Pornography to blame for girls rape in todays society?Change of culture?Your thoughts

Scioch

philologos wrote: »

Shenshen: The thread is about the impact that pornography can have on peoples thinking, and whether or not there could be a destructive relationship between it and rape. I think it's definitely possible.

It's the result of a deeper problem in society as far as I can tell. That being that people are often more interested in seeing people as mere sex objects than human beings in fullness. That's not to say that sexual expression is a bad thing, of course it isn't, in the right circumstances it's great, but in the wrong ones it can be horrible.

Questions like these allow us an opportunity to crack wide open our assumptions and investigate them. That's it, that's all I'm interested in doing, and I think it'd be a better thread if we were willing to do that.

But dont we view people as objects anyway ? In regards to sex or companionship or whatever it is we desire at any particular time.

Do we every really view other people as people in their own right or just as human beings in our life whom can offer us something. The motives of the human being are selfish and always have been and we rarely if ever view other people as anything other than what value they offer us.

Those desires to inflict harm on others or take those things by force are always present, they are not instilled by pornography. Yes certain pornography may influence someone into obsessing about certain things if you are of an obsessive nature but unless you are also of the nature to act upon that (providing you have opportunity to) you likely wont. Pornography doesnt give you desires it only allows an avenue to explore them. Which can be seen as an alternative to acting on the impulses instead of fueling the impulses.

With or without pornography someone sexually aroused of the capability and in the situation to do something like this will do it. This didnt arise with porn, sexual arousal has always been a motivator of crime such as these. Look at the Catholic church in Ireland as proof of that, people aroused in a position of authority and of weak self discipline will commit horrible crimes.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

Respect goes hand in hand with that issue.

Sexual objectification is one way of lacking respect for another person as far as I see it anyway.

Respect means acknowledging a human being as a human being in fullness rather than as a means to an end.

So yes, respect is exactly what I'm talking about I guess. I've yet to see how it is "hollow" again to say that people should be viewed as people rather than sex-objects.

The phrase "sex object" is hollow. It's just a way to try and present sex as something negative when really there is no issue with sex, but with simple respect. It's a way to cloud a discussion by using foggy and emotionalised language.

As I said, you wouldn't regard it as negative to view a waiter as a means to an end to get yor food in a restaurant.
You wouldn't think twice about expecting a bus driver to drive the bus. And in neither situation wouldyou have a single thought about either person's full human potential.
Yet when it comes to porn, all of a sudden this becomes reproachable. All of a sudden, it's a danger to society to look at the actors and take pleasure from it.

I think if anything, youare objectifying people far more than anyone watching a porn clip and enjoying a ****.

Tym

Look at the Catholic church in Ireland as proof of that, people aroused in a position of authority and of weak self discipline will commit horrible crimes.

The abuse of children in the church care had nothing to do with weak self discipline, or even arousal, it was abuse perperated by abusers, plain and simple.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Nodin: I don't see why you call marriage of necessity "magical". There's great value in people offering a life long commitment to one another before others and before God. .

The world rumbled on long before that started. Some shaman waving a feathered bone hardly makes a difference.

philologos wrote: »

I'm going to keep this thread on the topic of pornography. If you've got other questions about church and things feel free to PM me.

So you're against women priests and bishops then? Bit much to be going on about people being "objectified" then so. That high horse of yours has short legs.

philologos

Shenshen wrote: »

The phrase "sex object" is hollow. It's just a way to try and present sex as something negative when really there is no issue with sex, but with simple respect. It's a way to cloud a discussion by using foggy and emotionalised language.

Except, as I've made abundantly clear. It isn't. Indeed, I've said that it is a great thing in the correct circumstances. I think it is when we start seeing people only in a sexual manner rather than in fullness that it can be destructive.

So yes, I'm presenting viewing someone only in a sexual manner as destructive. That's not the same thing as saying that sex is a negative.

I think you know this as well.

Shenshen wrote: »

As I said, you wouldn't regard it as negative to view a waiter as a means to an end to get yor food in a restaurant.
You wouldn't think twice about expecting a bus driver to drive the bus. And in neither situation wouldyou have a single thought about either person's full human potential.
Yet when it comes to porn, all of a sudden this becomes reproachable. All of a sudden, it's a danger to society to look at the actors and take pleasure from it.

There's a difference between treating someone solely as someone who works as a waiter, and understanding that they are an actual person deep down. I think that your example is good, because it would challenge many to think differently about any type of business.

Having worked in this type of field before, I think that perhaps if people did regard others more as people rather than means to ends that society would be a better place to live in. Of course this issue goes far beyond sexual expression.

Shenshen wrote: »

I think if anything, youare objectifying people far more than anyone watching a porn clip and enjoying a ****.

How exactly?

LordSmeg: I think even in companionship situations it is possible for self-sacrificial love to exist. Likewise in relationships. There's nothing more powerful in this world than self-sacrificial love. It is possible, we just need to work at it. If we did, the world would be a much better place.

Scioch

Tym wrote: »

The abuse of children in the church care had nothing to do with weak self discipline, or even arousal, it was abuse perperated by abusers, plain and simple.

It was sexually motivated so of course arousal and self discipline had something to do with it. They had no way of exploring their sexual urges and they eventually manifested themselves as urges to abuse children because they were the easiest targets.

It was similar to this kid who was in a position to take advantage of a child to explore his sexual urges.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

There's a difference between treating someone solely as someone who works as a waiter, and understanding that they are an actual person deep down. I think that your example is good, because it would challenge many to think differently about any type of business.

So who exactly is stopping you, or anyone, regarding porn actors as actual people?

As for your perfect world, I do hope that if your kind ever gets in charge to create it, I will be long dead. It sounds a nightmarish world.

Wacker The Attacker

Where would we be as a species if we couldnt watch the lovely cytherea pulling the fanny off herself?

hooradiation

philologos wrote: »

What's wretchedly dull about walking through life with someone you really love and care for? Personally, that's something I really long for.

Variety is the spice of life for a reason.
This "you may only ever sleep with one person ever" is the polar opposite of that.

Honestly, the degree to which some people go to place this romanticised bullshit version of 'love' on the kind of pedestals they do is kind of creepy.

philologos wrote: »

That's one of the most beautiful things that mankind can even fathom. Why would that be dull?

pfff, you can fathom, perhaps.
I've got a far more fertile imagination.