Adultery preferable to pornography?

[MrShorty]

I don't know, gentlemen. Maybe I just don't agree with Mr. Lewis on this topic, but I just cannot see "going solo" as worse than "going with the neighbor".

 

I recognize that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, so take this for what little it's worth, but it starts to sound like the reasoning behind open marriages. "I cannot possibly satisfy your sexual needs/wants/desires. However, rather than having you take care of those by yourself (with or without porn/erotica), I would rather you went to the man/woman next door and did it with them." I'm sorry, but I just cannot see my wife with someone else as somehow better than my wife by herself with a book/movie. It is probably mostly about the meanings I assign to masturbation, which, I guess, are dramatically different from the meanings assigned by Mr. Lewis, but I just cannot see it the way Jamie is suggesting.

[The Folk Prophet]

Btw, I intentionally left masturbation out of the "unnatural" part, because it obviously is a very natural thing.

 

Fair enough. But I'd also, very strongly, contend that voyeurism is also very, very natural. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that the natural instinct to it is the key, and strongest, "natural" drive in a male, who is strongly driven by sight as to such things.

[Traveler]

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...

 

 

 

 

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.

 

This post reminds me of a discussion (involving me) concerning same sex sexual relationships.  The discussion was concerning possible "good" that could come to society.  I argued that the generation of life is good for human society and necessary for the human species to survive - since heterosexual sexual activity generates life there is good in that relationship that cannot be argued for same sex relationships - therefore we must recognize heterosexual sexual activity of more worth and value.

 

Adultery and rape were then brought into the question - and I responded that both adultery and rape have greater possibility for good and need to human society than same sex sexual activity because the need for creation of life is possible and that the meeting of that need is a greater good than sexual activity that cannot fulfill that need for humanity.  That is if we can define the creation of human life as "good".  If we disagree that human life is good then this particular argument does not hold.

 

In the case of this thread - the argument still holds - if pornography is used to fulfill sexuality then it does not contribute to the need to create human life and adultery and even rape would have a greater possibility for "good".  If we can agree that the creation of human life is good. 

 

If we are to argue that human life created through adultery and rape is not "good" then we can justify abortion to end such life.  Or even the extermination of living children that are the product of adultery and rape.  I believe human life is good and be treated as such even though the initial act was a mistake - the life such actions can produce and the goodness of that life - in my mind cannot be mitigated as evil and thus - rightfully ended.

[The Folk Prophet]

This post reminds me of a discussion (involving me) concerning same sex sexual relationships.  The discussion was concerning possible "good" that could come to society.  I argued that the generation of life is good for human society and necessary for the human species to survive - since heterosexual sexual activity generates life there is good in that relationship that cannot be argued for same sex relationships - therefore we must recognize heterosexual sexual activity of more worth and value.

 

Adultery and rape were then brought into the question - and I responded that both adultery and rape have greater possibility for good and need to human society than same sex sexual activity because the need for creation of life is possible and that the meeting of that need is a greater good than sexual activity that cannot fulfill that need for humanity.  That is if we can define the creation of human life as "good".  If we disagree that human life is good then this particular argument does not hold.

 

In the case of this thread - the argument still holds - if pornography is used to fulfill sexuality then it does not contribute to the need to create human life and adultery and even rape would have a greater possibility for "good".  If we can agree that the creation of human life is good. 

 

If we are to argue that human life created through adultery and rape is not "good" then we can justify abortion to end such life.  Or even the extermination of living children that are the product of adultery and rape.  I believe human life is good and be treated as such even though the initial act was a mistake - the life such actions can produce and the goodness of that life - in my mind cannot be mitigated as evil and thus - rightfully ended.

 

This is a seriously flawed argument. It implies that any good counts as good despite any other horrors that might come therefrom. It implies that each act lands squarely as "good" or "bad" and that there is no gray to it. It implies that the ends justify the means. In short, it's a distortion at best.

 

Seriously? Rape has greater possibility for good than watching porn? That may be the most shortsighted argument I've ever heard in my life.

[Traveler]

This is a seriously flawed argument. It implies that any good counts as good despite any other horrors that might come therefrom. It implies that each act lands squarely as "good" or "bad" and that there is no gray to it. It implies that the ends justify the means. In short, it's a distortion at best.

 

Seriously? Rape has greater possibility for good than watching porn? That may be the most shortsighted argument I've ever heard in my life.

