years. Thoughts play a huge role in our actions, that's clear. We're accountable for our thoughts, but we're also accountable for what we do with them. Thinking about Matthew 5:27-28 -- Christ introduced the higher principles of chastity regarding lusting (of course this could be pornography) but not committing outward adultery. He illustrated the seriousness of all aspects of chastity, but He subtly made the distinction of sins of the heart vs. sins of actions. I don't get the sense anywhere that they're 1:1 in terms of seriousness, but maybe that's just me. With the thought preceding the action, wouldn't the offense of the action add to that of only the thought?

 

I'm neither a wife nor a woman, but I suspect that the heart/action distinction is a big part of the emotions behind the original question. The first part is the same, but adultery has something more tangible and discrete -- a specific person. Pornography is physical but at the same time far more pervasive and nebulous than a person. You can take steps to remove someone from your life, even if they're drastic. On the other hand, I can imagine a very hopeless feeling when exposure to pornography seems to be so difficult (if not impossible) to avoid.

 

So I don't agree with the idea that pornography is worse than adultery. I think I can see how someone might feel that way though.

[Average Joe]

I just find it interesting that on the LDS forum this topic would have 215 replies and 9043 views...and counting. At least now we know what really interests us.   

[Guest]

It's a really pervasive problem in the Church, as depressing a fact as that is. 

[Traveler]

I just find it interesting that on the LDS forum this topic would have 215 replies and 9043 views...and counting. At least now we know what really interests us.   

 

This is more about the internet than the gospel.  If you say something really over the top stupid on the internet - there will be thousands that will respond.  Say something intelligent and despite the fact that thousands may agree with you - you may be lucky to get even a single response.

[The Folk Prophet]

This is more about the internet than the gospel.  If you say something really over the top stupid on the internet - there will be thousands that will respond.  Say something intelligent and despite the fact that thousands may agree with you - you may be lucky to get even a single response.

 

Until someone says something really over the top stupid in response to what you've said, and then bob's yer uncle.

[Jamie123]

I haven't read all the messages on this thread (there are a lot) so someone may already have come up with this; but I can see one way in which adultery is preferable to porn.

 

The viewing of porn (which is usually accompanied by masturbation) is a purely selfish act. As C.S. Lewis said, it...

 

...sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides...always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments... [with] attractions which no real woman can rival.Among those shadowy brides he is always adored... In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself.

 

Actual physical adultery does have the advantage of requiring an act of giving/sacrifice to another. It is thus not entirely selfish. (Mostly selfish, I dare say, but not entirely.)

 

Having said that, I can imagine real adultery creating messier and harder-to-get-out-of situations. It is (speaking purely physically) less easy to step away from. Pornographic magazines, once disposed of do not usually return to haunt you. They don't talk to newspaper reporters or demand blackmail money, as a spurned ex-lover might.

[The Folk Prophet]

Actual physical adultery does have the advantage of requiring an act of giving/sacrifice to another. It is thus not entirely selfish. (Mostly selfish, I dare say, but not entirely.)

 

This strikes me as about equivalent to saying that buying an expensive sports car isn't a selfish act because it requires the act of giving/sacrifice to another (the dealer).

 

I'm not buying.

[Vort]

This strikes me as about equivalent to saying that buying an expensive sports car isn't a selfish act because it requires the act of giving/sacrifice to another (the dealer).

 

I'm not buying.

 

Not on a literal level, but I think I see what Jamie is driving at. Sex is a shared activity; porn consumption and masturbation are not. Sex is a natural activity, even fornication. Not that "natural" is always a good or worthy thing, but there is something unnatural about solitary pornography. it's an isolating activity that makes solo something that is designed to be shared. There seems to be in that a special kind of perversion of God's creation.

[The Folk Prophet]

Not on a literal level, but I think I see what Jamie is driving at. Sex is a shared activity; porn consumption and masturbation are not. Sex is a natural activity, even fornication. Not that "natural" is always a good or worthy thing, but there is something unnatural about solitary pornography. it's an isolating activity that makes solo something that is designed to be shared. There seems to be in that a special kind of perversion of God's creation.

 

This might make sense from a certain intellectual viewpoint. But I don't know that I buy it either. As you said, "natural" is not the defining factor in what is and is not perverse. But either way, I don't think that masturbation is in any way unnatural.

 

Also, frankly, sharing a perverse activity makes it worse, not better. It corrupts two instead of one. Theoretically, how much more selfish is it to involve another in the destruction of souls?

[Vort]

This might make sense from a certain intellectual viewpoint. But I don't know that I buy it either. As you said, "natural" is not the defining factor in what is and is not perverse. But either way, I don't think that masturbation is in any way unnatural.

 

Actually, I sense this much more on a gut level than as an intellectual exercise. Remember, I'm the one who originally posed the question. Obviously I don't think that porn is worse than adultery. But Jamie's observation stirred something in me, and I think there is a point there worth considering. Btw, I intentionally left masturbation out of the "unnatural" part, because it obviously is a very natural thing.

 

I would also point out for consideration that "marriage" itself is an almost purely definitional construct. I am not sure how to define porn objectively, but I think it can be done. But people are married, in effect, when everyone says they're married. It's a societal agreement. Pornography is essentially voyeurism, not a social contract.

 

I am not sure I can make a good case for this. I'm not even sure such a case can be made. But I perceive an important point that I think Jamie's post brought up.