 

You are jumping to conclusions and ignoring the rhetorical logic that is presented. -- If we define the creation of human life as good then the argument is that the actions that can result in the greater good (or shall I say the lessor of two evils) must be considered to be of greater worth or value.  I did not say that rape or adultery is good - what I argued is that if we are to consider the results as part of determining what is of greater value then we must conclude that - that which can end the best is of the highest value. 

 

The argument is that which results in the greatest good or less evil is the better.  So I will ask you directly - how "good" is human life to you?  Is it more important than rape and adultery?  Or is the act of such great evil that the goodness of the life that results not worthy of mitigation?

[The Folk Prophet]

You are jumping to conclusions and ignoring the rhetorical logic that is presented. -- If we define the creation of human life as good then the argument is that the actions that can result in the greater good (or shall I say the lessor of two evils) must be considered to be of greater worth or value.  I did not say that rape or adultery is good - what I argued is that if we are to consider the results as part of determining what is of greater value then we must conclude that - that which can end the best is of the highest value. 

 

The argument is that which results in the greatest good or less evil is the better.  So I will ask you directly - how "good" is human life to you?  Is it more important than rape and adultery?  Or is the act of such great evil that the goodness of the life that results not worthy of mitigation?

 

Utter rubbish. By the same logic murdering children is better than murdering adults.

[Traveler]

Utter rubbish. By the same logic murdering children is better than murdering adults.

 

I am thinking you do not understand rhetorical logic - please explain rhetorically how murdering children has a greater potential for good than murdering adults? - with the lowest possible mitigating logic that follows - children have a greater potential for maintaining the race than adults - especially adults beyond prime fertility.  In fact children are the only possibility that guarantees survival of the human race.  Do I have to explain this simple fact of the birds and bees to you?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Traveler

[Traveler]

Seriously? Rape has greater possibility for good than watching porn? That may be the most shortsighted argument I've ever heard in my life.

 

Lets consider rhetorically this exact question - please explain what possible good and benefit there is to human society that can possible result from watching porn that is better than the possible creation of human life.  I would be most interested in your thinking on this particular matter.  So please explain!

Edited August 26, 2015 by Traveler

[Vort]

Lets consider rhetorically this exact question - please explain what possible good and benefit there is to human society that can possible result from watching porn that is better than the possible creation of human life.  I would be most interested in your thinking on this particular matter.  So please explain!

 

Watching pornography drives innovation in video, audio, and tactile technology, which could be used to save lives and better the human condition (think complex remote surgery).

 

Saying that rape potentially adds value because it might result in the creation of life is offensive to most people, because it confounds the reality of the vile act. Any such human act can be found "good" based on its effects.

 

For example, an innocent man was brutally murdered a thousand years ago by an evil cabal, but because of the chain of actions set in motion by that murder, you and I stand here today. Without that murder, our particular DNA would not have ever been created. So therefore the foul murder of an innocent man was a good thing. Really? No, I reject that even my own existence in my present state is a high enough "good" for me to allow that wicked past actions were somehow beneficial.

[MrShorty]

I cannot even articulate my response to this argument Traveller. This feels like something coming out of the gay marriage debate. If the gay marriage debate has led us to somehow start arguing that "the sinfulness of a sexual act is somehow inversely related to the potential for pregnancy to occur", then I think we have somehow lost our way.

 

Going down slippery slopes, does this mean:

 

1) it is better for a 60 year old husband to have an affair with a 20-40 year old woman than a 50-70 year old woman?

2) a teenage couple pushing the limits is better off to go ahead and have sex than break off their make-out session and take care of themselves at home?

3) (I won't sully the post with different rape scenarios)

4) If you have an affair, one should avoid birth control to maximize the possibility of pregnancy?

 

I most certainly do believe in the value and sanctity of human life, but I just cannot see how the possible creation of a human life makes adultery "better" than private, solo sexual sins like pornography.

[The Folk Prophet]

It's kind of amazing to me that this needs to be explained. Let's use an extreme example.

 

I destroy an innocent village to plant my crops. Everyone killed. Animals children. Houses burned. But I planted crops.

 

But you murdered someone out of pure rage and for no purpose whatsoever.

 

Therefore my actions, literally, had some benefit for human society. Yours did not.

 

Oh...but wait.... 

 

Seriously. This is so....

 

MAJOR non-sequitur logic man. Like, crazy bad.

 

"Good" is a sum result, not a specific, narrowed down, one-aspect-only result. The fact that one thing that can be considered good comes from an act does not mean the extreme evil of the act is superior in goodness to one that has less so-called "good" coming of but was less evil in the first place.

[The Folk Prophet]

please explain rhetorically how murdering children has a greater potential for good than murdering adults?

 

Automatic Celestial kingdom. It's a service, really, if you think about it. 

[Traveler]

Lets begin by considering what we are talking about - we are trying to compare two things.  Possibility A and possibility B.  If we are going to say one is better or worse than the other - by what logic do we prove our premise one is better than the other?

 

In answer to PF - Is Automatic Celestial Kingdom better - if so then I would believe the argument and we are done.

 

As far as the argument is concerned - Vort has the best.  The idea of application of video being developed for porn being used in other applications that are beneficial.  However, I am not sure that we can mitigate that any developer of porn has ever produced medical videos - the point here is that there are examples of rape creating life.

 

What I am trying to understand is how some are deciding something is worse that something else.  It appears that the mitigation is entirely selfish - It appears that the thinking is - if it is easy for me to repent of it - it can't be as bad as something that is difficult for me to repent of.  So since I think I can repent of porn much easier than rape - rape must be worse.

 

I am trying to take emotion out of consideration - because emotions tend towards selfish motives.  So I will ask again because I do not understand  What is the possible benefit to society that results from someone watching porn?  Understand with this question I am trying to take benefit to the individual involved in the act out of the concept of benefit.

 

What I have said in this thread is that rhetorically it can be argued that a greater good can come from rape than from porn.  I happen to believe both porn and rape will keep someone from the Celestial kingdom and I am trying to suggest that Jesus' suggestion that lust is a commission of adultery in one's heart.  Now I will concede  Rape is worse than adultery - but this whole thread is about porn being a better thing to do than adultery - and I would purport that such thinking is nothing more than a get out of the Celestial Kingdom free card - that one can use anytime.

 

What I had hoped to do is demonstrate that mitigating any sin as being not as bad as something else is an insane and foolish effort for a saint - but no one saw through my sarcasm.

[The Folk Prophet]

Lets begin by considering what we are talking about - we are trying to compare two things.  Possibility A and possibility B.  If we are going to say one is better or worse than the other - by what logic do we prove our premise one is better than the other?

 

A. What God says.

B. What does greater good.

C. What does greater harm.

 

You are leaving A and C out of your argument entirely. Therefore it us eminently reject-able.

 

In answer to PF - Is Automatic Celestial Kingdom better - if so then I would believe the argument and we are done.

 

No. This does not consider the big picture. Even if we accepted point blank that it was better for the child, what about the rest of the world? What about the parents, brothers, sisters, etc.? What about the person who destroys their own potential by committing the deed?

 

 

As far as the argument is concerned - Vort has the best.  The idea of application of video being developed for porn being used in other applications that are beneficial.  However, I am not sure that we can mitigate that any developer of porn has ever produced medical videos - the point here is that there are examples of rape creating life.

 

Once again, the "good" being done is a shallow, one-sided, and meaningless point to what qualifies something as overall "good" (specifically with an evil act). What about the evil being done? If you're actually going to make such a silly argument, how about we compare evils created/caused by porn and rape too.

 

But even that is insufficient to the answer of whether something is better or worse, because ultimately, point A from above about covers it.

 

What I am trying to understand is how some are deciding something is worse that something else.  It appears that the mitigation is entirely selfish - It appears that the thinking is - if it is easy for me to repent of it - it can't be as bad as something that is difficult for me to repent of.  So since I think I can repent of porn much easier than rape - rape must be worse.

 

What a cynical view. 

 

Once again, see point A above.

 

I'm pretty sure you can search far and wide and not find a single person who would support the "rape is worse because I'd be in more trouble for it" theory. Rape is universally understood to be worse because it is a violent crime against women. Anyone who's gone so far as to start considering whether rape is viable in regards to repentance needs to be in jail.

 

I am trying to take emotion out of consideration - because emotions tend towards selfish motives. 

 

No. You're taking logic out of the consideration by placing the full burden of how evil something is on only the potential "good" that might come of it.

 

So I will ask again because I do not understand  What is the possible benefit to society that results from someone watching porn?  

 

And it's entirely the wrong question.

 

Understand with this question I am trying to take benefit to the individual involved in the act out of the concept of benefit.

 

And why would you do this?

 

What I have said in this thread is that rhetorically it can be argued that a greater good can come from rape than from porn. 

 

Because you are ignoring the reality that the harm caused also plays into the overall "good" equation.

 

I happen to believe both porn and rape will keep someone from the Celestial kingdom and I am trying to suggest that Jesus' suggestion that lust is a commission of adultery in one's heart.  Now I will concede  Rape is worse than adultery - but this whole thread is about porn being a better thing to do than adultery - and I would purport that such thinking is nothing more than a get out of the Celestial Kingdom free card - that one can use anytime.

 

What I had hoped to do is demonstrate that mitigating any sin as being not as bad as something else is an insane and foolish effort for a saint - but no one saw through my sarcasm.

 

On this we fully agree.

 

Which is worse? One time murder or repeated episodes of torturing others?

 

WHO CARES!? Don't do either.

 

Totally agree. Insane and foolish effort indeed.

Edited August 26, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Jamie123]

Just for the record I was not arguing that pornography/masturbation is globally worse than adultery (far less rape) but that there are (perhaps) certain categories in which it might be rated worse. I totally agree with Folk Prophet when he says that adultery corrupts two instead of just one, but this is a different issue from the one I was attempting to address.

 

As Folk Prophet points out the distinction is in some respects moot: all sins are hateful to God and we should avoid doing them. But nevertheless I don't think it harms us to recognize that some sins are more dangerous than others, and in different ways. Some aspects of some sins veer closer than others to the innocent gifts of which they are perversions. Quoting C.S. Lewis again (himself paraphrasing Plato): "Eros turned upside down, blackened, distorted, and filthy, still bore traces of his divinity". To consider this possibility is not to advocate sin but to try to understand it beyond the most simplistic level of "sin=bad". Studying the enemy's strategy is not the thing as turning traitor!

 

But returning to the original question of "porn worse than adultery", I've found on many occasions that ideas which sound outrageous at first hearing - particularly in the mouth of an accuser who presents them out of context can, with a slight shift in perspective, mean something quite different from what you first thought you heard. I have a particular example of this in mind, which I think most people here will agree with. It's too complex to go into here and now though - it needs a thread of its own.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Jamie123

[Traveler]

A. What God says.

B. What does greater good.

C. What does greater harm.

 

You are leaving A and C out of your argument entirely. Therefore it us eminently reject-able.

 

 

No. This does not consider the big picture. Even if we accepted point blank that it was better for the child, what about the rest of the world? What about the parents, brothers, sisters, etc.? What about the person who destroys their own potential by committing the deed?

 

 

 

Once again, the "good" being done is a shallow, one-sided, and meaningless point to what qualifies something as overall "good" (specifically with an evil act). What about the evil being done? If you're actually going to make such a silly argument, how about we compare evils created/caused by porn and rape too.

 

But even that is insufficient to the answer of whether something is better or worse, because ultimately, point A from above about covers it.

 

 

What a cynical view. 

 

Once again, see point A above.

 

I'm pretty sure you can search far and wide and not find a single person who would support the "rape is worse because I'd be in more trouble for it" theory. Rape is universally understood to be worse because it is a violent crime against women. Anyone who's gone so far as to start considering whether rape is viable in regards to repentance needs to be in jail.

 

 

No. You're taking logic out of the consideration by placing the full burden of how evil something is on only the potential "good" that might come of it.

 

 

And it's entirely the wrong question.

 

 

And why would you do this?

 

 

Because you are ignoring the reality that the harm caused also plays into the overall "good" equation.

 

 

On this we fully agree.

 

Which is worse? One time murder or repeated episodes of torturing others?

 

WHO CARES!? Don't do either.

 

Totally agree. Insane and foolish effort indeed.

 

 

I think most of your logic is bogus.

 

If we consider what is more likely to keep someone from Christ and the Celestial Kingdom?  I would submit - it is that sin that is considered the most insignificant or the least bad. 

 

I submit the most dangerous (worse or greatest evil) step towards sin is the first - worrying about step 198 being less or more problematic or good or evil than step 2003 does nothing and helps no one.  And if someone has already taken that first step - the worst possible choice will be the next step what-ever that step is.  The idea or mitigation that the next step is inconsequential compared to some other step is spiritual suicide.

 

Likewise the most important or step of greatest good is the first (or next) step to G-d and righteousness.  Anything else is a distraction and a mistake.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think most of your logic is bogus.

 

You are impossible to have discussions with. I suppose you feel the same about me. So let's just....not.

[Traveler]

You are impossible to have discussions with. I suppose you feel the same about me. So let's just....not.

 

Just trying to get inside your head - I wondered how you would respond and what you expect as rational and proper when methods you use are reversed.  (See post # 222, 229 and 231 recently in this thread).  Sorry if you see such method as offensive or impossible to deal with.  I actually believe you are possible to deal with and a very good guy at heart.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

Just trying to get inside your head -

 

Interesting. Apparently your method of trying to get inside someone's head includes insulting their intelligence every chance you get. I think your method may need some work.

[Traveler]

Interesting. Apparently your method of trying to get inside someone's head includes insulting their intelligence every chance you get. I think your method may need some work.

 

Friend - I was coping your method (interesting you call it insulting someone's intelligence).  The method is not my method.  I wondered if you would recognize that as a possibility or how you would react facing your own method.

 

As a side note there was a few years back an artificial intelligence contest to see how programs could do against other program ideas.  The contest presented 3 possibilities - attack, withdraw or be neutral.   The idea is that the programs were rated on how well they got along with other programs and together score the highest points as many programs are pared against each other.  So there was different values given based on how competing methods did against each other.  The programs would select attack, withdraw or neutral and then try to determine which of the 3 to select again based on what the other intelligent programs were selecting for many many iterations.

 

Interesting the A.I. program that won - and has not been beaten yet, used a very simple intelligent algorithm - It started out neutral and then for the next response copied the opponent's last selection.  The solution is so simple - that contest no longer exists with this format.

[The Folk Prophet]

Friend - I was coping your method (interesting you call it insulting someone's intelligence).  The method is not my method.  I wondered if you would recognize that as a possibility or how you would react facing your own method.

 

Whereas I could debate whether you are accurately copying my style or not (which I feel you have done unsuccessfully if that was really your intent), my objective is not, nor has it ever been to "just get inside your head". My objective is to defend the gospel, the church, the principles therein, the prophets, etc. I'm not in this for the intellectual exercise or because I enjoy debate or get any pleasure out of being constantly told by those who disagree with me that I just don't understand because my empathy, logic, and intelligence are compromised by my blind obedience and orthodoxy.

 

and has not been beaten yet, used a very simple intelligent algorithm - It started out neutral and then for the next response copied the opponent's last selection.  The solution is so simple - that contest no longer exists with this format.

 

Awesome. You're clever attack has rendered me beaten. Good job at getting inside my head.

 

Look Traveler. It is clear to me that you either cannot or will not understand my point. I have clearly -- very clearly, laid out the concepts. Your response: My logic is bogus.

 

The thing is -- my logic is not bogus, I am not an idiot, I know exactly what we're talking about, I understand what you are saying, and you are leaving out part of the equation as to what qualifies something on the scale of good and evil. There is benefit and there is harm. You are leaving out harm. It is not bogus logic. I know it is not bogus logic. And you're calling it bogus logic tells me that you are either unwilling or unable to actually learn the point. Rape is worse than porn viewing because it does greater harm. Why should I keep explaining this to you? It is a waste of my time.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

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.

 

This might be a little OT, but men really don't seem to get that.  They might say they do, but they really don't, IMO.

 

The reason I think so is because recently through a friend and a writer's conference and even my husband....I have read the writing of men trying to write as women about being physically attracted (...and more...).  Not one of them got it right.   Two of the stories I stopped reading pre-maturely because IMO they were erotica and pornographic.  In my writer's group, the other women shared the same views (both that it was erotica and they chose not to read it, and that that is not how women think or feel). BUT the men in the group loved the writing and did not think it was porn.  The group leader said her husband writes the same stuff, and she thought it was just him being him.  She also didn't think that is how women think.

 

My husband's writing was clean...young adult level, he was just writing about physical attraction, and he still got it wrong.  I was really surprised because he is very thoughtful....

 

So yes, on a very basic level, men don't understand the emotional connection that you are talking about Anatess --even if they think they do.  I take that back, Nicholas Sparks gets it.  So maybe a few do, but it's rare I think.

 

Before any of you men try to tell me you understand, I will only be convinced if you write a sweet, romantic scene (clean!)--from the woman's point of view, like my hubby attempted.  If you can pull it off, I'll believe you.  Otherwise, protest all you want, it will fall on deaf ears.  :)